Smith's Verdict

Smith’s Verdict: ***1/2

Reviewed by Tanner Smith

You know the setup, you saw the trailer, you’ve seen movies like this before: a seemingly mild person identifies himself/herself to an average family but soon becomes violently dangerous, resulting in a deadly battle between them. You think you might be able to guess where filmmaker-actor Joel Edgerton’s “The Gift” is going, right?

Wrong.

“The Gift” may seem like it’s going in that direction, but what you may have heard about it is certainly not the case. I’ll explain the setup before I get to what I mean by that:

Newlyweds Simon (Jason Bateman) and his wife, Robyn (Rebecca Hall), move to a nice new place in Southern California after Simon receives a new job nearby. Soon after they settle in, they meet an old friend of Simon’s from high school: an oddball named Gordo (Joel Edgerton, who also wrote and directed the film). He wants to restart a friendship with Simon, though Simon says they were never close to begin with. But Gordo sends the couple gifts to win their friendship and even starts inserting himself in places where they don’t want him. Robyn doesn’t mind much, but Simon just wants him to go away. He lets Gordo know this in unkind terms, which results in Gordo reacting impulsively and unpredictably.

I didn’t see the film’s trailer, as most people have (and reacted negatively too, especially after actually seeing the movie), and so while I didn’t know what the trailer revealed, I did have some idea from other movies of this sort where this was going to go. Even though I was half-right, I was also…half-wrong (duh). The situation is familiar and recognizable, but when I thought I was getting one thing, I was pleasantly surprised to find myself getting another entirely. That has to do with the ways Edgerton tweaks with the story and makes it more of a story about how whatever wrong you’ve done in the past followed by the insistence not to own up to it and confess eventually will come up and ruin your life. I won’t give away how “The Gift” gets that across (and wonderfully so, I might add), but let’s just say that karma will come and get you when you least expect it.

The filmmaking involved is also impressive, with very carefully constructed execution by Edgerton. Edgerton proves himself worthy as a filmmaker and also turns in a performance that is also creepy and chilling but also strangely sympathetic when you learn more about his character. That’s all I’ll say about him.

Rebecca Hall is suitably vulnerable as a woman who doesn’t know as much about her husband’s past as she thinks she does. And speaking of her husband, Jason Bateman is perfectly cast as a person who can seem charming and likable but also slimy and apathetic, showing he has some things to hide…

The themes of “The Gift” are damage and karma. Secrets are kept from everybody, everyone is damaged in one way or another, and in some way, when the film builds to a haunting finale, the past will come back to haunt you for the rest of your life. “The Gift” works wonderfully as a dramatic thriller. I wish I could tell you more about exactly why it works, but I will leave it for you to discover its secrets for yourself, because it is worthy of checking out. It may even force you to think back to your own past and wonder if there are any secrets of your own that you should own up to…

Smith’s Verdict: ***1/2

Reviewed by Tanner Smith

For those who aren’t familiar with director Penelope Spheeris’ trilogy of “Decline of Western Civilization” films, I’ll give a little background. The first “Decline of Western Civilization” film was a documentary about the Los Angeles punk rock scene, featuring concert footage of punk bands and interviews with band members and their audiences, giving a glimpse into the subculture the music created. It filmed through 1979 and 1980 and released in 1981. The film became a cult hit, which led to Spheeris making a sequel, this one about the heavy metal scene of 1986-1988: “The Decline of Western Civilization Part II: The Metal Years.” (Nearly a decade later, a third chapter was made about the gutter punk lifestyle of homeless teenagers of L.A. ‘90s.)

“The Metal Years” uses the same approach as the previous film—a straightforward, constructive, unblinking view of a subcultural phenomenon. But there’s something different about this approach. While interview subjects in the first film could make wild comments at times, the amount of “out-there” these people bring to their interviews doesn’t merely make “The Metal Years’ an in-depth portrait; it also makes it a comedy, with randomly hilarious moments in which these “metalheads” seeking fame and fortune use their egos to unintentionally embarrass themselves on camera.

The reason for their directness may be because director Spheeris is definitely not afraid to ask these people the right questions. And when I say “the right questions,” I mean the questions we might be afraid to ask ourselves; the kind of questions that would seem “rude” to many other people. Whether it’s about groupies, over-ambition, addiction, ethics, economics, or whatever, Spheeris asks these direct questions to get the honest answers she seeks, and she has apparently earned enough trust from her subjects to receive them. Among the questions are: “What do you think parents think about you?” “Are you in it for the chicks?” “What if you don’t make it as a rock star?” “Where do you see yourself in 10 years?”

