Smith's Verdict

Smith’s Verdict: ****

Reviewed by Tanner Smith

OK, so acclaimed Oscar-winning director Danny Boyle has a film that has only a limited theatrical release. At the time, I thought it was quite odd for a movie made by the director of the Oscar-winning “Slumdog Millionaire” to not get a wide release. But then, I realized that this movie—entitled “127 Hours”—is based on the true story of Aron Ralston’s…incident. In 2003, Aron Ralston, a 27-year-old hiker, hiked along Blue John Canyon in Utah without telling anybody where he was going. Something went wrong and he fell into a narrow canyon—his right forearm was crushed by a boulder against the rock wall, keeping him trapped in there for nearly five days until he finally did what he had to do in order to escape and live. What he had to do is shown in great detail for a three-minute gruesome scene in “127 Hours”—it’s a scene so gruesome that many test audiences for the movie either walked out, fainted, or closed their eyes. This is why the movie is only in limited release.

Now, it’s not that I blame Fox Searchlight Pictures for a long trip to see this movie (I had to go all the way from Manila, Arkansas, to Little Rock to see it at Rave Motion Pictures—I usually see my movies in Jonesboro). It is a gruesome scene and I must admit that I did close my eyes at a couple points. But here’s my statement: You shouldn’t let three minutes of realistic gruesomeness in a 92-minute movie ruin a great experience. “127 Hours” is a haunting, effective, gripping, and unforgettable film that accurately tells the amazing story of how Aron Ralston came to terms with his own life while trapped “between a rock and a hard place” (that being the name of the book written by Ralston himself).

The movie stars James Franco in an excellent performance as Aron, a cocky, adventurous hiker who lives for adventure. By bicycle and foot, he treks along the Blue John Canyon in Utah just for the fun of it. We have a nice prologue in which we get great shots of the canyon—very lovely cinematography here—and we get to know Aron a little before the big incident. Aron starts his hike and then he meets up with two female hikers (Kate Mara and Amber Tamblyn). He shows them the way they want to go, but after they take a swim in an underwater cavern. Then, he waves goodbye to the women and goes off alone again…and then the unthinkable happens.

So he’s trapped inside the canyon and the thought of anybody looking for him (or even passing by) is unthinkable itself. People rarely hike down here and Aron isn’t close with anybody, so he didn’t tell anyone where he was going. He sums it all up in one word: “Oops.” No kidding—this is a pretty big “oops” moment. He’s very low on supplies, food, and water. He has a watch, a video camera, and a cheap multipurpose tool he tries to use to chip the rock a little so he can free his hand and get out of the canyon. But this shows no luck, since his hand seems to be supporting the rock, rather than the opposite.

I imagine it’d be very hard to make a movie like this. To make it right is a greater obstacle. How do you make a movie where a character remains immobile for more than an hour in the film? How do you make a startling story like this into a dramatically satisfying piece of work?

Well, I have the answer—the casting of James Franco. He makes for good company, his acting is natural, and he apparently knows Aron Ralston enough to make him seem like…Aron Ralston. He’s a wild adventurer who is also smart and quick-thinking. There is room for cockiness and humor (such as when he documents himself on his video camera and imagines himself on a talk show) while there is also a great deal of dramatic range. He realizes that he hasn’t appreciated his family and friends as much as he used to and since he is probably going to die here, he feels so sad about it. After a couple days in the canyon, he starts to experience hallucinations in which they all visit him. The drama in “127 Hours” really works, especially considering that we know that Aron will have his second chance after being trapped for five days in the canyon. He had to do what he had to do in order to live and that was…to use his cheap tool to self-amputate his arm. Would anybody have done it? I don’t know. I’m not even sure I would’ve done it, though it seems very logical. One thing is for sure—it is not easy to watch. This is a very unpleasant scene and I don’t blame anybody who had eyes closed. But it takes almost an hour and a half leading up to it, letting us understand who Aron is and why he’s doing this.

“127 Hours” is not a film I will soon forget. It’s an effective film set in some of the most beautiful places on Earth, it tells an accurate retelling of an amazing and haunting true story, the drama works wonderfully, the movie is splendidly well-made, and then there’s the most important ingredient—James Franco’s flawless portrayal of Aron Ralston. It also makes you think—this is a movie about a guy who never embraced life until he almost dies. He realizes that everyone he knew, he never appreciated until this moment. This goes to show that every second in life counts. It’s a terrific film.

Smith’s Verdict: ****

Reviewed by Tanner Smith

“Raiders of the Lost Ark” is one of the best in a series of movies that feature action-packed adventures and a hero we can all root for. But there is a whole lot more to it too—it also features a great deal of imagination and a super-fast pace. This isn’t just a movie—it’s an event. We spend two hours having fun watching the main hero go through a series of adventures while also admiring what’s happening around him and then we get to go home. It’s as exciting as any sporting event. Watch it on the big screen, and tell me you’re not excited.

For a hero, we have Dr. Indiana Jones (Harrison Ford), an archaeologist/college-professor who always gets in way over his head as he goes through dangerous lengths to unearth a hidden historic artifact—he comes complete with bullwhip, Fedora hat, and leather jacket. Oh, and he also has a fear of snakes, but why am I telling you that? In an opening scene set in South America, we see him explore a booby-trapped cave to find a golden idol. The treasure is left out in the open—this seems way too easy. And when Dr. Jones attempts to take it, this sets up a course involving spikes shooting out of the walls, a chasm, a slow-closing door, and the biggest boulder you could imagine. How could he possibly get out of this? The best thing about this movie is that while we know that he is going to get out of every situation he couldn’t possibly get out of, it’s great to see how he does.

