Smith's Verdict

She said see you later boy: Stevie (Sunny Suljic) stars in Jonah Hill’s Mid90s.

By Tanner Smith

By Tanner Smith

Continuing my series of Looking Back at 2010s Films, as much as I liked “The Kids Are All Right” upon first viewing, I was irritated by the characters’ codependency the second time around, so much so that I wouldn’t see the film for another 8 years.

Good thing I did, because now that I’m older and understand things more clearly than I did when I was 18 (the age I first saw it in a theater and only saw it because critics were praising it), I recognize the reality of said-codependency and therefore see the film as honest and effective.

“The Kids Are All Right” is an indie dramedy about Nic (Annette Bening) and Jules (Julianne Moore), a same-sex couple who have been together for about 20 years, raising two children who were conceived thanks to an anonymous sperm donor. The two kids are 18-year-old Joni (Mia Wasikowska) and 15-year-old Laser (Josh Hutcherson). Joni is about to leave the nest for college, and Laser pleads for her to do him a little favor before she leaves: try and contact their biological father. She reluctantly does, and the kids meet the guy, who’s a laid-back bohemian named Paul (Mark Ruffalo). They get along well, he’s happy to know them, and they agree to see each other again, but Nic and Jules want to meet him first. Paul’s relationship with the family grows, but as the family dynamic changes, things don’t go as smoothly as they’d like it to…

What makes the film as highly regarded as it is has to do with the script. For one thing, and probably the most important thing, the characterization is terrific. We already get a sense of Nic and Jules’ relationship before we’re even halfway through the film. They’re committed to each other, but it’s clear they’re not who they used to be and that causes a strain in their relationship. They each have careers, which add to the more difficult aspects of daily life–do they still want what they want when they have it? And they also notice little things about each other that they just don’t find attractive, such as Nic’s abrasiveness and condescending attitude, Jules’ micromanaging, that Nic is always busy (which makes sense, as she’s a doctor), and so on. The most telling scene is midway through in which Jules prepares for a romantic evening with Nic, and Nic suddenly becomes busy on the phone with a patient and Jules is left alone in the bathtub. This is what their marriage has become.

(SPOILER ALERT!!!) That’s why it makes sense that she would start an affair with Paul, because she’s finding the passion with him that she used to have with her wife. And of course, that’s not going to end well.

(END OF SPOILER ALERT!!!)

Will their relationship continue after the film is over? Maybe. A lot of couples go through some real rough patches, and they’re still together. Maybe Nic and Jules are too.

Btw, THIS is what I was referring to when I said I grew annoyed by the characters in the second-viewing–little did I know this is just how people in long-lasting relationships tend to behave. (Don’t review movies until you’ve had a little life experience.)

Paul is also a well-rounded character. Despite his business in running his own restaurant and growing his own food, he always ducked certain responsibilities. Now that his two biological children have welcomed him into their lives, he suddenly feels the need to play father-figure. But he does screw up the family dynamic real badly, and I was surprised to find that his resolution isn’t as pleasant as the type of situation would be in other movies–maybe he’ll have learned from this whole ordeal and bettered himself in the future…or he won’t have learned a thing and it just brings him back to where he started. I dunno, I’m sticking with the first thing–I’m an optimist.

Plus, Mark Ruffalo is unbelievably fantastic in this role. From his mannerisms to his quirks to his body language, he inhabits this flawed character…flawlessly.

And the kids are also more than “all right.” Joni’s coming-of-age is one of the more interesting parts of the film, as she says goodbye to everything she’s known, including her family, because she’s ready to move on and go to college away from it all. And Laser (man I’m jealous of that name–why’d I get stuck with “Tanner”*?) is a sensitive jock type who just wants to know what it’s like to have a man (a father) in his life after witnessing the dynamic between his punk friend Clay and his own father. He too comes of age, outgrowing his friendship with Clay and appreciating the parents that he already has.