Among Spheeris’ interview subjects are famous musicians such as Aerosmith, Ozzy Osbourne, Alice Cooper, Dave Mustaine and Paul Stanley, but her initial focus is on unknown bands (some of whom are still unknown today, unsurprisingly), including London, Odin, Seduce, among others; the film has them talk about their desperate quests to stardom and how confident they are that they’ll each make it as a rock star. Many of the answers they give to Spheeris’ blatant questions are fun to listen to just because of how egotistical they are.

It’s nice to get different views on the lifestyle, from those who want to go through certain elements of the lifestyle to those who already have. Among the latter is the somewhat voice of sanity in the form of Ozzy Osbourne, who is seen here as rehabilitated and talking about success while making breakfast in his comfortable home. And there are also those who seemingly haven’t learned much from experience, as Steven Tyler of Aerosmith boasts about his musical and sexual flairs. (By the way, as funny as the movie is, it’s funnier for music buffs looking at this movie from 1988, knowing what they know in 2016.) And then there’s the former, who just desire to be famous, even if it means, according to one subject, “going down in history like Jim Morrison.” They don’t even like to get real jobs because they’re so convinced they’ll be famous sometime soon—they’re that convinced it’s inevitable.

The film is a cult-classic also for its scenes that show rock star excess. There’s a sequence including middle-aged club owner Bill Gazzarri, whose “sexy rock n’ roll dance contest” is now called sleazy and sexist; some of the subjects talk about how women, especially groupies, are portrayed unfairly in the metal scene; Aerosmith talks about spending millions of dollars on drugs; and so on. The most haunting interview occurs late in the film, with Chris Holmes of W.A.S.P., who inadvertently presents the other (darker) side of partying. He’s interviewed in a swimming pool, with his mother sitting in a lawn chair nearby. He slurs and stumbles throughout the interview as he was heavily drunk, admits to being a “full-blown alcoholic,” pours a bottle of vodka over himself, all while his mother watches with discomfort. It’s the most striking sequence in the film.

The film may be dubbed “Part II,” but it can easily be seen on its own. And even if you don’t care about heavy metal of the mid-to-late-‘80s, there’s sure to be something in this documentary that will entertain people today. And when you’re not laughing at these unusual behaviors and straightforward comments, you may also learn some illuminating, interesting information about the pursuit of fame and fortune, which is still relevant in our lives today.

Smith’s Verdict: ***1/2

Reviewed by Tanner Smith

When it came to musical biopics released in 2015, many people may have forgotten about the Beach Boys movie, “Love & Mercy,” one of my favorites of the year; but who could forget the N.W.A. flick, “Straight Outta Compton,” which was a monster hit. Ironically, while “Love & Mercy” was more grounded and low-key, “Straight Outta Compton” is surprisingly conventional as well as energetic. It contains certain music biopic tropes—naysayers, uncertainty of something new and different, downfalls, tragedy, betrayals, etc. We’ve seen all that before. But the film’s electrifying energy is the key to its success—hell, if a film about N.W.A. wasn’t energetic, it’d probably be a major disappointment to nostalgic N.W.A. fans. The point I’m getting at early in this review is that it doesn’t matter how “conventional” a movie of this sort is, much like it doesn’t matter where certain ideas may come from for any movie—it’s what’s done with the material that really matter.

I enjoyed “Straight Outta Compton.” It’s an enthralling, powerful, powerfully acted film about a risk-taking, game-changing rap group, even if the film itself isn’t game-changing (for that matter, it may not be all that risk-taking either, since some original members of N.W.A. were consultants for the film and most likely didn’t want certain things from their life to be portrayed on screen). But I don’t mind so much.

The film takes place from the mid-1980s to the mid-1990s. It begins in Los Angeles in 1986, when Eazy-E (Jason Mitchell) was selling weed, Dr. Dre (Corey Hawkins) moved out of his mother’s house, and Ice Cube (O’Shea Jackson, Jr.) was writing rap lyrics based on everyday things he noticed around him. This is a time when young black men were stopped, frisked, and even beaten by police even when they were just standing on the streets. (Hell, what am I talking about? We still live in that time today!) The anger that came from these kids’ experiences crossed with their dreams of making it big with rap led to “reality rap,” for which they form the group N.W.A. (if you don’t know what that stands for, this isn’t the movie for you) and create angry music based on what they go through day after day. They tell it like it is and become very successful, which in turn makes other people worried that they endorse violence and anti-authority behavior. And of course, the irony becomes clearer when they’re warned not to perform their most angry piece, “F*ck the Police,” at a concert guarded by police; of course, they do and the police start shooting, ending the concert—tell me who’s being violent here?