That scene is just a curtain-opener for what comes ahead. The main storyline for this movie is that Dr. “Indy” Jones has been hired by the US government to race to Brazil to unearth the lost Ark of the Covenant before the Nazis gain control of it first (this movie is set in 1936, so the Nazis are the main villains here). Many of us know the legend of the Lost Ark but for those who don’t, its origins are explained early in the film. But it must be noted that if the Ark is opened, the power of God is given to those who open it…for better or worse. Accompanying Indy in finding the Ark’s location is his ex-girlfriend Marion Ravenwood (Karen Allen), who hasn’t forgiven Indy for walking out on her many years ago but she still loves him anyway. His other ally is Sallah (John Rhys-Davies), a big, gentle man who gives Indy some advice he heard from the leader of the Nazi dig site, who happens to be Indy’s rival. He’s a Frenchman named Belloq (Paul Freeman) who, at the beginning of the movie, took Indy’s treasure, sneeringly stating, “There is nothing you can possess which I cannot take away.”

This sets up an exciting series of adventures, including a trap in near-darkness surrounded by hissing snakes and a chase scene involving a truck, a plane, and a horse. It all comes down to a race against time between Indy and Belloq as they race to retrieve the prize.

“Raiders of the Lost Ark” is also perfectly paced. In between the frantic action scenes is enough character development and minimum exposition. We get to know Indy and Marion and we fear for their lives. Credit editor Michael Kahn for creating such a fast pace and not making the movie seem out of control in its cuts. The performances are all solid. Harrison Ford, previously known for playing Han Solo in “Star Wars,” creates a different sort of action hero with strength and a taste for adventure as well as everyday man credibility. He’s also a rough scoundrel with a heart of gold. Karen Allen is the perfect ally for Indy. As Marion, Allen doesn’t play the worried girlfriend who is roped into these situations. She plays this character with energy and strength. Sure, she does scream from time to time but she’s definitely not the damsel in distress. She’s a strong, independent woman who can take care of herself most of the time.

There are also memorable small moments in the film, along with the big action sequences we aren’t bored with. Examples are these little moments are Indy’s line to Marion, “It’s not the years, honey, it’s the mileage,” and a very funny brief showdown between Indy and a swordsman. (You’ll know what I’m talking about.) The movie’s spontaneity is also one of the best things in the movie.

There are also plenty of special effects in this movie. The effects at the very end, a terrifying scene in which the Ark’s power is unleashed, are so realistic that they may frighten younger viewers. I am also very impressed at the stuntwork in the film. There is a scene in which Indy is being dragged along the ground behind a truck in a chase scene. I couldn’t tell which was Harrison Ford and which was his stunt double. But this whole scene was done without special effects—it was really happening. Someone really did get dragged along a road by that truck. There may have been pain but I suppose it was worth it to the actors and filmmakers to entertain us.

Oh, and I should also mention the “Raiders March,” the theme music score composed by John Williams, who also composed memorable music from “Jaws,” “Close Encounters of the Third Kind,” “Superman,” and “Star Wars.” He scores another notable (excuse the pun) music score here.

“Raiders of the Lost Ark” is an action movie with all the right ingredients—a smart script, a fast pace, a likable hero, a strong supporting cast of characters, incredible action scenes, a touch of comedy, a hint of romance, and not least of all, sharp direction by director Steven Spielberg and witty storytelling by George Lucas. Spielberg and Lucas have made an excellent piece of work together. I look forward to them making another collaboration.

Smith’s Verdict: ****

Reviewed by Tanner Smith

Two years ago, when a friend told me that he heard that the “Spider-Man” movie franchise was being “rebooted,” I didn’t believe him. But two years later, here it is—ten years since the original film, and five years since its latest film. I was aware that 2007’s “Spider-Man 3” failed to satisfy audiences with its many plot developments, but I had a feeling that the franchise would redeem itself with a fourth entry. But no—Columbia Pictures apparently wants to start from scratch, even with the same producer of the other films (Laura Ziskin).

Luckily, I was pleasantly surprised by this reboot of the Marvel Comics-based half-arachnid/half-human superhero. We all knew the origin story of Spider-Man/Peter Parker, but that doesn’t mean the story isn’t told as effectively as before. There are many twists and turns in the storytelling of this retelling of Spider-Man, all executed wonderfully.

My guess is that they made this reboot was because they didn’t know where to take the story from “Spider-Man 3” to a “Spider-Man 4.” But I am disappointed that they didn’t at least try—even Paramount’s “Star Trek” movies have gotten their way out of similar messes. So they better get it right this time with the inevitable sequels.

“The Amazing Spider-Man,” of course, retells the story of how high school geek Peter Parker became Spider-Man, but with different circumstances from the original film. (And no, I’m not going to go into great detail to explain the comparisons and contrasts.) It begins with Peter as a little boy playing an innocent game of hide-and-seek when he enters his scientist father’s office and discovers that it’s been ransacked. The parents, hoping for the best for their son, send Peter to live with his aunt and uncle (for reasons that will probably be explained in the sequel, but I’ll let it ride). Years later, Peter (Andrew Garfield) is seventeen, gawky, and somewhat of a loner (pretty much the last person you’d expect to become a superhero).

Peter finds an old satchel belonging to his late father and can’t help but go through it. He finds documents containing specific information about his cross-species-intersection experiment with Dr. Curt Connors (Rhys Ifans), who works as Oscorp Industries. Peter makes his way into the building to find out the real deal, when he is bitten by one of the experimental, radioactive spiders in Connors’ laboratory. On the way home, he experiences some intense side effects from the bite—he’s completely hyperactive (I suppose you’d call it “spider-like reflexes”), is unbelievably strong, and can even scale ceilings and walls.

