Smith's Verdict

Smith’s Verdict: *1/2

Reviewed by Tanner Smith

Harold and Kumar are appealing characters. They’ve certainly proved that in 2004’s “Harold and Kumar go to White Castle.” Harold is of Korean descent, Kumar of Indian descent, but they’re both living in America like every day Americans…and they get along great together because they smoke more pot than Cheech and Chong. In “Harold and Kumar go to White Castle,” they spent a night of funny misadventures trying to find White Castle and eat there like regular Americans. Along the way, they are met by racists who make them miserable. That movie had a heart to it. Their next movie, “Harold and Kumar Escape from Guantanamo Bay,” has no heart and I’ve been unable to locate its brain.

This is a mean-spirited, uninspired sequel to “Harold and Kumar go to White Castle” that is an insult to the eyes and ears of people who love comedy. It does have decent performances by John Cho and Kal Penn, reprising their roles as the likable potheads Harold and Kumar, but the script has nowhere interesting to go and the direction is heavy-handed.

We pick up where the first movie left off, as Harold and Kumar board a plane to Amsterdam to meet the girl of Harold’s dreams. What they didn’t count on was a racist old lady. Get this—what she sees when she sees Kumar on the plane is an Arabian terrorist ready to strike. And then she yells bloody murder and Harold and Kumar are arrested. You can already tell that this movie is going to blow.

Our heroes are accused of being terrorists and brought to the most unlikable character in the movie—a sleazy, slimy, evil-grinning, ultimately racist, hawkish government hotshot Ron Fox (Rob Corddry). There are so many wrong things going on with this character that it’s never funny. I wanted to punch a hole in the screen every time he showed up. What’s worse? Corddry plays the character so well. He locks the boys up in Guantanamo Bay, where no one “even heard of rights.” As the title suggests, Harold and Kumar escape from Guantanamo Bay.

Now, the title suggests at least some funny material. But no. It’s only five minutes out of this mess but an unfunny five minutes.

Anyway, Harold and Kumar are out to clear their name and have many misadventures involving hillbilly in breeders, a KKK rally, a bottomless swimming party, a conversation with an unexpected ally, and a tripping Neil Patrick Harris, played by…Neil Patrick Harris. Harris at least brings charisma to the mix but it’s too little, too late. All the other misadventures—especially the KKK rally and inbred Cyclops—are missed opportunities. And then there are two romantic subplots, but even they seem uninspired.

There is one funny moment that should be mentioned because I can only think of how better the movie would be if it was like that moment—it’s a flashback of the boys in college. Kumar was as uptight as Harold is and vice versa. That was funny and I just wish the movie took chances, like in that scene.

To sum it all up, THIS is what Harold and Kumar are reduced to? After getting to know them in the previous movie, which had laughs throughout, we have to see them be the targets of racism and that sleazy government agent? I mean it—Corddry deserves a punch in the face right now.

I heard there was going to be a third movie featuring Harold and Kumar—“A Very Harold and Kumar Christmas.” If that’s true, the filmmakers need better material to work with. “Harold and Kumar Escape from Guantanamo Bay” is an uninspired sequel and not even Cho, Penn, and NPH’s charm, nor that one funny scene, could save it.

NOTE: Long after writing this review, “A Very Harold & Kumar Christmas” has been released. I still haven’t seen it yet, though I suppose I should.

Smith’s Verdict: *1/2

Reviewed by Tanner Smith

1998’s “Armageddon” shares the same premise as “Deep Impact,” which came out the same year as this one. Both movies are about a giant asteroid about to crash to earth and wipe out mankind. But if there’s one thing to be said about “Deep Impact,” it’s that it’s a much better film than this loud, obnoxious, boring, distasteful action movie/special effects extravaganza.

“Armageddon” is the best title for this movie. As Gene Siskel, of “Siskel and Ebert,” put it, “Armageddon is appropriately titled because while watching it, you’ll feel as though you’ve been in combat—visual combat and aural combat.” He gave this film a thumbs-up, but my review is much closer to what Ebert thought of it.