The first half of “Straight Outta Compton” is by far the best part, showing the creative process of getting this craft done, feeling the intensity of the energetic live performances, and more importantly, letting us feel the anger that they feel, especially when they’re attacked by police. It keeps its riveting edge as the group’s manager, Jerry Heller (Paul Giamatti), manipulates Eazy-E into making him think he’s bigger than everyone else, which then leads to Ice Cube leaving the group to go solo, which then leads to him becoming a hit, which then leads to a nasty war between labels, which then leads to Dre forming Death Row Records with the violent, hulking Suge Knight (R. Marcos Taylor, quietly chilling in the role), and other events that lead to the end of N.W.A. The film gets less energetic as it goes along and its tone grows suitably more grim (especially when it comes to a tragedy late in the film), and while that’s not necessarily “fun” to watch, it is still captivating, well-acted, and intriguing for those who don’t know how N.W.A. went through the downward spiral. I can’t complain that much about it, except for the argument that it suffers from a few pacing issues as a result; I feel like it stalls at certain parts, particularly at the melodramatic material.

The casting is pitch-perfect all around. In particular, Jason Mitchell is abrasive and charismatic as Eazy-E, Corey Hawkins is immensely appealing as Dr. Dre, Paul Giamatti is smooth as a slick album producer who manipulates Eazy-E to betray certain people in the group, and then there’s O’Shea Jackson, Jr. as Ice Cube—damn is he good! This is a truly remarkable performance, bringing Ice Cube’s look and feel to authentic levels. Oh, and did I mention he’s actually Ice Cube’s son? And it’s not just an imitation either, which is more than a plus. Also solid are Aldis Hodge as MC Ren and Neil Brown Jr. as DJ Yella, and I was also impressed by Keith Stanfield (who I remembered from “Short Term 12”) in a brief cameo appearance as Snoop Dogg; I wish he had more screen time.

I mentioned in an above paragraph that the film isn’t entirely “risk-taking.” For one thing, it doesn’t mention Dr. Dre’s violence toward women, which is well-known to quite a lot of people. I get that the writers, Jonathan Herman and Andrea Berloff, chose to keep some things out for the actual band members’ sake, but it’s not like the film portrays them as role models anyway (it does show them as misogynistic at times, even throwing in a “Bye Felicia” joke midway through), so it’s not like they have that much to lose.

“Straight Outta Compton” does work surprisingly well as commentary…unfortunately a little too well. Think about what Ice Cube was rapping about almost 30 years ago and what’s going on in the news even to this day. But “Straight Outta Compton” is still an entertaining film for the power of the material, the live performances which are entertaining, the acting which is spot-on, and the screenplay which is very well-written. I mentioned in my “Love & Mercy” review that I wouldn’t be able to listen to a Beach Boys song the same way again; I feel the same way about N.W.A. songs after seeing this film.

Smith’s Verdict: ***1/2

Reviewed by Tanner Smith

This is a photo taken at an early costume fitting session for which Nicolas Cage was trying on a new Superman suit, because he was going to play the Man of Steel in a Superman project in the late 1990s, titled “Superman Lives,” to be directed by Tim Burton. In this photo, Cage’s eyes are barely open, his long hair looks ridiculous, and the costume looks sillier than the other Superman-suit renditions. People all over the Internet look at this photo and scoff, laugh, groan, or all of the above. Director Bryan Singer, who helmed 2006’s “Superman Returns,” apparently even showed the picture to his crew members, reminding them of how much worse their movie could be.

Now, take a look at THIS photo…

Now, that’s Superman—albeit a somewhat different version, but you can still see how a new, improved Superman could look rather awesome. This is the photo most people seem to ignore.

“Superman Lives” was called off just three weeks before production, and people nowadays wonder what would have happened if it were made. Would it have been a welcome new addition to the Superman franchise or would it have been as memorably bad as late-‘90s comic-book movies such as “Batman & Robin”? We’ll never know. But with this documentary, “The Death of ‘Superman Lives’: What Happened?” we now have a good idea about the kind of movie it could’ve been.

Writer-director Jon Schnepp, of Collider Movie Talk on collider.com, was apparently as intrigued about the doomed project’s backstory as everyone else, which would explain why he delves into so deeply, with insights into Hollywood insider power and comic book geek behavior, as well as engaging in-depth interviews with Tim Burton, screenwriter Kevin Smith, producer Jon Peters, former Warner Bros. executive Lorenzo di Bonaventure, among others. (Cage unfortunately wasn’t interviewed, but don’t worry—there are wonderful pieces of archival footage of him mentioning the film in talk-show interviews and even footage of him trying on the costume.)

