Smith's Verdict

Smith’s Verdict: ***1/2

Reviewed by Tanner Smith

When people think of the title “Saturday Night Fever,” they mostly think of the lighthearted moments that involve John Travolta dancing on a disco floor, as well as the soundtrack, which includes many memorable songs performed by the Bee Gees. And that’s how I thought of it, having heard the soundtrack before actually watching the film. In fact, there were even a few times when I labeled it as “the disco movie.”

And boy, was I way off. “Saturday Night Fever” may have its entertaining, cheerful moments on the dance floor, but the film as a whole is a hard-edged, gritty drama about a guy trying to get by in life while hanging on to what he has left to lose. And its main character is not a wholesome, happy-go-lucky leading man, as for the most part, he’s sexist, racist, and vulgar. But he lives for Saturday night and lets out his anger brought on by life on the dance floor at a disco. He has a charisma that can either be admired or laughed at. And maybe he can change and grow out of his habits and lifestyle.

John Travolta stars in a brilliant performance as 19-year-old Brooklyn local Tony Manero, a macho guy who cares for looking good, getting laid, and being the best dancer. His personality gives his less-ambitious friends the illusion that he has everything covered. But his life is as screwed up as everyone else’s. He lives with a family that worships his older brother, who is a priest (his mother even makes the sign of the cross when she mentions his name). The father yells for no apparent reason and often snaps at Tony at the dinner table.

By the way, the funniest moment is when Tony’s dad hits him in the head and Tony reacts by shouting, “Watch the hair! I work on my hair a long time, and you hit it!”

But outside of his home, Tony is king of the dance floor at the 2001 Odyssey disco and worshipped by women, including a young, spunky floozy-wannabe named Annette (Donna Pescow) who desperately wants to make it with Tony. Tony doesn’t care for her in the slightest, but dances with her because she’s a good dancer.

Tony has a certain way of looking at women—they are either nice girls or they’re tramps. He does know that he doesn’t want to have sex with Annette because he wouldn’t respect her anymore, but he himself isn’t entirely fond of his own belief, especially when he sets his sights on a Brooklyn girl, Stephanie (Karen Gorney), and decides he wants her. But first he wants to get to know her first and for her to know him before bringing up snappy judgments—and she does, as she describes him to his face as a “cliché” who is going nowhere, while she has made it as a secretary in Manhattan. She only comes to Brooklyn to dance, and with the $500 dance contest approaching, Tony and Stephanie team up to enter it.

Let’s talk about the themes of “Saturday Night Fever.” There are two in particular. One is relating to women not just in a sexual way. Tony doesn’t see most women as people and more like objects he and his friends can put in the back seat of their car and perform sexual deeds with. But with his new, complicated relationship with Stephanie, he can learn to respect women and acknowledge them more than his friends can or will. For example, on their first date, he tries to act more mature than he is, and Stephanie sees right through it, causing Tony to subtly realize that women aren’t as dumb as he would like to think they are. Another important theme is the dream of young people escaping the same old routine of working and “being nowhere, going no place” and reaching their version of the towers of Manhattan. There’s a scene in which Tony sits with Stephanie on a bench in a park, where they can see one of the bridges that lead out of Brooklyn. He tells her about it, and you can sense that his dream is to just leave his Brooklyn life behind and start anew in Manhattan. This is after Stephanie put him down about being a “cliché” doing the same stuff over and over again with his friends and blowing off steam on the dance floor, and you get the sense that the desire is becoming more evident to him.

Everything pays off in the end in which Tony does grow up, leave his worthless buddies (whose macho deeds accidentally gets one of them killed), and he does cross that bridge into Manhattan, where he will start a new life with an enlightened view of the world around him and the women in his life.

These themes are very well-handled and make the film much more deeper than you’d expect, as you can interpret your own analyses toward most of the little events, such as Stephanie’s reasoning, Tony’s reasons for dancing, or the visit of Tony’s priest brother who is thinking of quitting priesthood, etc.