The movie is about the threat of an asteroid that is said to be the size of Texas that could wipe out the whole planet. “Nothing could survive, not even bacteria.” Billy Bob Thornton plays a NASA chief who has to find a way to save the planet. He comes up with a solution: hire a bunch of oil drillers to go up into space and drill to the core of the sucker and then blow it up. Bruce Willis plays the leader of the drillers Harry Stamper, who is said to be the world’s greatest driller (what a distinction). He has his own team with him and they’re all different types of people (so we can tell them apart) and they’re just a ragtag band. Included in the team are a sex-obsessed weirdo (Steve Buscemi), a bass-voiced giant (Michael Clarke Duncan), and the boyfriend of Harry’s daughter, whom Harry disapproves of, shown in a completely over-the-top tantrum beginning. The boyfriend is played by Ben Affleck.

I guess “Armageddon” is supposed to be entertaining because there are nonstop special effects, little human story, and shots that don’t even last twenty seconds. This doesn’t even feel much like a movie rather than an overlong trailer, to say the least. Once the characters are up in space, the movie just drags on and on and on and it got very boring. I kept waiting…and waiting…for something to make sense.

Then, the movie was over. The second half of this movie is full of very tightly-edited scenes of sci-fi action and it all felt like a dead zone as it ran for an hour and a half. There are a lot of action scenes and they don’t really pay off or add to anything.

The characters here are dull, with the possible exception of Liv Tyler. She plays Harry’s daughter and gives a piece of realism to the human story, as much as there is. But Bruce Willis is wasted here as the dull leader of the drillers. The same can also be said for Billy Bob Thornton, who is forgettable here. Ben Affleck isn’t likable here in the slightest—he’s just a jerk.

The movie has very cheesy clichéd scenes that have been done to death. We get the slow-motion walking shots by the heroes, the over-the-top save-the-world speech, and farewell scenes that are not touching or effective just overdone. I wouldn’t mind so much if I wasn’t so bored already.

The movie runs about two-and-a-half hours. Why? I’m guessing action-director Michael Bay would like this movie as a popcorn movie or maybe he didn’t even want it that way. Whatever he wanted to do, he failed doing it. On the comic relief side, there is hardly any humor that is intentional and that’s also not a good sign. Some of the jokes that the characters say at the beginning are missing punch lines. Just when it feels like there might be one, the scene cuts to another. The worst part is that the movie hardly stops to take a breath once in a while. Does Bay think that the audience has an ingenious attention span?

See if you buy this—the planet is in huge jeopardy, right? An asteroid the size of Texas is going to crash down and wipe out humanity, so the heroes have to blow it up. Well, if the asteroid is that big, then wouldn’t even a piece be enough to wipe out the United States? And also, the characters are drillers who must be trained to be astronauts. Wouldn’t be easier to have astronauts train to be drillers?

“Armageddon” is a special-effects mess.

Smith’s Verdict: *1/2

Reviewed by Tanner Smith

Midway through “Scream 3” (the final chapter in the apparent “Scream” trilogy), we are informed of the rules of the trilogy by a posthumous video message from Randy, the film-knowing victim in “Scream 2” played by Jamie Kennedy. He tells the ways of the trilogy and references “Godfather” and “Jedi,” while saying plot twists are revealed, the past (preferably events in the first film) will haunt the characters, and basically, anything goes.

This video is viewed by returning characters Dewey (David Arquette), Sidney (Neve Campbell), and of course, the cutthroat (so to speak) reporter Gale Weathers (Courteney Cox-Arquette). This is convenient because the killer in the Grim Reaper costume and ghostface mask is at it again and maybe for the last time. This time, the killer plans to finish everything and everyone. Randy’s video is help for Dewey, Sidney, and Gale, but not for the audience of “Scream 3”—what Randy forgot to mention was that the final chapter of a trilogy is sometimes the weakest one. That is certainly true of “Scream 3” itself, which is most disappointing. I really liked the first two “Scream” movies and found them scary and satirical of the slasher movie genre—the satire really worked. Here, in “Scream 3,” we get some amusing lines of dialogue (though the script is not written by Kevin Williamson this time, but by Ehren Kruger), a couple of funny cameos, and some points of somewhat true emotion. But ultimately, the movie sinks because it mainly just descends into the very clichés it was trying to satirize in the first place. The fun is gone. In a trilogy, nobody is safe and all bets are off. Don’t get me wrong—this could create a huge amount of suspense, but the story is not well-executed for us to be on the edges of our seats.