One of the more fascinating interviewees is Peters, who started out in Hollywood as a hairdresser and then went on to become a successful producer/studio executive. He’s very open about certain topics of discussion and speaks candidly with Schnepp about the process of the film’s pre-production. And it turns out the others have things to say about him too, particularly those who have fought him on numerous things. For example, Smith, who was the first person called upon to write the film, mentions three particularly strange demands Peters had for him—1) Superman should never fly, 2) Superman shouldn’t wear the silly costume, and 3) Superman should fight a giant spider. (These are allegations that Peters denies.)

Maybe Nicolas Cage could have pulled off the role of Superman. We know him today as a crazy actor who will take just about any role thrown at him, but what we forget is that he can be a damn good actor (and “Superman Lives” was being planned at the height of his career, having come off an Oscar win for “Leaving Las Vegas”). He’s not the first choice people think of in the role of Superman, but then again, neither was Michael Keaton for the role of Batman, which the documentary reminds us of. One of the common things mentioned in this film is the mixture of fear and ignorance when news is delivered to comic book geeks and how they will react when an actor they don’t favor is considered for a Hollywood adaptation of their favorite artworks.

“The Death of ‘Superman Lives’: What Happened?” is an engaging documentary to learn from about the planning of a notorious failed project, to listen to these infamous artists talk about it, and even to discover some notions about odd behavior presumably brought upon by Hollywood. (Watch the movie and you’ll see what I mean, the more you learn about Peters.) The inside material is fascinating, the interviewees pleasing, and the overall story intriguing.

Smith’s Verdict: ***1/2

Reviewed by Tanner Smith

Michael Moore once said in an interview that his agenda with making his documentary films that expose big-time corporations and those associated with them is not unlike the scene in “The Wizard of Oz” in which the Wizard is exposed for being a frail man pulling strings. You know the scene—the one in which the mangy dog, Toto, pulled a curtain to reveal that the terrifying entity before our heroes was nothing more than one man putting on a big show. In a way, Moore is Toto, regular American citizens are Dorothy and her friends, and the corporations, politicians, etc. are nothing more than people pulling strings to inspire fear and power.

Whether you like him for making valid points and satirizing material while criticizing them at the same time or hate him for his fudging of the facts, speaking a little out of turn and very directly (remember his controversial Oscar acceptance speech?), or even his snarky personality, it’s hard to deny he’s a daring performance artist, putting himself in the story and showing us what he sees. Some of the ways he handles the material in his movies don’t work for me and I think he tries a little too hard getting his points across, but I can’t hate on the man for making entertaining films while at the same time delivering his points of view. I think “Bowling for Columbine” is a fascinating documentary and “Roger & Me,” the subject of this review, was a great way to get his name across to the general public.

“Roger & Me” was Moore’s debut feature, released in 1989. He originally funded the film by selling his house and hosting weekly bingo nights—anything to make a film about the hardships within Flint, Michigan. Moore was a native of Flint, the birthplace of General Motors. When GM closed many plants, laying off thousands of workers, the muckraking reporter Moore made this film as a response. But if you know Moore’s reputation today, you wouldn’t be surprised to find that this isn’t a bleak documentary about hardships. It’s not only cross and has a point to make—it’s also funny.

Moore narrates the story with his droll sarcasm and stars in the film himself, as he tries repeatedly to get an interview with Roger Smith, the chairman of GM. Every now and then, we’re treated with a sequence in which he thinks he’s going to walk into a building and meet Roger until he is immediately escorted out by security. Before he would even get a chance to get even closer than one floor toward Roger, he speaks with a spokesman from GM. When asked about the layoffs, the spokesman says they’re “necessary.” (Spoiler alert—he gets laid off by the end of the movie. Now there’s an up-yours I’m sure Moore was happy about.)

Moore goes everywhere in Flint. He encounters people with their own businesses (including a woman who chooses color coordinates for people and a woman selling rabbits for “pets or meat”), he meets several former GM workers now working at Taco Bell (some of whom are losing that job too), he looks into a poor attempt to turn the town into a tourist attraction, he goes to wealthy events, he visits an Amway party, he meets celebrities (including Pat Boone and Ronald Reagan) who try to cheer up locals, and he meets the most notable side character in the movie, a deputy sheriff who evicts several unemployed auto workers who couldn’t make their payments. And that’s only half of the material Moore works with in this movie, if you can believe it.