And then there’s the dancing. Disco may be dated, and most cynics who haven’t even seen this film can argue that that’s the reason for not watching it. But the themes are far from dated, and dancing here is not what the film is about at all. Dancing is only here as a way for Tony to escape his regular life, even if it is for just a little while each week. It’s a subtle fundamental point that people can miss if they don’t watch this film all the way through. And at times, I can imagine why it would be tough to sit through this, because Tony and his friends really are profane and vulgar to themselves and to others, including women and minorities. But really, this film doesn’t necessarily glamorize their attitudes; if anything, it criticizes them. But I digress. The dancing in “Saturday Night Fever” is energetic and the soundtrack, especially the songs by the Bee Gees (“Staying Alive,” “Night Fever,” “You Should Be Dancing,” and so on), is fabulous.

Actually, I just realized how perfect the song “Staying Alive” is for this movie. Especially that lyric that goes “I’m going nowhere / Somebody help me / Somebody help me yeah”—I didn’t realize until now how much meaning it has.

John Travolta takes center stage in “Saturday Night Fever” and his performance is nothing short of brilliant. His character can be rough around the edges at times, but the more you get to know him, the more you realize how much he needs to leave Brooklyn. And he’s very charismatic, particularly in the little moments that give him joy, such as when his boss at the paint store gives him a $2.50 raise. He’s so happy about it that his annoyed boss actually doubles it! His happiness is so real you can reach out and touch him. And Travolta is also a terrific dancer. There’s one extended moment midway through in which he has a solo dance in the middle of the floor, and it’s the most energetic dance sequence in the movie. Travolta is wonderful here. And “Saturday Night Fever” is a very well-done film that has more than meets the eye.

Smith’s Verdict: ***1/2

Reviewed by Tanner Smith

There have been many stories in categories of science-fiction, action, drama, or all of the above that a similar element—the future sucks. There’s usually a dystopian society that runs under more strict, controlling, even violent procedures, and there’s usually a main character, or main characters, that have figured out the answer and use it to bring down this society that has turned the future into a hellhole. We’ve seen it all before. And it’s also used in quite a few young-adult novels, so it’s becoming more and more popular with each generation.

But “The Hunger Games,” Susanne Collins’ book series, finds many twists and turns with the sort of “dystopian future” tale that can either compel or bore audiences. In this case, Collins found a way to appeal to beyond the books’ supposed target demographic by giving her stories original ways to bend around the familiarities and give us some effective political and social commentary as well.

And it helps that with each book in this series of three stories, the themes deepen, the commentary is more active, the emotional conflict is more compelling, and you have something special with this series. That’s essentially a way to describe the film adaptation of the second book, “Catching Fire.”

“The Hunger Games: Catching Fire” picks up about a year after the original “Hunger Games” left off, as Katniss Everdeen (Jennifer Lawrence) and Peeta Mellark (Josh Hutcherson) prepare to go on a victory tour after winning the Hunger Games, which if you recall required them to be the last two of 24 young people to survive. But just because they won doesn’t mean there aren’t any ramifications for their futures. For one thing, they haven’t left the arena without any deep emotional scars that can come from killing in order to survive (and win). Katniss in particular has trouble coping and even functioning half the time. And also, President Snow (Donald Sutherland) is angry and wants Katniss dead. Why? Because Katniss’ actions in the Hunger Games, including her idea of both her and Peeta winning, has made her into a symbol of hope and rebellion. Some of the 12 districts have begun to rise against the system, bringing it to a halt. In order to maintain his power and put an end to revolt, Snow believes Katniss should die.

As Katniss and Peeta embark on their tour and witness the rebellion of these districts, Snow is even more angry and decides to bring their district to the ground slowly but surely. Armed forces come in (dressed as…Stormtroopers?) and attack the villagers, including Katniss’ best male friend, Gale (Liam Hemsworth). Worse yet, in order to ensure her doom, Snow arranges for a new game in which Hunger Game victors are forced to face each other. Katniss and Peeta end up in an arena yet again to fight for their lives, and for their freedom. This time, Katniss and Peeta have allies, such as athletic Finnick (Sam Claflin), angry rebel Johanna (Jena Malone), and intelligent Beetee (Jeffrey Wright).

The final hour of this two-hour-25-minute film occurs in the dome in which the game takes place. But these games are rather different from the original story in two ways. One is, there’s a lot more at stake than Katniss’ own life. She has to question the loyalty of her allies, before they may or may not become each other’s enemies later; she has to question what awaits her and her loved ones if she does survive; she has to wonder if she will put her life down to save those closest to her, such as Peeta. What will come out of this if either Katniss or Peeta live? Will it further raise the rebellion? If so, what will come from it?