These scenes in which Peter learns of his new abilities are well-handled and make for some comedic moments as well. He at first finds these powers difficult to control (he nearly destroys his own bathroom while trying to brush his teeth, he shoots a dangerous projectile of toothpaste, and also breaks the door). He does get the hang of his abilities by taking it slowly and easily, but he uses them irresponsibly, as when he humiliates the school bully on the basketball court. This causes his fatherly uncle Ben (Martin Sheen, very strong here) to tell him that just because he can do these things doesn’t mean he can perform them whenever he wants to.

Later, Uncle Ben is killed by a street thug and Peter realizes that he could use his powers to help people in need. So he dons a costume he made himself, creates man-made spider-web-slingers that cause him to swing around New York, and becomes a masked half-arachnid vigilante called Spider-Man. He protects people in need, keeps his true identity a secret, and of course the police see him as a menace.

But with every superhero, there must always be a villain for each tale. Origin stories are no exception. While most are coincided with the hero’s newly-developed powers, Peter is actually the cause of the supervillain in this movie. You see, earlier in the movie, he gave Dr. Connors his father’s secret algorithm that could make Connors’ cross-species project work. What it’s supposed to do is regrow lost limbs (three-legged mice are used as experiments). Thanks to the equation that Peter gave Connors, the experiment finally works. But later in the movie, Connors decides to use it on himself to regrow his disembodied right arm. And because some of the serum comes from lizard blood (if I remember correctly), Connors mutates into a man-size lizard that terrorizes the city.

Connors makes an intriguing villain and his plan is legitimately diabolical. His plan is to take the serum and take it to the top of the tower of Oscorp and unleash it all over the city, via a chemical cloud, so they undergo the same effects as he. He says he’s doing this to get rid of “weakness.” Connors is an interesting villain because he doesn’t do this just to be anarchic and chaotic. He’s doing it for what he thinks is for the good of mankind. (Though, let’s face it—none of us want to be transformed into giant lizards, of course.) This is a scientist who searches for further truth in his research and gets more than he bargained for. He becomes a monstrous beast as it all just toys with his own sanity. Rhys Ifans does a terrific job at making a three-dimensional villain, and the computer-effects design of his lizard form is gruesomely impressive as well.

The effects are first-rate. Sure, most of it is CGI, but it really did look like Spider-Man was flying around the city on those spider webs. And they, along with the camerawork, make the action sequences effectively intense and a lot of fun to watch. I can think of many final action climaxes where I feel worn out, just waiting for them to end. But there were enough turns in this film’s climax to keep me invested.

And I should also mention the change of tone this movie has, compared to the other three “Spider-Man” movies. The previous three were lighthearted, energetic romps. In this reboot, the attitude is suitably more dark and dramatic with a smoother look, although that doesn’t mean there isn’t room for comic relief (such as how Spider-Man, in a teenage boy fashion, mocks a car thief while thwarting him). Also, I have to give credit to the screenwriters (including Steve Kloves, who wrote all but one of the Harry Potter movies) for giving better reasons for Peter to become Spider-Man.

Andrew Garfield has been in movies like “The Social Network,” “Never Let Me Go,” and “Red Riding: 1974.” I can say that this actor can either be very likeable or very stiff. In some of his work, he seems to walk that line in between, seeming uncertain about a few things his characters go through. But as Peter, he’s pretty good here. He’s very convincing and just so likeable, and makes for a nice hero to root for. But I have to admit, the updated Spider-Man costume looks a little silly…or sillier.

And don’t think I forgot about Peter’s relationship with Gwen Stacy (Emma Stone), the pretty girl in the class. Every superhero story, as far as I’m concerned, has a girlfriend to support the hero, and “The Amazing Spider-Man” is no exception. Now, I have to admit that I didn’t really care much for Gwen in the first half of the story, nor was I interested in hers and Peter’s relationship. It was pretty awkward and they didn’t share much chemistry, mainly because Gwen wasn’t given much of a personality…until midway through the movie, when these two started to have realistic conversations and I actually started to care. Or maybe things just get more complicated when the police chief (Denis Leary, very good), seeking to arrest Spider-Man (who is actually Peter), is Gwen’s father.

And here’s what really made me care about Gwen—she’s smart. She’s not the typical damsel-in-distress you see in most superhero movies; she’s no Mary Jane Watson (from the original film). And there are many scenes that show that she is smart and can fend for herself. For example, there’s one scene in which she’s hiding from the Lizard in a locker in a laboratory, and you would think this would be predictable. You would think that she would be captured and Spider-Man would have to save her. But nope. She fights back; she sets the monstrosity on fire!

“The Amazing Spider-Man” is a welcome retelling of the Spider-Man origin story—darker, more complex, entertaining, and very amusing when it needs to be. I’d even put this is in a class with “Batman Begins” (which told Batman’s origin story) and that’s a very high class for me indeed. I loved this movie, and I look forward to its predestined sequel.

Smith’s Verdict: ****

Reviewed by Tanner Smith

“The Manhattan Project” is probably mentioned, if at all, in the same league as “WarGames” and “Real Genius”—you know, the kind of comedy/thriller in which intelligent teenagers are able to make the kind of scientific advances that intelligent adults would be envious of. In my opinion, however, “The Manhattan Project” is probably the best in this category. Some people have called this one the most preposterous (and boring) of the lot. I never saw that. I believed what was happening in the story, and was entertained by the events that occurred once the “science experiment” element was underway. I wasn’t bored; I was invested.

One major advantage that “The Manhattan Project” has for itself is its young hero. He’s very smart, like the other kids in the movies I mentioned. But he’s still a kid—he can get envious, he can be zealous, and he doesn’t always make the wisest choices. Whatever bad choice he makes isn’t because he’s smart, but because when all is said and done, he’s still a kid.