What is Moore trying to say with “Roger & Me?” He’s trying to put across the message that to big corporations, profits are more important than human lives, and something needs to change. This film is his angry way of showing that the best way he can to the public—actually addressing the problem.

Moore’s methods of telling the story of “Roger & Me” have been questionable (there was even a very unkind article from Film Comment about them). Some say it’s too good to be true (which I suppose is the criticism of most documentaries). Apparently, the amusement park was built before the closings and not in response to them; there were less layoffs than the film suggests; Roger Smith wasn’t reading “A Christmas Carol” at the same time of a crucial point; and so forth. Well…so what? Maybe the film was a little manipulative, took some cheap shots, and fudged some of the facts, but A) we all know that, B) Moore knows that, and C) the purpose is both entertain and enrage us. (Besides, anyone could figure out the “Christmas Carol” thing was a setup, just as much as we figure out Moore had staged beforehand his attempts to meet Smith. It would be too good to be true.) I still really like the film. I admire it for its balance of humor and pathos and the way Moore’s cynicism and skillful timing blends everything together. So what if Moore took some liberties? Not every documentary can be objective and even entirely factual. The film as a whole is emotionally true.

Smith’s Verdict: ***1/2

Reviewed by Tanner Smith

So the housing bubble of the 2000s grew so big that it eventually (and inevitably) exploded in a major way. That would be funny if it wasn’t true. But as impossible it may seem, it really happened, leading to the 2008 global financial crisis. It was chronicled in Michael Lewis’ nonfiction book, “The Big Short,” which was written with the intention of making readers really want to know more about financing—credit-default swaps, collateral debt obligations, etc. I imagine it’d be a difficult challenge to put that same intention into a film adaptation, but not only is Adam McKay’s 2015 film of the same name informative about the situation(s) at hand; it’s also surprisingly funny and entertaining.

Many are surprised that Adam McKay, whose previous films include such dopey mainstream comedies as “Anchorman” and “Talladega Nights,” was able to handle this kind of material well. It wasn’t much of a surprise to me, because whether you like these movies or not, it’s difficult to deny that underneath all the goofiness is sheer craftsmanship and social commentary. For “The Big Short,” the comedic aspects are more in the “snarky” category than the “goofy” category (because most Wall Street people are jackasses, by popular opinion)—the serious, heavier material is still treated sincerely and the comedic edge eases it up and gives the film greater significance, causing it to stand out further. This also gave McKay an opportunity to stretch himself further as a talented filmmaker (which he’s already proven with the well-executed racetrack sequences in “Talladega Nights”); an opportunity he relishes in. He pulls out all the tricks to make this film stand out. He shoots it like a documentary; some shots are intentionally bad, to make the acting and writing stand out in a natural way. Characters often break the fourth wall to let us know what they’re thinking. And there are random show-stoppers, used for informative effect. For example, when the audience might be confused about mortgage-backed securities, suddenly, there’s Margot Robbie in a bubble bath to explain everything! (Though, I doubt most men in the audience are paying attention to what she’s saying, if you know what I mean.)

(Other celebrity appearances include celebrity chef Anthony Bordain using a fish stew equivalence and Selena Gomez playing poker with a doctor.)

The film focuses on five of the characters picked from the original source material. Michael Burry (Christian Bale) is a socially awkward genius with a glass eye and a tendency to work while barefoot and listening to rock music. He’s the first one to notice warning signs of the way Wall Street is overvaluing mortgage-backed bonds, three years before the crash, but no one will listen to him. However, he does see this as an investment opportunity by betting that the housing market will fall. Jackass investor Jared Vennett (Ryan Gosling) decides to do the same and runs it by Mark Baum (Steve Carell), a cynical broker, who reluctantly agrees. While all that’s going on, there are also a couple of amateur traders, Charlie Geller (John Magaro) and Jamie Shipley (Finn Wittrock), who are at the right place at the right time and take the opportunity as well. They get help from ex-broker Ben Rickert (Brad Pitt), who decides to guide them through the madness they’re in for. How often do you see a film in which the heroes are betting over a billion dollars against the American economy, especially since if they’re right, it means very bad times for millions of people who are already in danger of losing their homes? What a tricky subject to focus on. Good thing it works.

And it’s funny. The breaking of the fourth wall leads to fulfilled comedic possibilities, the celebrity cameos are hilarious, the dialogue is sharp and witty, and the humor comes from just how smarmy these people can become. Comedy can help elevate a story like this, which can otherwise be an uninteresting drama or a passable thriller, but what also helps is accuracy, which as far as I can tell (being someone mostly ignorant of financing), it definitely has a large amount of. With sharp filmmaking, great acting (what else do you expect from Christian Bale?), a detailed script, effective hilarity, and a unique amount of precision, who would’ve thought a film about the 2008 global financial crisis would be this deep-cutting and this amusing both at the same time?