As you recall from “Scream 2,” a movie franchise was brought in, based on the events in the first film which were written into a best-selling novel by Gale. The movie-within-the-movie was called “Stab.” In “Scream 3,” we have “Stab 3” in development—strange how no one ever mentions a “Stab 2.” This brings the attention of another killer who strikes right before production is about to start. So now, young police detective Kincaid (Patrick Dempsey) recruits Gale and Dewey to help figure out what the killer will do now. This time, there are clues—near every body is a picture of Sidney’s mother who, if you recall from the previous films, was murdered four years before. What could they mean? And which of the actors in “Stab 3” is next to being killed? Are you still with me?

One of the problems with “Scream 3” is that the characters are so thin and dull that I didn’t care who lived and who died. Even Gale, who was so feisty in the previous films, is reduced to being just a target. Parker Posey does what she can, playing the actress who was supposed to play Gale in “Stab 3,” showing spunk and selfishness. And then there’s Sidney, the star of the previous films. Here, she is barely seen in the first half and is given nothing special to do when she shows up on the set of “Stab 3.”

And of course, you need to watch the previous films to understand much of what is happening here. But the better idea would be to just watch “Scream” and “Scream 2” and accept them as individual films because “Scream 3” has lost the series its energy.

Smith’s Verdict: *1/2

Reviewed by Tanner Smith

Not since “Your Highness” have I felt so unclean from a theatrical gross-out comedy in 2011. To get things straight, I am not against gross-out comedies. I’m only against gross-out comedies that have more “gross-out” than laughs. I mentioned “Your Highness.” That movie was obsessed with making sure that every single joke focused on one of two things—penises and weed. This movie, “The Change-Up,” released a few months later, is obsessed with making sure that when its story gets underway, every single joke is focused also two things—Jason Bateman and Ryan Reynolds switch bodies, and things get ugly.  

Yes, two people switch bodies in this movie as the main gimmick. This type of comedy has been used a dozen times—some to good use, some to bad. But to my knowledge, this is the first body-switch comedy with an R rating from the MPAA, implying that it’s aimed at adults. Well guess what, guys—there’s a difference between “adult” and “immature.” It’s like saying, Hey guys! Want to see projective poop shoot into Jason Bateman’s mouth as he attempts to change a baby’s diaper? Want to see exposed female breasts just for the sake of nudity rather than exoticism? Want to hear the “F” word repeated over and over and over until you realize it was written just to keep the “R” rating?

I don’t! When I saw that distasteful scene where Batman changes the diaper, I was saying to myself, “Wow, two minutes in, and already, this movie wants me to walk away.”

OK, I’m getting ahead of myself. But here you have it—the R-rated body-switch comedy. As is typical of body-switch comedies, you have to have the introductions to the characters that will the subjects of this change-up—show their jobs, show their homes, show their personalities. To the film’s credit, even in about fourteen minutes, those three are developed easily. We see Jason Bateman as Dave, a good-natured lawyer and a father of three; and Ryan Reynolds as Mitch, a lazy, wisecracking pothead. Since they envy each other’s lives and actually say to each other that one would prefer the other’s life, they get their chance to actually endure each other’s lives. Oh yeah, they make their wish while taking a leak in a public “magic fountain.”

So Dave’s mind is in Mitch’s body and vice versa. Mitch moves in with Dave’s wife (Leslie Mann) and takes over his job, but can’t quite cut it. Dave finds himself in the making of a “light porn” movie and hates how Mitch is now hitting on his wife, but he likes his newly found freedom because Mitch does practically nothing anyway.

OK, there you go with the story. Now for the humor—There are many gross-out gags, like getting a tattoo with Olivia Wilde as Dave’s co-worker (don’t ask where she gets her tattoo), but I just didn’t laugh very much. I mean, a few chuckles here and there, but when you have a gross-out comedy, it’s timing that matters. Not just simple gross-out gags. I felt dirty watching this movie—afterwards, I felt like taking a shower.  

I’m a fan of Jason Bateman’s dry wit that made him popular in TV’s “Arrested Development” and good movies like “Juno,” though I have to admit I have mixed feelings toward Ryan Reynolds—I liked him in “Definitely, Maybe” and in “Adventureland” and thought he was a legitimate good actor in “Buried,” but in many of his other comedies (“Van Wilder,” in particular), he comes off as just bland to me. Nevertheless, it would be interesting to see these two imitate each other in this movie in which these two…change up. (Yeah, “The Change-Up” is one of the most generic titles in recent memory.) But the problem is that once these two have switched personalities, there isn’t any promising material. I smiled when these two first acted off each other (as each other), but after a few minutes, it just wore off.