As honest and realistic as the dialogue between these characters are (and is very well-written by director Lisa Cholodenko and her co-writer Stuart Blumberg), I think what made the script more special was the characters. If you have great characters, they can write most of the story for you.

They’re also very well-acted. Ruffalo and Bening were nominated for their respective performances–why wasn’t Moore? I think of the two lead actresses, Moore as Jules had the more interesting role. (Would that be “Moore interesting role”? Rim-shot!)

“The Kids Are All Right” was heralded as an arthouse treasure and went on to gain Oscar nominations–not just Best Actress (Bening) and Best Supporting Actor (Ruffalo) but also Best Original Screenplay and Best Picture. If I didn’t understand why then, I certainly understand why now. It’s an honest character-based drama with something to say about relationships.

*Just kidding, Mom–I love my name.

By Tanner Smith

Continuing my series of Looking Back at 2010s Films, you remember “Unfriended?” “The Den?” Other minimalist “cyber-thrillers” that were told entirely from the point-of-view of a computer screen? Well, those films were only setting us up for what would become the best of this particular “subgenre.”

That film is “Searching,” a mystery-drama about a father desperately trying to find her missing daughter. He does so by using potential clues left from her computer–her social media, her calendar events, just about anything and everything that could possibly lead to answers to numerous questions about her. And yes, the entire film is told through media–computer screens, phone screens, camera monitors, news feed, you name it.

It’s just a gimmick used as a device to tell the story, but with that said, I appreciate the lengths that director Aneesh Chaganty went to to further the story with as minimal techniques as possible and still make it effective. And with a mystery such as this, using as many online resources as possible, to do it well using this gimmick is impressive indeed.

John Cho stars as David, the widowed father who tries everything he can think of to obtain more answers about his teenage daughter Margot’s disappearance. With this film and 2017’s drama “Columbus” (which I’ll get to later), Cho has come quite a long way since his comedic roles as the “MILF” guy in the “American Pie” movies and the uptight stoner who went to White Castle and Guantanamo Bay with his buddy Kumar. He’s proven to be a more than capable dramatic actor, and he’s absolutely terrific here. There’s not a moment in Searching where I don’t feel for him–I want to help this poor guy because he’s going through a living hell. Every time he comes to another dead end after thinking he’s finally going to get THE answer he’s been searching for (the question being, “where the f is my daughter??”), it’s heartbreaking.

Cho was nominated for a Film Independent Spirit Award for this performance–yet another reason for me to appreciate the Indie Spirits more than the Oscars.

“Searching” also has a great amount of heart to it, established with an emotional prologue that shows the family dynamic of David, Margot, and Pam, who would die of cancer. From these first few minutes, we see how this tragic death affected the lives of both David and Margot. Margot feels very alone and closes herself off from everyone, including her father. When she disappears, David realizes he doesn’t know his own daughter anymore and has to learn all he can about her through her social media in order to gain some insight about what might have happened to her, where she could be, etc. He finds he’s closed himself off from her as well.

This mystery-thriller is as good at going for the emotions as it is generating suspense, and I applaud it for that. The mystery itself is pretty intriguing and just as much so the second time.

Also, here’s a wonderfully effective, biting piece of commentary that I appreciate. David questions Margot’s classmates who admit they weren’t really Margot’s “friends” because she was too shy and closed-off. Later, when an Amber Alert is set up and Margot becomes a trending topic, THOSE SAME PEOPLE are making tearful videos about how much they “loved” Margot and that she was their “best friend.” It’s true that so many of us don’t really hop on board a certain issue until that issue becomes popular, and I thank the film for showing that in this way. (There are even a bunch of attention-hungry jerks who hop on board to blame David for it all.)

“Searching” is an engaging, taut thriller that wouldn’t work in a more conventional filmmaking fashion because it’d be difficult to get across more of Margot’s inner life via traditional flashbacks. This is the computer-POV gimmick done right, and I wonder how it could be topped.

By Tanner Smith

Continuing my series of Looking Back at 2010s Films, “Brigsby Bear” is dope as sh*t!……Someone please tell me I’m not the only one who has seen this movie, and you understand that reference!