By the way, I like that he’s not labeled as a “geek” or a “nerd” because of his brain—though, that’s because he mostly uses his intelligence for mischief. In an opening scene, he pulls a prank on the jerkiest nerd in his high school, using what random (or are they random?) substances in chemical lab.

The kid is Paul Stevens (Christopher Collet), a 16-year-old boy-genius. He’s self-aware in the way of making sure he isn’t known for being as much a nerd as the very one he pranked (if he was, the other kids in the class wouldn’t have cheered him on like they did). And he observes and listens closely to everything he finds interesting. In the case of the movie’s plot, it’s the “medical company” in his hometown of Ithaca, New York, that interests him. Paul’s mother (Jill Eikenberry) is dating one of the workers of this new development—Dr. John Mathewson (John Lithgow)—and Paul decides to check it out for himself. Dr. Mathewson gives him a tour, showing him “one of the sexiest lasers in the entire free world” (I’m serious—that’s what he calls it, trying to relate to the kid), but what Paul quietly realizes is that the place is actually a laboratory for testing plutonium.

Feeling like he’s been duped, Paul decides to expose the lab. His aspiring-journalist girlfriend Jenny (Cynthia Nixon) suggests writing an exposé on the matter, but Paul has something more extreme in mind. His plan is to sneak in, grab some plutonium from the lab, and use it to create his own atomic bomb, which he will enter in the upcoming science fair!

If that doesn’t make front-page news, I don’t know what will!

And surely enough, Paul does build a nuclear bomb and plans to unveil at the science fair. But the government agents bent on keeping their secret find out about it, and so Paul and Jenny are on the run, viewed as young terrorists. Now it’s up to Paul’s smarts to get them out of trouble.

One of the best things about “The Manhattan Project” is that it shows the action in such a way that it makes it all seem plausible. Take the heist sequence in which Paul sneaks into the lab to steal a bottle of plutonium—this sequence lasts almost a half-hour, showing every little detail that made it work credibly. Then there’s a montage showing Paul put together for his bomb (mostly with household appliances). The whole midsection of “The Manhattan Project” is all about showing the process…and I am aware that this is probably why people found this movie “boring.” Funny, I would’ve thought they wanted more explaining. (Though, if that happened, I worry kids would have tried making their bomb from household objects.)

The only thing that didn’t seem plausible to me was that Paul and Jenny planned their heist so quickly that it all goes well without a hitch.

The writing is very smart. It treats its characters cleverly with enough ingenuity. I actually barely began to talk about probably the most complex character in the film. Not Paul, but Mathewson. While this is in many ways Paul’s story, it’s Mathewson that has the strongest emotional arc in “The Manhattan Project.” As the movie opens, he’s showing off his new creation and is very proud of his work. But as the movie progresses, he sees more clearly that he is no better than the Army and government who try to silence Paul to protect this secret—if not by reason, then by force. He knows there must be a way to protect Paul and also a chance for self-redemption. It also leaves for some tense sequences in which you figure out along with the characters how they’re going to get themselves out of each situation that comes.

The screenplay is also smart in the way it develops this relationship between Paul and Mathewson, especially since Mathewson may having an affair with Paul’s mother, and how they deal with that as well. And also, it pauses every now and then for moments such as when Paul has to help Mathewson with a specific mathematic formula. Moments like that are pleasurable in such a way that they give the characters more dimensions than you’d expect just from hearing the film’s premise.

The ending is probably when the movie is at its most predictable, in which the bomb is finally armed, after a series of complicated events. However, it is pretty inventive in the way it has smart people helping other smart people, not with force, but with reason just like Mathewson would like to do.

With strong acting by the principal actors (Collet, Lithgow, Nixon, Eikenberry, and also John Mahoney as one of the government types), smart writing, and intriguing moments that combine everyday conflicts with a “what-if” science-experiment element, “The Manhattan Project” is a tense, fun, well-crafted (not to mention, underrated) thriller.

Smith’s Verdict: ****

Reviewed by Tanner Smith

Ree Dolly is an unflinching, tough, 17-year-old Southern girl who does not take “no” for an answer and believes that anything not offered shouldn’t be asked for. She acts as a parent to her two younger siblings, while her real mother is mentally absent and her father, a meth cooker, is arrested. She cares for them all (except her father, of course) with welfare and help from a friendly neighbor—they all live in the backlands of the Ozarks, near the Arkansas border line. She is also the most engaging movie heroine in a long time. In Debra Granik’s film, “Winter’s Bone,” she is forced to carry a task to save her family’s property. She is an ordinary person who must rise to an occasion.

The conflict: Ree’s father, who was arrested for cooking meth, is missing and he put everything on bond, including the family house. Ree is visited by the sheriff, who tells her on the house porch that if her dad doesn’t show up at court, she and her family lose the house. She looks into the woods in thought when the sheriff asks, “You got someplace to go?” She says, “I’ll find him.” The sheriff doesn’t believe her—“Girl, I been lookin’.” She looks back at him and sternly repeats, “I said I’ll find him.” And just like that, she sets out to question many family members for clues or answers as to where her father is.

The whole family, except for Ree who would want her siblings to never fall into the habit as well, cooks methamphetamine and keeps to themselves. They give wary looks to outsiders (like the sheriff and the bond trader) who visit Ree and constantly remind her that the house will no longer be their property. Ree’s uncle Teardrop doesn’t know where his brother is and advises Ree not to go looking for him either. But she does, and this leads to brutal confrontations—one of which brings a league of mountain women to beat her hard. (When she comes to, she asks if they’ll kill her. One of them says they were thinking about it.) It seems like this search will jeopardize her life, but she will never stop looking for her father, dead or alive.