The biggest insult “The Change-Up” has to offer is the forced sentimentality that follows through in the final act. You know what I mean—basic sentiments are given, the guys learn things about themselves and other people they interacted with, and of course the soft music in the background that does the acting for the actual actors. Did the filmmakers forget that it was all followed by stuff like Olivia Wilde’s nudity, Leslie Mann’s intestinal disorder, Reynolds’ porn experience, and more? This has got to be the clumsiest adding-in of sentimentality I’ve ever seen in a comedy. “The Change-Up” goes out of its way to be vulgar and offensive and then it goes for the heart. Unbelievable.

“The Change-Up” had two good comic actors to make the idea work, and anything can be done well (see “Vice Versa,” see “Big,” see “Freaky Friday,” I could go on with a few others, I think). But the actors needed better material and the audience needed a break.

P.S. I just looked up body-switch movies and there are two others I can recommend, aside from the three I’ve already mentioned—“Peggy Sue Got Married,” starring Kathleen Turner; “Chances Are,” starring Robert Downey Jr.; and I kinda liked “17 Again,” starring Zac Efron. Oh, I should also mention “Being John Malkovich,” in which John Cusack became…John Malkovich.

Smith’s Verdict: *1/2

Reviewed by Tanner Smith

Billy Bob Thornton acts as yet another crude, hateful guy in “Mr. Woodcock”—he played pretty much the same character in “Bad Santa,” “Bad News Bears,” and “School for Scoundrels.” Here, he and other talented actors, including Seann William Scott and Susan Sarandon, are supposed to carry an engaging premise. But the script just kills it dead.

This is the premise—a best-selling author’s mother is about to be married to his old grade school coach who made his life hell growing up. The possibilities within this premise are endless but unfortunately, only a couple of them are added and even THEY aren’t very funny. Think of what the Coen Brothers could have done with this premise and you’d have a much better movie. But with “Mr. Woodcock” as it is, there’s hardly any hope for it at all.

We begin with an opening scene set in the time when the author was just a little fat kid in gym class. Mr. Woodcock pushes these poor kids to the limit—he tells an asthmatic kid, “Take a lap. Lose the asthma.” Then he makes the fat kid strip down to his underwear and attempt to do some pull-ups. What a guy. Cut to about twenty years later, when the fat kid (named John Farley) has definitely slimmed down and grown up to be a best-selling author about “letting go of your past.” He’s played by Seann William Scott, a good comic actor who probably hates being known only for playing Stifler in the “American Pie” movies.

John returns to his childhood home to visit his mother (Susan Sarandon). And boy does she have news for him! She’s engaged to be married to…Mr. Woodcock! Oh no!

This news turns John’s world of fame upside-down and the whole movie is either about him and Mr. Woodcock trying to bond or him trying to break up his mom and Mr. Woodcock. Well, it’s both, but it’s nothing I would really expect from a premise like this. I wish the filmmakers took chances with this instead of giving us what is supposed to be hilarity. There’s one point in the movie where John’s friend (played by Ethan Suplee) visits John, along with his brother who has a swollen eye. The friend tells John he has the solution to the problem—he pops in a videotape and it shows the little brother in a backyard saying unconvincingly, “No, Mr. Woodcock,” and a chair thrown right in the kid’s face. Was that supposed to be funny? Physical abuse to smaller children? There are also plenty of crude, vulgar jokes which are also not funny because the characters know what they’re in for, whereas in “American Pie,” the characters didn’t know what they were in for.

And of course, there are all sorts of slapstick in which a character gets hurt while trying to score a laugh—only one of them worked and it’s in the film’s trailer. It’s the part where John and Woodcock race on treadmills and John slips and falls back into the wall. That was kind of funny.

Billy Bob Thornton does play this role well but then again, we’ve seen him play this guy many times before. He’s the guy who finds your weakness and uses it for nearly sadistic purposes. He’s insulting, hateful, crude, vulgar, violent, and worst of all, uncompromising. (“You must like getting spanked, Farley. I guess it runs in the family.” Ouch.) Seann William Scott, on the other hand, is an annoying whiner and there’s no way I could believe his character could write a best-selling book. Susan Sarandon as the mom is nice, but she’s dumb to fall for Woodcock’s tricks. And then there’s Amy Poehler who plays John’s agent and girlfriend, does the bitch part over-the-top to the point where I wanted her to go away.