“SNL” regular Kyle Mooney co-wrote and co-stars in one of the most original indie dramedies I’ve ever seen. (I don’t think that’s hyperbole.) I don’t even want to say too much about this one, because it’s best to go into it knowing as little as possible.

That’s how I watched it for the first time. I knew it was produced by The Lonely Island, I knew Mark Hamill was in it, I knew it got good reviews, and that there was some kind of Barney-like children’s mascot named Brigsby Bear. (I didn’t know who Mooney was though–I haven’t watched “SNL” in years.) That was literally all I knew about the film when I rented the DVD from the library. If somebody reading this already saw this movie (please tell me you did), you can imagine the questions I had within the first 10 minutes:

-“Why is Brigsby more off-putting than Barney the Dinosaur?”
-“What’s with the math problems?”
-“Why is this 20something-year-old man obsessed with this kiddie fare?”
-“What kind of world are we in? Post-apocalyptic?”
-“What’s up with this guy? What’s up with his parents?”
-“WHAT IS GOING ON??”

It was so weird! But I kept watching because something about it just demanded me to. And boy, was I glad I did.

I didn’t know where it was going. And then at around the 10-minute mark, when the rug was pulled out from under me and I exclaimed to myself, “OHHHH!,” that just leveled the scenic ground because there was new territory to discover and venture through. I was happy watching this film as this guy, a naive, 25-year-old innocent named James (played by Mooney), found himself forced into a whole new life and needs Brigsby to get him through it, even if no one else understands why.

The friends he makes, the new connections he forms with his family, the misadventures he shares with them, the new material he discovers, his newfound passion for being creative–I really like all of that. Yeah, some of it is sitcomish, but much of it is very sincere, and I keep watching it because it’s just so likable.

I’m trying to be less “spoiler-y” in these posts if I’m not talking about something that’s very popular. The other day at work (at a movie theater), my coworkers were rolling/packaging movie posters, I noticed one for “Brigsby Bear,” I expressed my enthusiasm for it…they had no idea what I was talking about. You know you’re in trouble when arthouse theater workers don’t know something that should be known. And I can’t recommend “Brigsby Bear” enough.

It’s dope as sh*t!

By Tanner Smith

Continuing my series of Looking Back at 2010s Films, one of my favorite directors Richard Linklater has made some great films this decade–“Before Midnight,” “Boyhood,” “Bernie,” “Last Flag Flying”…and “Everybody Wants Some!!”

What do you get when someone like Richard Linklater who specializes in conversation/interaction and philosophy in film decides to make his own “Porky’s”-style comedy about a bunch of young guys just looking to party, get wasted, and get laid? You get “Everybody Wants Some!!” (I’d say I’ll take this film over “Porky’s” any day, but then again, “Everybody Wants Some!!” is great and “Porky’s” is a piece of garbage…in my opinion.)

The film is basically about the days leading up to the first day of school in Texas in the fall of 1980, as freshman Jake moves into a house suited for his college-baseball teammates……that’s about it. They cruise chicks, they party, they practice baseball, they compete with each other, they do whatever they want to do.

It’d be a risk to make a film set in the ’80s which is about a bunch of loud, mostly-obnoxious jocks looking to ogle chicks and attempt to score with them. Attitudes have definitely changed (for the most part) since the time in which this film is set. But thanks to the inclusion of a self-aware character named Finnegan (Glen Powell), it’s given a little leeway as long as SOMEONE knows their behavior is mostly ridiculous.

But wait! Would anyone have really thought the way Finn does, even back in the day? Yes–it’s college, this guy’s been there and done that, he knows his stuff. (The reason none of the kids in Jonah Hill’s “mid90s” discussed their crude talk is because they’re dumb high-school kids, whereas the characters in “Everybody Wants Some!!” are dumb college kids.)