And unfortunately, for those who haven’t read the books, those answers won’t be revealed until the last two films in the film series, each based on the third book “Mockingjay.” The film ends with a cliffhanger that may anger some, but keep most anxious to see what’s going to happen on November 21, 2014.

The other reason these games are different, at least on an entertainment level rather than an emotional level, is the series of adventures that these characters come across. More obstacles chase after them, each more dangerous than the last. These sequences are very exciting and tense (even the scenes with the gigantic baboons are thrilling to watch)—even more so than the tricks in the original film. “The Hunger Games: Catching Fire” is a rousing action film in that sense.

It’s also an intriguing film to look at. The visual style of the film, from the poor districts to the Presidential palace, is consistently brilliant and fun to watch, with all sorts of colors and visual effects that really stand out.

And it works with its drama as well. The stress disorder that Katniss feels is legitimately effective, and it not only causes her to think about what she had to do to survive the Hunger Games, but also causes the audience to consider what they were watching as entertainment! You understand Katniss’ plight and you wish for the comeuppance of those who want to strike her down because she already has too much to deal with, including keeping her family and friends safe. Even the smaller elements work well, including (surprisingly) a love-triangle involving Katniss, Peeta, and Gale, who is also in love with Katniss and watches with disdain and Katniss and Peeta continue a charade of romance in order to keep their fans happy. (Hopefully, it stays that way in the next film.)

Once again, this “Hunger Games” film is graced with a top-notch cast. Jennifer Lawrence is excellent as Katniss; even more so than in the original film because of the emotional complexity she has to bring to her character. Josh Hutcherson is again likable as Peeta; Woody Harrelson is great, reprising his earlier role as the drunk but helpful Haymitch; Liam Hemsworth’s Gale has more screen time than before and has room for more development; and Donald Sutherland plays President Snow like a despicable villain we desperately want to see comeuppance brought onto. Of the new additions to the cast in this story, I’d say Jena Malone is the strongest (let’s face it—you would like to say what she says about her situation when she’s interviewed for TV), but let’s not rule out Phillip Seymour Hoffman, who is terrific in the role of the new gamemaker.

“The Hunger Games: Catching Fire” is a terrific film and I hope that this film-franchise continues strong so that the next two films can further deepen the elements that made it not only entertaining but also thought-provoking. As far as young-adult-novel film adaptations go, “The Hunger Games” is by far the strongest in a long time. I eagerly await the next entry.

Smith’s Verdict: ***1/2

Reviewed by Tanner Smith

The first time you see Hannibal “The Cannibal” Lecter in “The Silence of the Lambs” always brings a shiver up my spine every time I watch the film. FBI trainee Clarice Starling has been asked to go to the prison where Lecter is being held, has heard about his sick nature, and has been warned not to approach the glass that separates his cell from the world. With much buildup given to her (and to us, as an audience), Clarice walks through the basement cells toward the last one on the left. When she arrives, there he is, standing in place and looking at her as if he were expecting her.

Hannibal Lecter is a psychotic serial killer who had been known to eat the remains of his victims. He was also a respected psychiatrist until his capture and imprisonment, and so whenever people like Clarice comes into his world, he delights in using his intelligence to play with their minds. That makes him one of the most interesting, fascinating villains to be found in any thriller.

“The Silence of the Lambs,” based on the novel by Thomas Harris, opens with Clarice Starling (Jodie Foster), who is still in training at the FBI academy but is very bright and observant. Those characteristics and more convince the head of the FBI, Jack Crawford (Scott Glenn), to send her on a potentially dangerous mission—maybe not dangerous physically but possibly mentally. He wants her to visit the infamous Hannibal Lecter (Anthony Hopkins) and find out if he knows anything about a serial killer called Buffalo Bill, who skins his victims.

So, Clarice goes to the institution where he’s being held, and already, he’s enjoying himself by playing with her mind. He assumes immediately, and accurately, that she comes from a “white-trash” community and the FBI is her main escape. She responds by testing him, by seeing if he can use that same psychiatry on himself. His response is a line most often quoted from this movie:

“A census taker once tried to test me. I ate his liver with some fava beans and a nice Chianti.” This is of course followed by the infamous sifting through his teeth (which was actually improvised by Hopkins).