Smith’s Verdict: ***1/2

Reviewed by Tanner Smith

Following my review of “While We’re Young,” this is yet another 2015 film from Noah Baumbach that left a weird impression on me—from confusion to praise in a matter of time. Baumbach usually writes his characters as ignorant, self-praising, gullible, and disagreeable. That, plus his biting dialogue, can throw moviegoers off, but when they, like me, can get past that in order to see the characters for who they are and what exactly Baumbach is saying with his direction, there is something fascinatingly insightful about much of his films. (And it also helps that he’s lightened up a little since 2010’s “Greenberg,” probably thanks to his collaboration with co-writer/actress Greta Gerwig.) That’s how I came to enjoy “While We’re Young” and that’s how I came to enjoy “Mistress America.”

If “While We’re Young” was Baumbach’s “Woody Allen film,” then “Mistress America” is both his screwball comedy and his “John Hughes film,” complete with lots of sharp dialogue, revelations about characters, intriguing but unusual detail, and even some unnecessary comic relief and a hollow tempo score.

The main character is a college freshman named Tracy (well-played by Elizabeth Olsen lookalike Lola Kirke), who has trouble fitting in at Columbia University. She feels overwhelmed by the college experience, doesn’t have anyone to talk to or connect with, and isn’t sure of exactly what she wants. She has some idea when she signs up for a campus literary magazine and writes a short story for it, but she’s not so sure she’ll get in. She meets a nice intellectual boy (Matthew Shear), but he gets a girlfriend (Jasmine Cephas Jones) soon enough. Then she meets Brooke, who is the daughter of the man Tracy’s mother is going to marry…

Greta Gerwig co-wrote the screenplay with Baumbach after working together on “Frances Ha” and stars as Brooke, a 30-year-old New Yorker who has many ambitions…and will not shut up about them. She talks and talks and talks. She rarely listens to people even when they have something important to say because she’s too busy listening to herself. She wants to be influential and prominent and successful, like most young people aspiring for something great. But also like most young people, she has no clear (or at least realistic) plan to achieve her goals (and for that matter, it’s unclear if she truly has any particular talents anyway). She and Tracy meet due to Tracy’s mother’s insistence and belief that they’ll form a mentor/student relationship. Is she wrong or is she right?

The first few minutes of “Mistress America,” which show Tracy attempting to adjust at college life, are pitch-perfect, showing Baumbach is practically a master at satire, dialogue, and observation. You get the gist of Tracy’s plight by the time the opening credits are done; how often does that happen? It’s funny, observant, and even allows for empathy. As Baumbach showed with “While We’re Young,” his attention to detail is astounding, right down to the cracked screen on Tracy’s cellphone. Then along comes Brooke and the film turns into a madcap comedy, with lots of witty lines, odd attitudinal swings, and eccentricity. Yet the film still keeps a proper amount of authenticity that keeps it intriguing and strangely true.

I can understand why people would be turned off by the character of Brooke. She is constantly babbling about what may or may not happen if/when her dreams come true, and some of her eccentricities (like making up words for herself) are off-putting. A few minutes into getting to know her and you’ll find out pretty quickly whether or not you want to spend another hour with her. (The film itself is pretty short, clocking in at barely an hour and 24 minutes.) As for me, I didn’t have much trouble with her or the way Gerwig portrayed her, but I can see why some critics who panned this film did.

But what’s more interesting is the story with Tracy. She’s the “straight man” to Brooke’s “life force,” but this doesn’t turn out to be as predictable as I expected. There’s a parallel story in which Tracy is taking notes on Brooke’s speech and behavior in order to craft a short story about her (without her knowing it). She believes this story will give herself attention, as she would like to write realistic fiction. What she doesn’t realize is what she knows about Brooke is what she knows from spending only one night with her, and this can be seen as cruelty, especially since it would make Brooke uncomfortable if she reads the final draft. Tracy may know what we have figured out about Brooke, but she has even more to discover about her and about herself as well.

I can’t say the film is entirely realistic. Much of the dialogue can be very stagey, especially when the film takes us to a trip to a house in Connecticut where Brooke hopes to guilt a couple from her past into providing her with funds for a restaurant she’s planning. This whole sequence demonstrates what’s good about the film and what may be flying too close to the sun. (John Hughes, who I referenced in the first paragraph, was guilty of similar problems in his films too.) But there’s enough good in it that it doesn’t damage the film, even with the annoying characters of the deluded boy and his overly jealous girlfriend (who’s so pretentious that even Brooke tells her to stop sounding like an adult) and certain lines of dialogue that I don’t think would be said in real life.