“Mr. Woodcock” is a missed opportunity. I would love to give it zero stars, but I’m giving it one-and-a-half instead because of the premise, that one laugh, and Billy Bob Thornton. The rest is just trash.

Smith’s Verdict: *1/2

Reviewed by Tanner Smith

“Dreamcatcher” is based on a Stephen King novel, which like most of his novels are extremely long in detail. Seeing as how “Dreamcatcher” is a theatrical release and not a TV miniseries, special care would have to be given to trim the novel and make the film a reasonable length while capturing the spirit of the novel. So who do they get? Well, director Lawrence Kasdan (who wrote and directed “The Big Chill,” “The Accidental Tourist,” and “Grand Canyon”) and writer William Goldman (who wrote “Butch Cassidy and the Sundance Kid” and quite a few Stephen King adaptations, like “Misery”) seem like great choices. With that said, how does this great talent behind the screen create a mess like “Dreamcatcher?” This movie is inconsistent in tone, pacing, and style. It’s a lackluster project that starts out one way, enters a different territory, and ultimately is ridiculed for one of the silliest stories you’ll find in a King story.

The story begins with four friends who each possess a psychic gift. As kids, a mentally retarded kid nicknamed Duddits united them with this gift after they protected him from the town bullies. Years later, the friends—Henry (Thomas Jane), Jonesy (Damian Lewis), Beaver (Jason Lee), and Pete (Timothy Olyphant)—still have their abilities and use them as advantages for their jobs. Jonesy has an accident that nearly kills him, and this becomes a compound for a trip to a cabin in the woods, where he and the other three friends fool around and talk about the past. But soon, the entire wooded area is under quarantine by the government, who are on the hunt for…(sigh) alien parasites.

The first half-hour of “Dreamcatcher” is quite interesting, as the development of these friends and their gift comes into place. It seems like it’s going somewhere just as intriguing. But then it gets into the story with the aliens and monsters, and that story takes over as if another movie blended into the one I was just watching. I wouldn’t mind so much except that these aliens and the plot with the friends and their psychic gift just don’t fit together. Maybe they fit better in the novel (which I’ll admit, I haven’t read), but here, they give the movie a real instability. If you want to make a movie that mixes human elements with a monster story, this is not the right way to do it.

There are moments in “Dreamcatcher” that I’m unsure whether or not if they’re supposed to be taken seriously. For example, I think the moment the movie really goes downhill is the scene in which two of the friends discover an infected man dead on the toilet, as a nasty alien worm pops out of him and the friends try desperately to plunge it in the toilet. I’m thinking, this is supposed to be funny, right? And how about when Jonesy’s body is invaded by one of the aliens and speaks in a jolly British accent as it and Jonesy switch personalities to talk to one another? You can tell me; that’s supposed to be funny, right?

The flashbacks that show the four friends as junior-high-school children growing up in (where else?) Maine aren’t particularly well-executed or even well-written. To be fair, that could be because they take up a small portion of the movie, but they’re supposed to give us the origins of this gift, and they just seem rushed. This is particularly strange, considering that “Dreamcatcher” is 136 minutes long. It’s the stuff with the aliens that the movie doesn’t give a rest. We don’t even see the grown-up Duddits (played by Donnie Wahlberg) until the last 15 minutes.

The talented actors put in this movie aren’t enough to save the movie, and you know your movie’s in trouble when the great character actor Morgan Freeman, playing the anti-alien “Captain Ahab” type, can’t save it. This is probably the first time I’ve seen Morgan Freeman give a bad performance. But to be fair, it’s a bad role.

“Dreamcatcher” is ambitious, but a cluttered, unsatisfying mess.

Smith’s Verdict: *1/2

Reviewed by Tanner Smith

I haven’t seen the French mistaken-identity comedy entitled “The Tall Blond Man with One Black Shoe,” so I can’t say how its American remake—entitled “The Man with One Red Shoe”—follows it. But it doesn’t matter. “The Man with One Red Shoe,” also about a case of mistaken identity, is a mess. It’s not very funny and what’s worse is that it’s boring.

It features an ordinary man walking his way through a story of CIA situations, as a violinist (played by Tom Hanks) is followed around, believed to be a spy for reasons that I can’t recollect. Apparently, they needed an innocent man to be their target and went for Hanks’ character because he walks around one day wearing mismatched shoes (yes, one of the shoes is red).