Lecter does agree to offer a profile on Buffalo Bill, in exchange for quid pro quo. Clarice must reveal some things about herself, even traumatic events from her past, and then he in return will deliver a new piece of information about the killer. And so, he is having Clarice search within herself and playing with her psyche as each visit to Lecter reveals more and more.

Clarice is as tough as she can be during each situation such as this, and sometimes she even manages to play a mind game with Lecter as well, but there are times when she can’t help but react with frightened awe at Lecter’s interpretations. And we can’t either. The scenes involving Clarice and Lecter together are brilliant. They’re written intelligently and acted beautifully. Jodie Foster is quiet but attentive and very strong as Clarice, making her an appealing heroine to follow. Probably the best thing about her character visiting this intelligent, twisted killer is that because she is forced to reveal things about herself to this man, the character becomes multidimensional with each time they see each other. You understand where she came from, you know what led her to where she is in life, and you do feel like you do know her. Therefore, when she is put in real danger at the end of the film, during her ultimate encounter with Buffalo Bill, you root for her to get out of it.

And then there’s Anthony Hopkins, who is hands-down the most memorable aspect of “The Silence of the Lambs.” His performance in this film is nothing short of brilliant. He makes the role his own, making Lecter as frightening as he is smart and gracious. He’s the epitome of evil personified. It’s the performance that practically defines an actor’s career, and Hopkins’ chilling portrayal of Hannibal Lecter is always going to be remembered.

“The Silence of the Lambs” continues with Clarice as she joins the FBI in the pursuit of Buffalo Bill and it intersects with the subplot of Buffalo Bill, whose real name is Jame Gumb (Ted Levine), who is definitely not as sophisticated (or as clever) as Lecter. He’s a transvestite who is so intrigued by women that he’s even gone as far as to making a suit made out of women’s skin. He has already taken five victims, and in this film, he is holding his latest victim captive for days until he will finally kill her off and remove her skin as well. And so, there’s a race against time for the FBI to discover who the killer is and where he is so they can save the woman. I won’t go into the truly sick hobbies that this guy likes to perform when he’s alone, but I will say that it’s beyond disturbing. Granted, the scenes with Buffalo Bill aren’t as brilliantly written as the exchanges between Clarice and Lecter, but then again, what can be? This is a more traditional sick killer type, and I thought the contrast between him and the sophisticated Lecter is kind of interesting because you know there are different types of personalities for serial killers.

“The Silence of the Lambs” builds up to a climax in which Clarice does eventually find out who the killer is, and actually finds herself trapped in his house, and there’s a truly frightening sequence in which she is wandering through a dark room with her gun in hand and trying to find a way out, all while Buffalo Bill is watching her with night-vision goggles. That is a truly unnerving, suspenseful sequence. But if there’s a flaw in this climax, for me anyway, it’s that there’s no psychology involved. We don’t know much about the past of Jame Gumb, so there’s really nothing to discover that would pay off. Wouldn’t it be interesting if Clarice used something from his past against him to save herself and bring him down?

Another problem I had with the film is the imposing music score that indicates danger, mainly because I thought it was a little too much. I could already tell there was danger coming because of that score, so there weren’t that many surprises there. (Though, to be fair, most of the surprises that the music brings with them, I didn’t see coming.)

Something else to be said about “The Silence of the Lambs” is that it’s very well-made. Directed by Jonathan Demme and photographed by Tak Fujimoto, this film has a great look and a creepy atmosphere, along with a consistently creepy tone that is apparent throughout. In keeping with the spirit of the novel it was based on, the film is something unusual: a thriller that relies more on essence and sensibility than cheap thrills and blood and gore. It’s well-crafted (especially in the scenes involving Lecter and Clarice, with neat visual tricks thrown in to raise the tension) and smart and very skillful.

Smith’s Verdict: ***1/2

Reviewed by Tanner Smith

“Have you heard about this videotape that kills you when you watch it?”