“Winter’s Bone” was filmed on location in one of the bleakest of living environments. Living in the backlands of the Ozarks, the rural area looks like it used to a town but is now caught in a Depression-type state. There are houses, but there are also shacks, sheds, and piles of junk almost all around. With only a few modern conveniences, the locals live here in relaxation. But from another perspective, it’s depressing rather than relaxing. I loved how director Debra Granik framed every shot to make us see something new about this place. Ree has lived here her whole life and is becoming a strong, independent woman and her younger siblings are as cheerful as they can be, without knowing what misfortune they have. This may not be true, but maybe the reason that the mother is mentally absent is because of the depression of her surroundings—maybe she realized the difficulty of her situations in parenting and couldn’t take it anymore. Maybe. But anyway, the rest of the people in this rural area are suspicious, violent, and cold-hearted.

Ree Dolly is played by Jennifer Lawrence in an excellent, star-making performance. There is no wrong note in this performance. She has a convincing, forceful personality that really brings this character to life. Also very effective is John Hawkes, as fearsome uncle Teardrop, and Dale Dickey as one of the mountain women who challenges Ree, and also assaults her midway through the film. There are other effective performances from amateur actors who make their first appearances in this film and it’s amazing to see how natural they are—there is no cliché dealing with their characters.

“Winter’s Bone” has suspense, a compelling main character, intriguing supporting characters, a murky look to the Ozarks, and a story worth telling. To me, this is one of the best movies of 2010 and I certainly hope this film is remembered as years go by, most notably for Jennifer Lawrence’s flawless portrayal of an ordinary person rising to the occasion.

NOTE: “Winter’s Bone” also won the Grand Jury Prizes at Sundance for “Best Picture” and “Best Adapted Screenplay.” It also won the Golden Rock Award at the Little Rock Film Festival—at the awards gala (I won an award there too—a screenwriting award), I was fortunate enough to meet Shelley Waggener, the actress who played Sonya, the friendly neighbor who helps Ree and her family.

Smith’s Verdict: ****

Reviewed by Tanner Smith

When you team up a pair of comic actors in a movie, there’s either a danger of going over the top or not having enough chemistry on screen. But Steve Martin and John Candy are perfectly cast and are in a script that doesn’t let them down and carry the film, “Planes, Trains & Automobiles,” greatly. There is chemistry here and they never go over the top.

The film is about a road trip featuring two strangers who have to be home for Thanksgiving and will get there any way they can—planes, trains, or automobiles. Steve Martin plays Neal Page, an uptight advertising salesman trying to get from New York to Chicago. During rush hour (and two days before Thanksgiving), he has a hard time finding a cab in the city and when he finally flags one down, it is stolen (unintentionally) by Del Griffith (John Candy), a traveling shower-curtain-ring salesman. He’s also from Chicago. When the two men meet at the airport, Del feels genuinely sorry for stealing Neal’s cab. Neal tells him to forget it. But as fate would have it, Neal and Del wind up trapped in each other’s company, on the plane and off.

This leads to a night in which the two land in Wichita, Kansas, since a snowstorm has hit the O’Hare airport in Chicago. “We’d have a better chance of playing pick-up sticks with our butt cheeks than getting a flight out of here tonight,” Del tells Neal. And this also leads to a night at a motel…but their room is a single. That’s right—one bed. In one of the funniest scenes in the film, Neal and Del wake up the next morning cuddled against each other. (“Why are you holding my hand?” “Where’s your other hand?” “Between two pillows.” “Those aren’t pillows!”)

And as the film goes on, Neal and Del continue to make their way home, while Neal tries multiple times to get rid of Del. But there’s nothing that can separate them forever. In one of the best scenes in the film, they wind up renting a car and driving at night together when they don’t realize that they are going the wrong way on an expressway. This results in what is probably the only funny joke that a movie can make about a car and two oncoming trucks.

“Planes, Trains & Automobiles” is written by John Hughes, who also serves as director and producer, and it’s a pleasant surprise, considering that John Hughes specializes in teenage comedies and apparently searched for something more. So now he has “Planes, Trains & Automobiles,” a movie featuring a road trip with a great deal of character development and physical comedy. John Hughes had written a comedy about a road trip before (1983’s “Vacation”). This film is even better because the comedy is based on character and reveals heart and truth.

For example, we have the scene in which Neal snaps at Del that night in the motel in Wichita. He shows no mercy, telling Del that he doesn’t know how to tell an interesting story and that he would rather attend an insurance seminar than listen to another one of his anecdotes again. He goes on and on, as Del doesn’t show anger. His face falls; he’s genuinely sad and hurt. He realizes that he was so eager to please and has tried too hard. It’s a scene that reveals comedy and drama in the way that it reveals heart and truth. And that’s not even close to the end of the film, even though it could be the end of a short film (and feels like it, too). It’s this point in which Del wins our hearts and we enjoy watching him through the rest of the film. As for Neal, he learns about patience and slowly but surely develops a friendship with Del.

This is where the film really shines—Steve Martin and John Candy are absolutely great together and they play characters that are funny and empathetic. They’re the classic Odd Couple—one is ordinary and wound up while the other is a slob but more outgoing. But if I didn’t make it clear in the paragraph above, they don’t play caricatures. They play three-dimensional human beings.

“Planes, Trains & Automobiles” leads to the emotional payoff in the final scenes. After all we’ve seen of these two characters and been through what they’ve been through, you’d expect a great payoff. Luckily, this film has one in the way that it gives us exactly what we needed for this material.

NOTE: This film is rated R by the MPAA. Well, I’ll tell you this—fast-forward through the scene midway through the film in which Neal confronts a car rental agent played by Edie McClurg. That scene has the only times you’ll hear the F word—19 times, in fact. Omit that scene and the film is good viewing for the whole family on Thanksgiving night.