Wait—something is coming back to me. I think Dabney Coleman and Charles Durning played two CIA spies from different sides and Durning needed an innocent bystander to confuse Coleman and his team. So they pick this “man with one red shoe” and treat him as if he were spy who has information on Coleman. The running gag is that Hanks has no idea just what in the world is going on.

Things get even more confusing (and exciting) for him when a bombshell of a young female spy (Lori Singer) winds up falling for Hanks. There’s an uncomfortable scene in which they date each other and her hair is stuck in his pants zipper.

But the movie seems more focused on its spy story than its attempts to create written humor. I wouldn’t mind so much except that this isn’t a good spy movie. Good spy movies have a tendency to be exciting (even the bad ones do), but it’s still boring because very little thought went into creating a fully-detailed story. And then near the end, it has the gall to have a character say a line like, “This affair must end in a shooting match, just like all good spy stories.”

With a cast like Tom Hanks, Dabney Coleman, Lori Singer (“Footloose”), and Charles Durning, you’d expect a better movie than this. A cast can’t just carry a movie like this—the best comedies have scripts to support their performances. Tom Hanks, usually known for dramatic roles (and amazing at them too), has shown what he can do with comedy, but even he’s boring beyond belief. He plays it straight—with all that happens, this isn’t funny. Maybe Bill Murray would have pulled it off in this role. Coleman isn’t any better—all he does in this movie is scowl.

A word about Lori Singer as the seductive female spy—she isn’t the least bit convincing as a spy. It’s not because she’s so beautiful—I’m sure a spy can be as beautiful as that (I even know of a movie producer as beautiful as she, but I’m not naming names), but every line she says just sounds like it came from a script and worse, it sounds forced.

The only two amusing bits feature Jim Belushi as Hanks’ best friend. One scene has him chasing after the spies’ borrowed ambulance on his bike, because he hears the bugged recording of his wife (Carrie Fisher, so annoying here) putting moves on Hanks and…making “Tarzan” noises—don’t ask, you shouldn’t care—coming from inside the vehicle. That was kind of a funny chase scene.

Another funny bit is after Belushi tries to convince Hanks that there are dead spies on the floor in his apartment, but the ones that killed them keep hiding them from sight to the point where Belushi cries because he thinks he may be crazy and then takes a leak—a dead body is hanging from the bathroom door and his reaction is priceless: “Oh, come on!”

Those are the only funny bits in this depressing, boring picture called “The Man with One Red Shoe.” The only thing left to say in this review is that the French filmmakers (who made the film this was based on) should sue.

Smith’s Verdict: *1/2

Reviewed by Tanner Smith

“Hollow Man” is a science-fiction film that is truly a missed opportunity, considering that a film about a man becoming invisible can be very interesting. Invisibility is a common fantasy for some people and “Hollow Man” would like to be the new adaptation of “The Invisible Man.” But instead, it starts out promisingly, but only gets worse as it continues, and ultimately results in an unnecessary and very silly action climax that shows that the screenwriters have given up trying to tell a compelling story and just decided to go for the throat. This is one of those scientific-experiment-gone-wrong movies, which can either be very effective or very campy. “Hollow Man” doesn’t fall into either of those categories.

It’s a shame too, because the film has some really great special effects. But effects don’t make a movie—if they did, there’d be more appreciation for the “Star Wars” prequels (but I digress). While the effects are eye-popping, they can’t excuse the film for its flaws.

“Hollow Man” starts out in an interesting way. There’s a startling shot in which an invisible predator eats a rat (since we can’t see the creature actually eat the rat, you can imagine a disgusting sight). And we learn of a top-secret experiment run by a six-member scientist team. Most notable is the egotistical, intelligent Sebastian Caine (Kevin Bacon), who plans to be the first human subject to be turned invisible. But it can be tricky, because if it doesn’t work, he could die. (This has only been tested on gorillas so far. By the way, don’t ask me how this invisibility formula works—there’s a great deal of technobabble that I didn’t get.) Luckily, the formula does work. After much eagerness, Sebastian is invisible.

This is a scientific breakthrough that can change the history of the world as we know it! Or at least, that’s what someone was supposed to say in a movie like this.