Yes, “The Ring” is about a VHS tape that brings certain death to those who view it. After you’ve been subjected to many disturbing images, the telephone rings. When you answer it, you’re told you have seven days to live.

There are many horror films in which so much disturbing, unnerving imagery has been subjected to us and when it’s over, we’re all relieved to be in the real world again, alive and well. But “The Ring” actually suggests that the mere act of watching this weirdness can kill you. Already, I like this horror film for that concept.

“The Ring,” based on the Japanese horror film “Ringu,” is one of the scariest movies I’ve ever seen. It has an atmosphere that can hardly find comparison; it’s spooky in all the right parts; it takes you on an intriguing mystery that answers some questions but not all, so that you can fill in some of the blanks yourself after you’ve seen it; and it has a great share of effectively scary moments that are tense and very frightening.

After the cursed tape has taken the life of a teenage girl (in a very creepy prologue) seven days after she’s watched it, the late girl’s aunt, reporter Rachel Keller (Naomi Watts), decides to look further into her reasons for dying. After hearing about the tape from high-school gossip and discovering that the girl’s three friends have died the same night that she did (presumably seeing the tape as well), Rachel happens upon the tape and decides to watch it, only to seal her doom.

With seven days and counting (as titles inform us of the countdown), Rachel believes that something supernatural is afoot here and decides to bring in her ex-boyfriend Noah (Martin Henderson), a video geek, to help figure this out. Together, they decide to view the images as a series of clues leading to the tape’s origins and set out to solve the puzzle before seven days are up. Things get even worse when Rachel’s eight-year-old son, Aidan (David Dorfman), watches the tape as well, sealing his fate as well.

The plot thickens as Rachel and Noah are brought to research the life of a woman whose daughter may be connected to the surrealism of it all, and are also brought to the place it originated where they find more answers. The fun thing about “The Ring” is that with all the images that stay in your head no matter how hard to try to forget about them (it’s an effectively executed, creepy show of images on that tape), you find yourself trying to figure out all this as the characters are. There’s hardly an instant when you’re ahead of the characters in solving this puzzle. And it’s fascinating to watch each new development continue to be thrown into the mix, while it’s also creepy at the same time because it’s more unnerving as the mystery grows and comes full-circle.

“The Ring” is great to look at. With nifty camerawork, creepy visuals, and an effectively grim tone, this is a very well-made ghost story. And somehow, that it takes place in Seattle which is mostly dark and gloomy makes it all the more effective.

Critics are rather split about the twist-ending, but I didn’t have a problem with it. Sure, it brings more answers that I would have liked to have come up with myself, but on the other hand, it is quite intriguing to see some version of a possible answer. And let’s face it—it’s here to give us the “money-scare,” the “money-shot” that every horror film must have in order to give audiences nightmares for days, if not weeks. “The Ring” has a hell of a good scare at that point. If everything else was a whimper, this ending was a scream. And I liked that the ending came an unexpected time, when it seemed as if everything was going to be all right.

And once again, there are as many questions that arise as there are answers that are revealed. I didn’t mind so much, because I was caught up in this mystery and wanted a few things to figure out for myself.

Naomi Watts makes for an appealing heroine—not only beautiful, but also resourceful and bright and caring for those around her. I also liked that it’s a reporter that is the protagonist of this ghost story, because she has that gut feeling to go out and investigate the strangeness that’s going on here. (Though, whether or not she actually does write this story for the Seattle Post is open to wonder.) Martin Henderson is good as her partner, and he and Watts share convincing chemistry as their relationship mends through this experience (of course). Brian Cox has a memorably creepy cameo appearance as a farmer that knows too much and is hesitant to tell.

Not everything about “The Ring” works, however. My main problem with the film is the character of Aidan. One thing I neglected to mention is that Aidan is actually psychic. He can see the same kind of surreal imagery that Rachel is trying to figure out. The problem I have with this kid is that he’s just too creepy, and with no emotional involvement to balance anything out. This kid doesn’t act like a regular kid—he acts like a carbon copy of the kid in “The Sixth Sense.” There’s never a sense that he cares for anything in the slightest; so why should I care if the kid lives?