Smith’s Verdict: ****

Reviewed by Tanner Smith

“This is how the world will end…this is how the world will end…this is how the world will end…not with a bang but with a whimper.” –T.S. Eliot

That is exactly what is happening to the world in the action film “Children of Men,” a bleak, action-packed, wicked thriller that takes place in the year 2027. The Earth has become practically uninhabitable and anarchic. Natural disasters, terrorism, and war have brought the world to hell. All borders are closed permanently, which means anyone who tries to step into new territory is declared an illegal immigrant and forced to go with others to a prison where they will eventually be executed. But it gets worse—humans have become infertile. It is exceedingly rare for a woman to be pregnant. As the movie opens, a newscast informs us that the world’s youngest person (at age 18) is dead. With this knowledge, you can sense that in a few decades, the human race will become extinct. Soon, others will die until the last man on Earth will die. No one else will go on because there are no more births. That is the subtext throughout “Children of Men” and it’s a profoundly creepy one.

The movie takes place in England, where a man named Theo (Clive Owen) gets a coffee one morning and sees the newscast about the death of the youngest person on the planet. He then steps outside to wait for a bus when suddenly, the coffee house explodes! Not only is this surprising, but watch Theo’s reactions to the destruction. At first, we see him as this ignorant tough guy we see in a lot of action movies. But when the coffee house explodes, he shows off a real sense of fear—he is startled by this occurrence, as anyone would be.

Theo has his way of showing concern about this now-damaged world, but he prefers to think about being with his pot-smoking best friend Jasper (a bewigged Michael Caine, wonderfully cast), who is even more ignorant of more or less…everything. But he is soon captured by his former wife Julian (Julianne Moore) and her associate Luke (Chiwetel Ejiofor), who are part of a rebellion against the now-corrupt government (or what’s left of a government). They need Theo to help them to smuggle a young African woman named Kee (Clare-Hope Ashitey) out of the country to a place where she might be safe from everyone else. (It is said that there is a ship called The Tomorrow, which rescues and harbors said “illegal immigrants”). This woman needs to be protected because she holds the key to the future of Earth’s society. Theo doesn’t realize why Kee is so important until after a few angry run-ins with wild townspeople and the police. It turns out Kee is pregnant—the first baby to be born in 18 years. “Now you know what’s at stake here,” Luke calmly explains to Theo.

Soon, Theo and Kee are on the journey to get past the border unseen and unharmed. But of course, this is not going to be easy. They are pursued by many people (including security troops) and partake in many action sequences. But these scenes are so convincing—so well-executed—that you realize just what they’re about. You never forget what is at stake in this story. Director Alfonso Cuaron (who also directed “Harry Potter and the Prisoner of Azkaban”) has an amazing visual style and executes every action sequence well, and I love how a lot of these scenes are in a single ongoing shot. Every action scene is desperate and with purpose. Cuaron knows how to stage this kind of situation and Clive Owen captures the sense of fear and desperation. Owen is ultimately solid in this movie. He has a cool attitude, yet has a sense of vulnerability that he doesn’t show but you can tell during certain shots.

I love the way the storyline of “Children of Men” develops into something bigger than it began with. When the movie opens, we already sense the world ending because of humanity’s wasting away. Now when Kee arrives and needs to be saved, we see that the world can either remain the way it is (maybe even worse) or be preserved for a new generation. It all depends on Theo’s actions—he has his own demons with his former wife, which haunts him after her arrival.

Also, there is great cinematography. When Theo walks through a desolate London, it looks like a real place. It’s incredible, how the filmmakers were able to make this into a dark, scary place to live in (or even walk in). The settings get darker as Theo goes on this dangerous journey to the border and even through the immigrant prison. It’s all convincing.

“Children of Men” belongs in a class with “Mad Max” and “Blade Runner,” but it may be better than those two references. This is a movie that shows an even darker approach to futuristic fiction and serves as a cautionary tale. It shows a world that is indeed not ending with a bang but with a whimper.

Smith’s Verdict: ****

Reviewed by Tanner Smith

Wow…where do I start with this movie?

“Undertow” is one of those “experimental projects” that every director goes through to make sure they can step outside of their comfort zones. Even if that wasn’t the case, “Undertow” is an amazing movie. It takes a fairly straightforward story inside a marathon of deep, personal fantasies and experimented camera shots. This movie is weird. I know that’s a strange criticism to make for a movie that I’m rating four stars, but that’s the spirit of this entire movie. It’s strange, unusual, unbelievable, unnerving, dark, unsettling, disturbing…and I loved every minute of it.

“Undertow” was directed and co-written by David Gordon Green, one of the most intriguing moviemakers I’ve ever come across. His work before this were the indie favorites “George Washington” and “All the Real Girls.” There has always been a certain quality to his films that made them special. Maybe it’s the way he lets the characters breathe and gives them room to express in just one camera shot. Maybe it’s the countryside atmosphere he’s surrounded them with. Whatever it is, he uses a lot of it in “Undertow.” In fact, he uses just about everything he can think of to make this familiar story…unfamiliar.

The story follows two brothers—16-year-old Chris (Jamie Bell) and 10-year-old Tim (Devon Alan). Chris is a rebel who is constantly in trouble with the law; Tim is a little weirdo who has habits of eating things like mud and paint, and also “organizing my books by the way they smell.” They live in a rural area of Georgia with their widower father John Munn (Dermot Mulroney), so out-of-the-way from society that they can’t even have friends—the only ones to celebrate Tim’s birthday are Chris and Dad.

Their lives are interrupted by John’s brother Deel (Josh Lucas), who hasn’t been in contact with his brother for years—he didn’t even know John had two sons. Deel is said to be a wild card, having been in prison for a mysterious reason. John believes Deel wants to do right from now on, so he lets him stay at the farm and work. But Deel is more sinister the more times he becomes acquainted with his two nephews, particularly Chris—there’s a scene in which he intimidates him while speeding in his nice car and saying things like, “I knew your ma first; she was my girl.”