Sebastian takes a great deal of pride in his being invisible, and is constantly stalling on being changed back to his visible form. He’s having way too much fun and letting everything go to his head. What you can know for sure is that he is not going to give this up, and he has also become a sex fiend that his prey can’t see. The other scientists—including personality-deprived heroes Linda (Elisabeth Shue, who very rarely turns in a bad performance) and Matthew (Josh Brolin, equally wooden)—realize that Sebastian has transformed into a transparent monster and try to figure a way to change him back without him knowing, but Sebastian is one step ahead of them…

So you know the drill—big climax, transformation into a different movie (a practical slasher movie only the killer is unseen), heroes try to escape from an elevator shaft, and they improbably save the day. This final act of “Hollow Man” loses the film its dignity. When it isn’t boring, it’s laughable.

Kevin Bacon’s Sebastian is the only interesting character in “Hollow Man,” but only in the first hour. When he goes psycho and starts to kill off people, he becomes as ruthless as Jason and just as dull. The movie loses track of his plight and just gives him scenes of mindless violence to take over. Bacon does what he can with the role (that is, when he’s Sebastian’s disembodied voice after his character is invisible), but it’s just not enough.

I want to say more about the effects in “Hollow Man.” They’re incredible. When a gorilla is tested for the formula early in the movie, you actually see the layout of its skeleton, nerves, organs, muscles, and skin as it transforms. It’s not a simple task—most movies about invisibility just make the character disappear like that; but not here. We see what looks like a legitimate painful process and it’s repeated once Sebastian has undergone the procedure. These effects are outstanding, but it’s just not worth waiting for them to show up on screen.

Smith’s Verdict: *1/2

Reviewed by Tanner Smith

Imagine you are one of many people who step into an ancient mystic stargate that is said to take you a million light years across the universe.

What would your reaction be? Awe? Amazement? Surprise? All of the above? My reaction would be “all of the above.” But unfortunately, the only reaction to the characters in the sci-fi action/thriller “Stargate” is “What a rush.” They step into the stargate, go through a weird trip in space and time, and find themselves inside a pyramid on a distant planet. They don’t even seem surprised that the stargate didn’t kill them on entry. They just walk about the land as if thinking, “OK, we’re here. What now?” How about taking in some of this discovery?

“Stargate” is a big-budget sci-fi romp that seems empty, despite the top-notch actors, the amazing sets and the nifty special effects. It’s the script that doesn’t take chances or even seem at all like this is going to be fun. Directed and co-written by Roland Emmerich, “Stargate” doesn’t seem to have thrills within its thrilling, mysterious storyline. This is one of those movies where the marketing is a lot more compelling than the actual film that is being marketed. The trailer for this movie showed that there is a mystical, otherworldly stargate that can send people from one world to another. It never showed where the stargate took them or what they found when they got there. This way of marketing left moviegoers wondering what was in store.

But sadly, the discovery is a disappointment. We learn that this distant planet (which looks a lot like Egypt, but the three moons indicate that it isn’t) is home to the human race that were left behind when the Sun God Ra created life on Earth, as well as the stargates. The stargates have been destroyed since and the people are slaves living in the desert. So you can probably guess by what I’m saying in this paragraph that, yes, aliens did create the Egyptian pyramids.

OK…so what?

The aliens themselves seemed too human to be interesting—that’s because they are humans who speak only Ancient Egyptian. Their ruler—the Son God Ra—is definitely not much better. Ra takes human form because it seems to suit him, but he looks more like a showgirl at a costume party and did not seem like any kind of a threat. And then when he talks (in his own language, of course, with English subtitles), his voice is distorted—it didn’t even seem like the voice fit him. Oh, and here’s a hoot—Ra is played by Jaye Davidson from “The Crying Game.”

As “Stargate” opens (in, as a caption informs us, “Egypt 1928”), Egyptologists discover the arch-like, mystic-looking stargate. We then flash to the “present day” (another caption—there are captions like that here) in which a nutty Egyptologist named Daniel Jackson (James Spader, complete with glasses and long blond hair) is brought into a top-secret government facility that has been storing the stargate all this time. He is hired to decode the hieroglyphics that could activate the stargate. Of course Jackson is able to but here’s my question—after all this time of trying to unlock this big secret, couldn’t they have found someone better than a young Egyptologist whose methods have been described as “nutty” through all these decades?

But I digress. Jackson joins the tough-as-nails Col. Jack O’Neil (Kurt Russell) and a team of soldiers armed with automatic weapons as the group steps into the stargate and arrives at this strange world. And it was, I might add, indeed a “rush.”