And there are some little things that bugged me a bit, but they’re mostly nitpicks, such as why is the ghost able to call via telephone and how the lid of a well can create a ring that can be seen from inside? But I guess this is the kind of film where you don’t ask such questions and just be wrapped in the atmosphere and mystery of “The Ring.” There are many standout moments that unnerve, others that frighten, and others that inspire. That is why this is one of the most effective supernatural horror films I’ve ever seen.

Smith’s Verdict: ***1/2

Reviewed by Tanner Smith

OK, so you have this setup: foster care, the people involved, emotional attachments proceed. Describing the independent film “Short Term 12” like that would make it sound like a overly sappy and sentimental melodrama with enough manipulation to make you puke when you realize you’re not crying (and not going to either). But “Short Term 12” is a lot better than that. It’s a well-written, deeply effective film that takes a close, realistic look at the lives of those who live in a children’s group home and those who work there as caretakers. These are complicated people that are brought to life with good writing and convincing acting.

“Short Term 12” is mostly centered around the character of Grace, who works as a caretaker at a foster-care “short term” institution, acting as a surrogate big-sister to troubled kids who live there. She’s played in a star-making performance by Brie Larson. Larson has been good in supporting roles before (and has appeared in two indie films recently: “The Spectacular Now” and “Don Jon”); in this leading role, she owns it with her best work that is sure to gain a lot of attention. She delivers an honest, successful portrayal of a person who seems to have everything under control on the outside and is insecure and unsure on the inside. And that’s what Grace is like—she seems to have it together when she’s around people at work and has a no-nonsense personality to assist, but life outside work is a confusing mess as things in her life spiral out of control in ways she didn’t expect.

“Short Term 12” is an intriguing character-study in that we know very little about Grace to begin with, and then events from her past are revealed as the story continues. Events happen and we know more about her through these events, in the way she responds to them. We understand why she behaves certain ways (and at one point, it’s revealed that she may actually be mentally unstable) and grow more and more interested in her story as it’s revealed in small doses, not with overwrought exposition but with realistic talk. Credit for that not only goes to Larson, but also to writer/director Destin Cretton, who remade (and expanded) this feature film from his earlier short film in 2008. And I should also give credit for the crafting of the film too. It’s done in handheld camera footage, which I usually can’t stand in films anymore, but it works here because it gives the film a more “you-are-there” feel. This way, we feel like we know these people and are with them throughout the film, like any great character-driven film.

And something else “Short Term 12” gets right is that it’s one of the truest portrayals of troubled teenagers you’ll ever come across. Their issues are as serious as the issues the caretakers are going through—and while we’re on that subject, it’s also interesting in how a standoffish newcomer to the home, Jayden (well-played by Kaitlyn Dever), has problems that mirror that of Grace’s. That gives Grace all the more reason to ultimately break down as well as try to help her. It gives a very interesting dynamic in that sense.

I don’t want to make “Short Term 12” sound entirely depressing, because it does have its comic-relief moments, such as the amiable stories that Grace’s lover/co-worker Mason (John Gallagher Jr.) loves to tell to his co-workers, including newcomer therapist Nate (Rami Malek). And the friendship that the workers share is convincing and easygoing. Other amusing moments come from the kids, particularly wisecracking Luis (Kevin Hernandez) and odd Sammy (Alex Calloway). Sometimes, you need to laugh or hassle your fellow “inmates” and supervisors in order to further go along the road to recovery, given these kids’ pasts.

Even when there are some rough character choices in the final act, and Grace does perform a most extreme action that really makes you question her mental state, “Short Term 12” finds a way to recover. This is a film that I will not forget anytime soon. The performances are on-target, the script is solid, the execution is well-handled, and hopefully, this will turn out to be a deserving career breakthrough for Brie Larson, for her brilliant performance. I look forward to seeing her in more leading roles. And I also look forward to Destin Cretton’s next film.

Smith’s Verdict: ***1/2

Reviewed by Tanner Smith

I’m not sure I can necessarily write about Woody Allen’s latest film, “Blue Jasmine,” without even mentioning a similar type of film released just a couple months ago (not Tennessee Williams’ “A Streetcar Named Desire,” of course, though the story of “Blue Jasmine” is probably more closely similar to that)—Noah Baumbach’s “Frances Ha.” That film was about a neurotic young woman trying to find a secure hold on life while practically on the verge of a nervous breakdown. I mentioned in my favorable review of that film that it reminded me in dialogue, acting, style, and tone of a Woody Allen screenplay and film. That’s not too far off here, because…well, “Blue Jasmine” is a Woody Allen film. Imagine Frances “Ha” Halloway aged a decade or two and having found a success in life, becoming materialistic and pampered and married to a Wall Street wizard…and is now having to face reality yet again, after everything has just hit rock bottom along with her.