There’s a rare gold collection said to be the gold drachmas that are good for admission across the River Styx into Hades when you die. The collection was given to John by his father, and has hidden them somewhere in the house. That’s exactly what Deel is here for—nothing more, nothing less. But after a violent incident, Chris and Tim run away from home with the gold coins, with Deel searching for them.

Chris and Tim trek along some desolate Southern landscapes and come across some very original individuals, including a young black couple who are accustomed to their rural lifestyle most comfortably and take the boys in briefly. Later, they also come across a camp for homeless people, mainly young people who have nowhere to go.

The story is somewhat similar to “The Night of the Hunter”—children go on the run from a violent man for greed, and they come across unique characters along the way—and the look of the film is as unusual. Also in mind when Green was coming up with the idea, as he said at the Toronto Film Festival, were stories by the Grimms, Mark Twain, and Robert Louis Stevenson, as well as Capote’s “In Cold Blood.” Legends and fairy tales take up a lot of the movie’s spirit and dialogue—the legend of Charon and the River Styx and that old tale about writing a wish on a piece of paper and throwing it inside a bottle into a river. There are many monologues as the boys venture through these desolate, haunting Southern landscapes that it reminds of a film made by Terrence Malick (he actually is a co-producer for the film).

What do I mean when I say David Gordon Green might be “experimenting” with “Undertow?” Consider the opening-credit sequence—there are different video filters (even negative, of all filters), pauses, slow-motion shots, and everything else that can be toyed with, all in a chase scene. As if using all of those editing tricks wasn’t enough, the chase itself is just bizarre. It introduces Chris as he breaks the window of his girlfriend’s bedroom, causing her father to chase after him. It’s a merry chase until Chris, barefoot, accidentally jumps and lands on a nearby wooden plank with a nail sticking out of it. It’s even less pretty to see as it is to hear—it’s a very painful moment. And then, Chris continues to hobble along on his way, with the board still attached to his foot.

And that’s just the beginning of the movie! Trust me; it gets just as strange, if I haven’t already made that point.

Hearing the storyline, one would get the idea that this is a chase picture. But it’s not, in the conventional sense. David Gordon Green doesn’t go for the kicks; he goes for the dread, despair, and menace of the situations—fitting, because they match the landscape.

Jamie Bell, a young British actor (from “Billy Elliot”), has no trouble perfecting his American accent nor does he have trouble making us feel sympathy for Chris. Devon Alan suits the role of Tim well. Dermot Mulroney has a reassuring presence as the boys’ father, and Josh Lucas, playing against type, is certainly menacing as Uncle Deel.

What have I left out? Only the music, I hope. The film is covered by an ominous music score by Philip Glass that gets deeper as the story continues. It’s a chilling, non-comforting score that’s perfect for the film.

There is a chance I may have left something out from “Undertow.” But if there is, you can discover for yourself exactly how unusually thrilling this film is. However, I must warn you that this is not a film that’s easy to watch. It’s the kind of “Southern Gothic” tale that leaves audiences with an uneasy feeling. I won’t lie; it left me uneasy too. “Undertow” is strange, unusual, unbelievable, unnerving, dark, unsettling, disturbing…and I loved every minute of it.

Smith’s Verdict: ****

Reviewed by Tanner Smith

“The Artist” may be the subject of many cynics who haven’t even seen the movie yet. There’s no point of trying to figure out why. It’s clear that people without a high outlook on film (early film, in particular) aren’t interested in seeing a silent film in black-and-white. Yes, “The Artist” is the first silent film released in cinemas since Mel Brooks’ 1976 satire “Silent Movie.” And it doesn’t just pay homage to the silent film—that would be understating it, really. It really does tell a story with emotions, movement, and music…and it happens to be presented in black-and-white, filmed in 1.33:1 ratio, and mostly without a sound or line of dialogue. Oh, there are subtitles—83 of them, if I counted them all.

“The Artist” does start out as homage to silent film, and a wonderful one at that. It starts with the lay-about opening credit cards and even begins the story in 1927 as a silent adventure film is shown within this silent film. This film within the film is wonderful on its own. It has the same energy and spirit that most adventure films back then. It stars George Valentin (Jean Dujardin), the world’s number-one silent-film star, who knows his fame and wallows in it. He seemingly has more power than the directors and producers who cast him.

After the film’s premiere, George poses for a photograph with an attractive fan—a young dancer named Peppy Miller (the radiant Berenice Bejo). Peppy decides to try acting and appears as an extra in George’s next film. But it turns out that Peppy is about to have the same amount of fame that George has. You see, silent films are making way for “talkies” (sound movies), which, for George, means his career is over. His executive producer (played by John Goodman) breaks the news that the studio is all about sound now.

George doesn’t realize what’s to become of him until he funds his own film, which ultimately flops. Peppy’s new starring role in a talkie, however, gets everyone talking (forgive the pun). She’s a star now—she’s headlining the newspapers, people are raving about her radiance, and she’s become America’s sweetheart. She stars in film after film, but George is in financial trouble, even going as far as to selling all of his possessions. He also fires his loyal chauffeur Clifton (James Cromwell), leading to a heartbreaking goodbye: “But I don’t want another job,” as a subtitle (and Cromwell’s face) states. But since George got Peppy interested in acting and is also responsible for her beauty mark above her lip (brushed upon, mind you), Peppy still cares for George and tends to him when he most needs help.