Another reason it works is because there is a genuine connection that develops between freshman Jake (our main character, played by Blake Jenner) and theatre-major Beverly (Zoey Deutch, Lea Thompson’s daughter–she looks like her!). Everyone else is using lame pickup lines (most of which work well for them); Jake’s just being himself. He’s intimidated by this person who’s just full of spirit and pluck, but he also wants to get to know her because of it. It’s really sweet.

And another reason the film works is that it’s also very funny, mostly due to the clever dialogue Linklater gives to Finn (my favorite character), who has his own BS philosophies about why everyone in this film does what they do. Why do they try so many cultural venues, like discotheques, punk rock concerts, redneck bars, and theatre parties? Because it’s a way of adapting…sort of…mostly, it’s about doing what they can to pick up chicks. You gotta laugh at this guy’s honesty.

And a main reason I love it is just because it reminds me of when I started college and fell in with a group of people who shared the same major as me and would become my close friends for a while. The misadventures, the conversations, even the music we listened to–the pop culture in “Everybody Wants Some!!” is different from when I experienced these things, but the feelings are still relevant.

By Tanner Smith

Continuing my series of Looking Back at 2010s Films…you know, some day, for one of these posts, I WILL get back to talking about films that the Oscars appreciated at least nearly as much as I did.* But for now, here’s one of several 2013 treasures that were completely shut out by Oscar.

Actually…let me list a few! “Mud.” “Fruitvale Station.” “The Spectacular Now.” “Frances Ha.” “The Way, Way Back.”

Sheesh! At least “Before Midnight” was recognized for its screenplay.

(Btw, I love “Gravity” and “Her,” so I’m not an Indie Spirits snob. And at least the Oscars recognized “Nebraska” and “Inside Llewyn Davis.”)

Where was I? Oh yeah, “Short Term 12.” I don’t think I was the only one who was shocked and dismayed that Brie Larson wasn’t nominated for her excellent performance in this film.

In the film, she plays Grace, a supervisor for a youth group home, where she looks after troubled teenagers day by day. She can relate to most of these kids as she too comes from a broken home….In fact, she was physically and emotionally abused by her father. So, you could say the reason she works at this facility is to make sure the youths have a better life than what she grew up with.

This proves an interesting contrast when you consider her coworker/boyfriend Mason (John Gallagher Jr.), who came from a loving foster home–you could say he’s there to make sure the kids know the love he grew up with.

Based on the short film of the same name by writer/director Destin Daniel Cretton (available on the feature film’s DVD extras), “Short Term 12” is an emotionally authentic study at the lives of troubled youths–what they go through, what they’ve been through, and how their futures can be in their own hands.

Among the youngsters are Jadyn (Kaitlyn Dever), a newcomer to the facility, whom Grace notices some similarities to her own teenage life, and Marcus (Lakeith Stanfield, the only actor to return from the original short), who was emotionally/physically traumatized by his mother and is about leave the home now that he’s reaching age 18. Grace and Mason listen to them tell their stories the only ways they know how in two particularly memorable moments–Marcus uses his own rap song to tell his story; Jadyn uses an illustrated parable from her journal.

I realize how many actors’ careers have really gone somewhere since this film. Lakeith Stanfield is one of today’s most reliable character actors. Kaitlyn Dever continues to impress me with each passing film (including “Booksmart,” which features my favorite performance of hers so far). Rami Malek, who recently won an Oscar, is in this movie as well, playing a meek new worker who finds a way to reach one of the kids.

Brie Larson is now one of our best actresses, and she did win an Oscar two years later (for “Room”). And she’s brilliant here as Grace. It’s really her story, as the film focuses predominantly on her inner life as well as her interactions with other characters. She’s subtle in her portrayal, but more importantly, Cretton’s writing of her is subtle as well. It’s understated and low-key, so we get as much as we can get without resorting to melodrama. I don’t feel a single false note in Larson’s performance.

And “Short Term 12” is a small masterpiece. A terrific film that I put in my personal Top 200 Favorite Films list. It’s a film that teaches us that no matter what we went through in our youth, we can help shape ourselves a bright future.