How odd is it that I compare Baumbach favorably to Woody Allen when I would find that Allen has crafted a slice-of-life/character-study similar to Baumbach’s film…which in itself is similar to some of Allen’s best dramatic work? I don’t know, but I do know that I feel these two films are terrific, and they’d make a great double-bill with each other.

Nearing the age of 78, Allen’s styles haven’t changed much—neurotic characters, the old-school title font, the sharp dialogue, the music he likes, etc. But he shows he still has game in the art of filmmaking. As long as this guy continues to make films (and he has for several decades now), we know there are some truly original artists still at work here. And with “Blue Jasmine,” he has crafted one of the most thoughtful, effective films released this year.

The film stars Cate Blanchett in an Oscar-caliber performance, reminding us that she is still one of the very best actresses we have, as Jasmine, a disillusioned, indigent woman who is learning to face reality the hard way. Seen in flashbacks, we get an idea of what her original life was like, when she was married to wealthy Hal (Alec Baldwin) and living a great, acquisitive life in New York. We also learn in this present-day setting that Hal has been caught for illegal activities (and apparently not just cheating on his wife numerously, either) and has also committed suicide in his cell because he couldn’t handle facing a life sentence. The FBI has taken everything away, leaving Jasmine penniless and homeless.

Now, Jasmine has moved in with her sister, Ginger (Sally Hawkins, wonderful here), in her San Francisco apartment. Ginger has never had anyone depend on her before, and Jasmine never needed her for anything until now. But Jasmine is not the greatest houseguest—in fact, she’s rather critical and doesn’t quite know when to keep her mouth shut. This is especially true when she judges Ginger’s apartment and constantly puts down Ginger’s current boyfriend, Chili (Bobby Cannavale). Though Chili may have his moments of rage, he is somewhat of an improvement over Ginger’s ex-husband, Augie (Andrew Dice Clay—yes, Andrew Dice Clay), and doesn’t necessarily deserve to be the butt of Jasmine’s unfavorable remarks.

Life goes on for Jasmine, and it’s something she isn’t prepared for. She has to go find a job, which she isn’t used to at all, and finding one is not easy. She does, however, get a job working as a receptionist for a dentist, but that doesn’t seem to last very long, as she’s an incompetent employee (and it also doesn’t help that the dentist she works for likes to hit on her until it’s the last straw for her—at least she knows the meaning of “sexual harassment”). Also, she’s not very good in social situations like she used to be—due to the events in her life, she has developed a habit of talking to herself without even being aware of it as she gets confused looks from passersby. That, and she’s still as ignorant and selfish as she was when she was rich, making her just a shallow, almost-unbearable woman to be around.

Now, don’t get me wrong—Jasmine is not a one-dimensional bitch, by any means. Because of the flashbacks and a few moments when she’s alone and trying to figure things out for herself, we see how and why she has become who she is and why her life is tragic. We can understand why she acts the way she does. That’s what makes “Blue Jasmine” an effective character-study and a convincing drama.

Cate Blanchett’s performance helps a great deal—she understands this character inside and out and is just excellent here. I hope she gets an Oscar nomination for this performance; she’s that good. And so is Sally Hawkins, who adds a great amount of depth to her role of Jasmine’s sister Ginger, who has her own experiences in life and love, not only with Chili, but also with a sound man she meets at a party, played well by Louis C.K. It’s a credit to Allen that he is still able to use familiar faces for surprising effect, and that’s especially true of the casting of Andrew Dice Clay, who is truly rock-solid here (especially near the end, when he gives a key speech to Jasmine about what’s going on).

Allen still has it. People may not believe it that much anymore, but Allen still has it. And I don’t even know what “it” is, but whatever “it” is, Allen has used it to good effect in “Blue Jasmine,” a nicely-done character piece.