I found “Mistress America” to be a very funny, observant film that shows a definite growth and relaxation in Baumbach’s work, compared to his scathing observations in films such as “Margot at the Wedding” and “Greenberg.” I’m excited to see what he comes up with next.

Smith’s Verdict: ***1/2

Reviewed by Tanner Smith

I do not know what to make of this film. The first time I saw it, I didn’t know what to make of it but I felt I liked it. The second time, I noticed a couple more little things and liked it less. The third time, I noticed even more I didn’t catch the first two times and I find myself grudgingly giving the film a positive review because…I think Noah Baumbach’s “While We’re Young” is both ingenious and infuriating.

Ben Stiller and Naomi Watts star as a middle-aged husband and wife living in New York. They admit they’re fine living the life of marriage without children and doing things their own way, unlike their friends (a couple played by Maria Dizzia and Adam Horovitz) who have become boring since they started raising their child. Right away, this is an interesting idea that opens a door for character development; but then again, they’re so vocal about their situations that it feels like they’re complaining too much about something they chose for themselves and other things they claim to be focusing on but aren’t putting enough focus into. The couple meets a younger couple, in their mid-20s, played by Adam Driver and Amanda Seyfried. They’re lively, opinionated, ambitious and definitely hipsters (though the word “hipster” is never spoken once, unless I missed it). Both couples form an unlikely friendship, and it’s here that Baumbach shows an interesting contrast between generations. The older couple has a lust for life but also many awkward moments, and the younger couple is into so many retro things (they collect records, VHS tapes, board games, etc.) that make the older couple feel even older than they are. There’s so much detail put into this contrast and it’s hard to fault Baumbach for accuracy; I wouldn’t doubt the New York hipster culture is like this.

Perhaps the biggest difference between generations is that today’s (in shape of the younger couple) seems to expect to have everything they want handed to them without having to work so hard to get it all. They’re actively nostalgic but perhaps lazily content with life. Stiller’s character, on the other hand, has worked so hard to get where he wants to be. He’s a documentary filmmaker who has spent years on a project that he’s sure will be a milestone in capturing “life.” (The problem there is that it’s overlong and kind of boring; even he admits that.) His wife, played by Watts, is a producer whose father (Charles Grodin) is a pioneer of the genre whom Stiller aspires to be like. Then Driver’s character, also a documentary filmmaker working on an ambitious project, has this idea for his film that will mostly go places and jump-start his career, even with help from Grodin’s character. And Stiller becomes resentful that this kid is having the success that eluded him.

Maybe that’s what kept throwing me off the first couple times I saw this film. There’s too much to keep track of, whether it’s montage or production design or character or truth. It’s overstuffed… But then again, at the same time, it’s hard to criticize the film for that, especially when you see how much Baumbach was clearly paying attention to everything around him in his own life so he could properly portray it on film. He is trying his hardest to make everything work and most of it does work. In fact, this is why I had to see the film again: to catch something I didn’t catch before. And I’ll be honest—the second time I saw the film, I thought to myself, “Oh…*that’s* what he was going for,” as if he were making a smug commentary on something in particular. Then I really thought about it and realized maybe it wasn’t so smug as much as it was observant. I do recognize this behavior around me and at age 23, who am I to judge what a 45-year-old man sees, since the film is mostly told from the perspective of a 45-year-old man (the Stiller character), when even I don’t know much about everything I see in my own generation?

And this is why I give “While We’re Young” a positive review (maybe not so “begrudging” as I thought)—it kept me thinking. Why am I not giving it a higher rating than three stars then, you may wonder? Well…because of the last act. The last act tries to juggle ethical dilemmas and reveal the nature of “truth” in art and in life, as Stiller tries to use his newfound discoveries about himself and his friends (old and new) to prove his points in a climax. He desperately wants to prove to everybody that he’s right about Driver on numerous levels. Not that some of what he says are true, but the more he tries to prove it, the more pathetic he becomes, especially when it’s considered the age difference between him and Driver.

But then I realize as I write this review…I think I get the irony here—that Stiller has dropped to a point so low that he’s actually making someone half his age a central figure in his universe. He’s supposed to come off as sort of pathetic and he still doesn’t know what he needs to know in life. He’s almost as if he won and even then he won’t give up.