*At least half the titles on my best-of-the-2010s list were Oscar nominees/winners, so at least there’s that.

By Tanner Smith

Continuing my series of Looking Back at 2010s Films, let’s talk about a Richard Linklater film starring Jack Black! (No, it’s not “School of Rock”–if I were talking about movies from the 2000s…)

Something makes Linklater and Black seem to work surprisingly well together. Seeing “School of Rock” at a young age made me a fan of Black’s, and I honestly think Bernie features Black’s best performance of his career. Both movies were directed by Linklater, and both movies showcase Black’s strengths not just as a skilled funnyman but as a damn good actor.

“Bernie” is based on a true story of a murder that took place in Carthage, Texas. The victim was an 80-year-old widowed millionaire. The murderer: her companion, Bernie Tiede. Because Bernie was so well-liked and a beloved member of the community, no one wanted to believe that he was capable of such a horrid act. And when he confessed to it, hardly anyone wanted him imprisoned! So the DA had to arrange a change of venue so that an impartial jury could hear the case.

I’m not making any of this up! Sometimes, real life is stranger than fiction.

Linklater uses an interesting (and brilliant) technique in telling this story. Instead of telling a straight-up dramatization of these events, he mixes documentary conventions with fictional elements. There are many talking-head interviews with the townspeople, some of whom are played by actors…the others are actual townspeople!

On top of that, it’s a dark comedy about a murder committed by someone no one would have thought to have done it……..I don’t think I need to say that some Carthage locals didn’t take to this film particularly well. The DA (played in the film by Matthew McConaughey) brought up an interesting point: that the victim’s side of the story is ignored in favor of a simpler motivation for Bernie to kill her. I can understand that, but at the same time, this story is based on an article surrounding the incident and on testimonials from those were there when the case was opened. Not everyone can know exactly why Bernie did what he did–they can only speculate that it was because Ms. Nugent, the victim, was possessive and taking advantage of Bernie’s goodwill, while others viewing the film can see possible ulterior motives at hand.

(Nugent’s nephew, btw, speculated that the story “pretty much tells the way it happened.”)

And that is why Jack Black’s performance as Bernie Tiede works wonderfully. At first glance, he seems like your jolly, kind-hearted, Ned Flanders type of friendly neighbor who commits an inexcusable act of violence he can’t take back. But watching it again, with the townspeople’s interviews in mind, it’s interesting to see Black in another light that subtly shows that maybe there was something more on his mind…

And of course, Black wasn’t nominated for an Oscar for this performance. But, of course, he was nominated for an Indie Spirit Award…because of course. (He was also nominated for a Golden Globe, but who cares about those?)

“Bernie” is an intriguing, grisly, entertaining dark comedy from a brilliant director and an even-more-brilliant leading man……….Now let’s talk about what happened AFTER this film’s release. An Austin attorney saw the film, met with the real Bernie Tiede in prison, and reopened the case to address issues not previously mentioned. Bernie was released from his life sentence on bail and had to live with Linklater, who had an open garage apartment at his house in Austin. This led to a controversy amongst the DA and Nugent’s family because there was no future prosecution and a FILM helped a man get out of a life sentence way too early. The DA even finally agreed that Bernie probably deserved a lesser sentence. And then, a couple of years after he was released, Bernie had a resentencing hearing…and Bernie was sentenced to 99 years to life in prison.

Oh, and here’s an…interesting…tidbit………..there’s a scene in Linklater’s “Everybody Wants Some!!” in which someone opens a refrigerator and a cat runs out of it. (“Why is there a cat in the fridge?”) Bernie Tiede is credited as “Cat Wrangler”…Bernie Tiede hid Ms. Nugent’s body in a freezer……when you really think about it, that’s all kinds of messed up!!

By Tanner Smith

Continuing my series of Looking Back at 2010s Films my most anticipated movie of 2016 wasn’t “Deadpool” or “Captain America: Civil War” or even “Rogue One.” Nope–it was a faux-documentary about the Apollo 11 mission…and how the CIA faked the moon landing!