Smith’s Verdict: ***1/2

Reviewed by Tanner Smith

“Bernie” is a quite unusual film. It takes a true story, tells it in both fictional and documental format (so perhaps a docudrama?), and despite the grimness that underlies the tale, is quirky, funny, and strangely sweet. This is a movie about a man who has murdered a person, and because he was so well-liked among his community, hardly anyone believed it and no one wanted him taken away for a life sentence in prison. They love this man, they hated his murder victim, so they hoped he would get off scot-free.

The “Bernie” in the title of Richard Linklater’s droll comedy refers to Bernie Tiede, who was an east Texas “funeral director” (kinder term for “mortician”) who loved everyone in town as much as everyone in town loved him. He was a regular man of the people—always participating in social events, always making friends, always being there for those in grief, and so on. He was even able to make the meanest, most disliked woman in Carthage, Texas—Marjorie Tugent—like him. He was that lovable.

Unfortunately, while Marjorie has been using her late husband’s money to much extent, she is able to make herself more than Bernie could bear. She hires him as her personal assistant, to be there at her beck and call. And Bernie, being the nice pushover, always had to respond, no matter how busy he was or how much he could take from this woman anymore. And before he could take it any longer (and presumably before he could find a shot at gaining some inheritance from her), he picks up an “armadillo gun” and shoots her four times from behind.

For nine months, Bernie hides Marjorie’s body in a meat freezer in her own garage and constantly makes up excuses for her absence. It’s not until her stockbroker shows enough concern to use her estranged family to find out what he suspects. The police find the body and bring Bernie in on a first-degree murder charge. How did the local townspeople react, especially since Bernie actually did confess to the crime? They stick up for him and try to convince the district attorney, Danny Buck Davidson, to help get him off. They do believe that Marjorie was too mean to handle and she deserved to die, and Bernie acted in “self-defense.”

Can you believe this? I mean, really, can you? I can see why “Bernie” has been labeled as “a story so unbelievable it must be TRUE.” This really did happen. Bernie Tiede was a real person from Carthage, Texas and he really did have enough respect from many people that no one believed it when he killed this elderly woman. To tell this story would be a difficult task, but luckily, director/co-writer Richard Linklater is a filmmaker who loves to take risks, and with “Bernie,” he has somehow found a way to make the feel of the film light and dark at the same time. I think you need both for telling a story like this, and “Bernie” is able to effectively mix the comedy with the grimness in such a seamless manner that sometimes you laugh but don’t know how to feel about what you’re laughing at, and other times you strangely care about what you’re watching and don’t seem to mind so much about what you find funny. It’s a strange concept, but it works.

And I’ll tell you what else works about “Bernie”—the lead performance from Jack Black as Bernie Tiede himself. This is Jack Black like I’ve never seen him before. He’s restrained, he’s mannered, he’s almost overly mild, which makes him somewhat creepy but oddly endearing, and he just creates this character with everything that hardly anyone would suspect of a typical Jack Black character. This is easily the best performance I’ve seen from Jack Black—he’s given just the right role and is able to pull it off successfully. Even I liked this man Bernie, based on this performance. I didn’t want to see him go to prison!

Shirley MacLaine plays Marjorie, the bitch of a woman who maybe didn’t “deserve” to die, but she was a bitter, mean old woman after all. Matthew McConaughey is Danny Buck Davidson, the D.A. who doesn’t care about how well-liked Bernie as long as he can prove that what he did was so wrong. Other actors play certain parts, like the stockbroker and Marjorie’s “grieving” granddaughter. But everyone else, and this is the weirdest and yet most intriguing part of the framing of this story, is interviewed in a documentary style in the most conventional ways of such a structure, and they are, for the most part, Carthage residents playing themselves. It’s all the more fascinating in that when they talk about Bernie, they really are talking about the actual Bernie Tiede.

“Bernie” is not necessarily a “deep” or “moving” film, depending on how you want to look at it (though maybe you are moved by Black’s portrayal of this man). But it isn’t supposed to be. It’s just an odd, offbeat docu-comedy (yes, that is what I’m calling this movie) about a lovable man who did a hateful deed that no one could ever believe, and it’s the kind of film you’re glad that Linklater would make and that Black could star in. It’s a treasure of a movie.