I could criticize the film’s final act for being so broad, but even so, it has its own points to make and knew how to do it. So why the hell am I criticizing it?! I swear, this review sounded a lot better in my head, but actually typing it for this review is making me feel kind of pathetic. “While We’re Young” is a film that puzzles rather than satisfies. What is necessarily wrong with that? Many character studies (especially Woody Allen’s films of the 1970s) have provided commentary and humor by doing exactly what this film is. Baumbach is becoming a powerful voice in the modern-day independent-film scene and getting his points across in a non-commercial way that is sometimes welcome and other times pretentious. In this film’s case especially, the glass is either half-empty or half-full. Yes, I know this review is all over the place, and for me, writing about it helps me express my full opinion of the film. In the end, I can’t deny it—“While We’re Young” is a terrific film and one I’ll probably watch a few more times because I want to understand it more.

NOTE: The Smith’s Verdict rating was originally three stars. I immediately bumped it up to three-and-a-half after finishing this review.

Smith’s Verdict: ***1/2

Reviewed by Tanner Smith

SPOILER ALERT!

I have somewhat of an understanding of the behind-the-scenes world of independent filmmaking. I document behind-the-scenes video footage of short films being made, I acted in a small role in an Arkansas indie production (Juli Jackson’s “45 RPM”), and I make my own short films as well. There’s still a lot for me to learn if I’m going to be an accomplished filmmaker (though, being an accomplished film critic would be nice too). Maybe that’s why when a film about filmmaking catches my attention, my curiosity and fascination are provoked. There are parts that feel familiar to me, others that feel new to me, and the rest of the material mostly captivates me. Two of the best films I’ve seen show that are Tim Burton’s “Ed Wood” and Francois Truffaut’s “Day for Night.” Then there’s Tom DiCillo’s “Living in Oblivion,” one such film about filmmaking that actually feels the most familiar to me. In my book (or blog), that’s an accomplishment.

What’s even better (and what would bring in those who aren’t that familiar with the craft) is that it’s also a comedy. It’s wonderfully written—the dialogue rings true in a funny way and the situations ring similarly true in a Murphy’s Law sort of way. Anything that can go wrong on a movie set does go wrong one way or another and it’s funny seeing these characters, a film crew, react to them. It’s lively, clever, and flat-out funny.

The film divided in three parts, each one showing the shooting of a different scene for an independent film. Director Nick Reve (Steve Buscemi) is under stress trying to put together a film on a low budget and trying to get this scene complete. But the production is plagued by all sorts of problems—his leading actress, Nicole (Catherine Keener), is losing faith in herself and her acting career; his leading actor, hotshot Chad Palomino (James LeGros), has an ego too big for the production; his director of photography, Wolf (Dermot Mulroney), is suffering emotional problems; the technical crew is having problems with the new fog machine; actors can’t remember their lines; a pint-sized actor (Peter Dinklage) is angry at his role as a dwarf in a dream sequence; and more.

Good comedy is based on cause and effect; someone has to suffer and that’s where the laughs come from. “Living in Oblivion” has a great collection of funny moments in which this guy is trying his hardest to get these scenes off the ground and everything seems to be working against him, leading to further complications he has to keep getting out of. It’s a relatable conflict but also very funny.

They say “art imitates life.” In the case of this film (in addition to the film-within-the-film), it’s art imitating life imitating art imitating life by way of a perceptive, smart screenplay and even better (for me, anyway), instantly recognizable characters. I’ve come across at least some of these types of people on a film crew a few times before. Even if you don’t know about how the film world works, you can empathize with the issues being faced by people trying to get something done with their art. This goes to show that even with an independent feature film on a shoestring budget, there are as many problems to face as those you hear about in the makings of big-budget studio films.

But there’s a big problem I have with the film (and this is where spoilers come in) and it has to do with the segues into the next vignette (or “scene”). They’re dream sequences. A scene is shot, things go wrong, and a character wakes up from the experience, as it was all a dream. To me, this doesn’t work for three reasons. 1) It’s not clever when it happens repeatedly and it’s groan-inducing when you see that reveal, 2) these dreams are so damn precise and surprisingly accurate, considering the different people having these dreams, and 3) it’s not clear whether or not these scenes were even part of the film-within-the-film, so it left me confused. To me, it just came across a pretentious way to be “artful.”

Even with that distraction, I greatly enjoyed “Living in Oblivion.” It made me laugh with joy and it made me smile with recognition. I wanted more of this film actually! When it ended, I couldn’t believe it was really over. I wanted more of these characters and another scene for them to shoot together. That’s the power of this wonderful film about filmmaking.