“Operation Avalanche” was Canadian indie filmmaker Matt Johnson’s follow-up to his Slamdance hit “The Dirties,” also a faux-documentary with both comedy and thriller elements. (Kevin Smith even called it “the most important film you’ll see all year.”) I love “The Dirties”–I even wrote an analytical essay about “The Dirties” for journalism class (and I posted it on my blog–it’s better than the original 3-star review I wrote for it). I went from simply liking it to calling it one of my new favorite movies.

So, of course, when I heard his next film, “Operation Avalanche,” was screening at Sundance in January 2016, I was already interested. When I read that it was about faking the moon landing, I was excited to see it, especially if it was being presented in the same fake-doc style as “The Dirties.” Matt Johnson seemed to know exactly how to use the found-footage/faux-documentary approach to its absolute max.

It’d be a long time before I could catch it on DVD–it was worth the wait! (I even put it in my year-end top-10.)

And yes…that is exactly what the film is about. Set in the 1960s, and filmed with top-notch equipment for the time period, “Operation Avalanche” follows a team of CIA agents (led by writer/director Johnson and his friend from “The Dirties,” Owen Williams) as they infiltrate NASA headquarters by posing as a documentary film crew making a film about the upcoming Apollo mission. What do they learn after bugging the phones? That they can’t land on the moon. And that’s when Johnson gets an idea of his own…to make a film that illustrates walking on the moon and broadcast it as the real thing!

It’s so crazy it just might work…

OK, just for the record, I’m not one of those guys. I do believe we landed on the moon, and it was a major accomplishment not just for America for all of mankind. But that doesn’t mean it isn’t fun to think about how it would’ve gone down if it were faked…

Look, it’s a movie. And it’s fun. And it’s interesting to see this interpretation, as far-fetched as it may be.

Matt Johnson definitely has a flair for the faux-documentary angle and for filmmaking overall. He made “The Dirties” look and feel exactly like a film that would be made by a bright (and deranged) high-schooler. He had loads of fun with fair use laws in his Vice mockumentary web series “Nirvanna the Band the Show,” showing he has guts. And with “Operation Avalanche,” which also served as his thesis film for grad school, he has fun with the time period–the resources, the tools, the wardrobe, the pop culture, the fact that it looks and feels like a top-secret documentary from the ’60s.

He’s one of my favorite filmmakers working today because of his drive and passion.

He’s also a good actor as well. Cocky, charismatic, and very naive (but credibly so). He plays the type of person who would be so gung-ho about breaking new ground in film creativity that he wouldn’t catch the obvious flaw, which is that if anyone even knew he organized the faking of the lunar landing, he’d be one of the most hated individuals alive…if his CIA superiors allow him to live much longer lest they sever all ties.

I haven’t even begun to cover two of the most important and interesting aspects of making this film. Let’s begin with…Kubrick.

The late famed director Stanley Kubrick is in this film. He had to be. There’s a theory that claims NASA used his special-effects knowhow from “2001: A Space Odyssey” to make the moon landing look as real as possible. How does this film cover that? Well, Johnson sneaks onto the set of “2001” to take notes on front-screen projection…and he also gets an autograph from Kubrick himself. And it’s not an actor playing Kubrick either–it’s the man himself!

No joke–Johnson and his crew took the few photographs (not video coverage) taken on the “2001” set and animated them with the actors on green-screen to inhabit them in the same universe. Thus, Johnson is able to walk on the actual set of one of the greatest game-changing movies of all time and interact with Stanley freaking Kubrick. (Eat your heart out, “Forrest Gump.”)

Not gutsy enough for you? How about this? All of the scenes set at NASA…were filmed at NASA! Johnson and co. shot on location, only getting permission because they claimed they were making a student documentary. (To get away with it, they brought in the same attorney that covered the fair-use laws for the anti-Disneyland film “Escape From Tomorrow.”)

I’m telling you–this guy’s got guts.

And I’ll be talking about “The Dirties” sooner or later…