It’s here that many clichés are used—O’Neil shows a young alien a few modern conveniences, the aliens fear the newcomers but learn to accept them, and such. But the most overused is this—Jackson is mistaken for a god because he wears around his neck an ancient Egyptian heirloom given to him for “good luck.” Eventually, there must be a heavy-handed, special-effects filled, action-packed climax in which the humans and the aliens must fight against Ra and his henchmen. But the characters are so under-developed that I didn’t care for them when they had to fight for their lives. Plus, it’s a copout that the writers had the bright idea of having a stargate that could send people who step into it to travel one million light years away from home, but could only think of shooting everybody when they got there. Another thing I must mention about the story—Jackson claims that he knows how to get back home. Not once do any of the soldiers ask how he knows—he just knows because it’s convenient enough.

The actors do what they can with nothing roles. I like Kurt Russell and James Spader, but their characters are underwritten here. At least they tried. Jaye Davidson cannot be taken seriously as the ruler of the universe.

“Stargate” is a movie that is empty in its storytelling. The sets, cast, and special effects are there but the story needed a lot of adjustments. Why not have more interesting characters step into this intergalactic stargate and discover something wonderful and even more mysterious about the secrets of the known universe? Or even the unknown universe? The possibilities are endless. But all “Stargate” can think about is blowing stuff up. And in the way of something more interesting in the background of the plot, that’s not interesting.

Smith’s Verdict: *1/2

Reviewed by Tanner Smith

“Tuff Turf” was supposed to be the ‘80s version of “Rebel Without a Cause” and “West Side Story” in that it features teenage hoodlums and a heavy soundtrack. In this case, it’s a confusing bunch of youngsters and an obnoxious rock soundtrack that help make “Tuff Turf” one of the worst, most unpleasant teen movies to come around in the ‘80s.

The strange thing is that it starts out all right. In fact, I really liked the opening scene in which the local teenage gang is mugging an innocent bystander when a kid on a speeding bicycle comes along and is able to foil them, and get away fast. That was inspired and amusing. I was interested in seeing where this was going.

That kid is the protagonist of the story, named Morgan (James Spader), a preppy, rebellious teenager who has moved from Connecticut to the San Fernando Valley after his father lost his business and has taken a job as a taxi driver. Morgan attends his new school, where that same gang from the other night also attends. They’re out to get him, to humiliate him. They thrash his bike. Morgan could have fought back, but he chooses not to because his family keeps telling him that he brings trouble everywhere he goes. But the gang leader’s girlfriend (Kim Richards) catches Morgan’s eye, and his charm turns her on, leading to more danger from the gang.

James Spader and Kim Richards are likable actors, but their characters continue to make one stupid decision after another, just because the plot demands it. What infuriated me about the Richards character was her bizarre motivation (if there was any sort) for choosing to marry the gang leader, after she has realized that she likes Morgan and that the gang leader has treated her like scum.

The soundtrack to the film is just terrible. I wouldn’t even mind half of the rock songs that play throughout the movie, except that they’re all pretty bad. They’re not catchy, nor are they very memorable, except for a terrible cover of the Beatles’ “Twist and Shout.”

There’s one nice scene in the middle in which Morgan, the girlfriend, and their friends (including one played by Robert Downey, Jr. who is appealing, but not used enough) sneak into a country club, and Morgan sings a pleasant song while playing the piano. After all the loud, annoying rock music that has stormed over the film, it was nice to have a quieter, more pleasant music piece.

The film descends into complete madness in the final showdown between Morgan and the gang. It’s so badly-handled, so over the top, and so sadistic that it makes the central fight in “West Side Story” look supervised. What is this movie trying to say with its ending? Violence is the easy way out? There is nothing to gain from this ending—it’s another one of those “if the villain is dead, everything will be fine” climaxes. And what’s worse—the movie laboriously tries to regain its somewhat-light tone by taking us back to a night club immediately after the final fight. Here we are again, it’s fun, we’re hanging out with Morgan and the girl who seem happy together. Then what happens? The credits roll. I have never felt so angry about an ending quite like this.

“Tuff Turf” didn’t know what it wanted to be, so I don’t know what to take more from it. I felt unclean right after I watched it. This movie needed a serious script doctor, a better editor, and much more engaging material for James Spader, who’s actually pretty good in this movie under the circumstances. “Tuff Turf” is a shallow mess.