The first half of “The Artist” is lovable—I can’t tell you how much I was enjoying myself. I was laughing quite a lot (some of them came from the antics of George’s well-trained dog), but mostly, I was smiling. The orchestral music that plays throughout, composed by Ludovic Bource, is a definite tribute to music telling a story. But the music isn’t only what helps make the film come alive. If it did, I’d be criticizing the acting. But all of the actors are forced to carry their character’s emotions, use excessive body language, and make it all credible. And because the film is shot in this 4:3 ratio, it gives the actors opportunity to make use of their limited space.

Then the second half develops into something stronger, as George Valentin’s life goes down the drain. It’s telling a story. I cared about this suave, likable guy and was hoping that he can catch another break to get his life on track. All this man knows is the entertainment value he put into his work and the appropriately-named Peppy would like nothing more than to bring it back for him, while her own fame is increasing. This is all very strong and very well put together. There’s one scene in particular that really got me—it’s midway through the movie and George has realized what little he has in life anymore, so he tears apart all of his films and burns them. The music and acting bring about the sheer intensity of the scene. And that’s not the end of the film. I wouldn’t give away how everything turns out, or even if everything works out, but it’s all very fitting for the film.

True effort was put into “The Artist” to make it into something special. Everything, from the script to the execution to the acting to the music to the overall spirit, adds to the charm and whimsy of this treat of a movie—enjoyable, entertaining, and beautiful. I love this movie.

Smith’s Verdict: ****

Reviewed by Tanner Smith

“Rocky” is a true underdog story, inside and out. By that I mean the movie is about a novice boxer getting a shot at the title, and this involving, excellent film beat the odds and became the little film that could. It was written by Sylvester Stallone, who had many rejected screenplays, but caught the attention of United Artists with his screenplay for “Rocky,” which was mainly inspired by the 1975 Muhammad Ali-Chuck Wepner fight. Stallone set to attach himself as the star, while United Artists wanted to go with James Caan. So, the skeptical United Artists gave the production a smaller budget, around $1 million. And then when the finished film was released, it received great reviews, word-of-mouth, and ten Academy Award nominations, winning three (Best Film Editing, Best Director, and the coupe de gras—Best Picture). “Rocky” had beaten the odds.

“Rocky” is a great film that deserved all the attention it got, and the respect that it continues to get, as one of the best sports films of all time. But while “sports film” can technically by the accurate term for “Rocky,” it’s also a great portrait of a hero, and a tender love story. Either way you look at it, it’s very effective.

Rocky Balboa (Sylvester Stallone) is a small-time boxer who boxes for money to make ends meet. He lives in a small apartment in inner-city Philadelphia and works as a collector for loan shark Gazzo (Joe Spinell). Rocky could’ve been a great, well-known fighter, but blew it all away. But all that’s on his mind is winning the heart of Adrian (Talia Shire), the shy sister of his friend Paulie (Burt Young). She works at the pet shop, sold Rocky a couple of turtles and goldfish, and is amused by Rocky’s at-least-attempt at humor. But she’s painfully shy and isn’t sure about going out with Rocky.

After some harsh action by Paulie to get her out of his house, Adrian goes on a date with Rocky on Thanksgiving night. They hit it off really well as Adrian finds that Rocky is a good person and steps out of her shell to give him a chance. One of the more tender scenes in the movie is when Rocky arranges for ten minutes of ice-skating (she skates, he jogs alongside her) and talks about how his father told him to develop his body rather than his brain—Adrian says that her mother told her the opposite thing; to use your brain rather than your body. She then asks Rocky why he fights, he replies, “’Cause I can’t sing or dance.”

Meanwhile, world heavyweight champion fighter Apollo Creed (Carl Weathers) decides to schedule a New Year boxing event with a true underdog to go against. While looking for possible candidates, he picks Rocky only because he likes his stage name “Italian Stallion.” Rocky is asked to do it. At first, he doesn’t believe that he’s going to be the opponent of the heavyweight champion—he thinks he’s going to be a sparring partner, until he realizes that the winner of this fight gains the World Championship title. Rocky doesn’t care that much about winning, but about gaining self-respect for his future by giving the fight his all and winning Adrian’s heart. With help from boxing coach Mickey (Burgess Meredith), Rocky goes into training in preparation for the fight, while also developing his relationship with Adrian further.

The film is about using your chances to your advantage, standing by your loved ones, overcoming your regrets and lost opportunities, and pushing your potential to the best you can achieve. Now, if that makes “Rocky” sound very corny or cheesy, it’s not like that at all. Just about everything—every story element, character trait, etc.—is done right; handled delicately with a true affection for the characters, an emotionally involving feel, and many twists and turns as the film progresses. We care about the setups and payoffs involving the characters, thus making us care about the relationship and the big match. A lot of credit for that must go to Stallone for making us feel emotionally involved in everything that’s going on, and also for turning in a truly excellent performance as the hero Rocky. He’s tough and uses brawn instead of brain, but is truly a good guy with a heart of gold and hardly an ounce of cruelty. We can easily sympathize with Rocky.

The nitty-gritty look of Philadelphia helps make “Rocky” seem credible, as Rocky walks along the sidewalks at night, passing by some quirky characters who sing at the curb as well as some creeps that he, at one point, tries to keep a twelve-year-old girl from hanging around (her response—“screw you, creepo”). And the supporting characters like resentful Paulie and relentless Mickey complete the circle with blends of anger and spirit.

By the time we reach the final fight that’s been set up, it means everything. In the end, it doesn’t matter who wins and who loses—as clichéd as it is to write, it’s how it’s being played. Even if Rocky loses the fight, he gains more in life. That’s one of life’s simplest lessons that “Rocky” gets across—there’s more important things in life than winning. And it doesn’t merely rely on sports-film clichés to get that message across.

With a captivating hero and a sharp screenwriter (both the same person), nicely-portrayed supporting characters, and emotional involvement, “Rocky” is a triumph. It’s the little film that could…and ultimately did.