Smith's Verdict

Smith’s Verdict: ***1/2

Reviewed by Tanner Smith

“Joy Ride” is a popcorn movie that doesn’t require a lot of intelligence—it’s just one of those thrillers that require a suspension of disbelief, has a consistent fast pace with a running time of 90 minutes, and is also a good deal of fun. To be sure, there are questions to ask about certain parts of the movie (and I’ll get to that later), the bottom line is that the makers of “Joy Ride” succeeded in making a preposterous, entertaining, adrenaline-filled thrill ride.

The movie starts out in a suitably plausibly manner. Nice-guy/college-student Lewis (Paul Walker) is going home for the summer, from California to New Jersey. His best friend Venna (Leelee Sobieski), whom he actually wants to be his girlfriend, goes to school in Boulder, Colorado. So, Lewis decides to buy a used car (a 1971 Chrysler Newport) and drive them both home. On the way, Lewis makes a stop to bail his incompetent older brother Fuller (Steve Zahn) out of jail in Salt Lake City. Fuller has a knack for getting himself into trouble, so it becomes natural that the elements that follow in the plot can be traced back to him.

Fuller rides with Lewis on the way to Boulder. When regular small-talk doesn’t work between the two brothers, Fuller buys a CB radio (“it’s like a prehistoric Internet”) for entertainment on the road. Fuller talks Lewis into imitating a woman’s voice in the hopes of suckering some poor trucker in for a joke. With the handle of Candy Cane, Lewis is able to set up a date with a certain Rusty Nail. That night, Fuller and Lewis set it up so that Rusty Nail believes that “Candy Cane” is at the motel they’re staying at, in Room 17, where an obnoxious customer stays. Fuller and Lewis are in the room next door, listening in on their prank going underway…and then they hear some weird noises, almost like thudding and choking.

It’s then that the practical joke takes a dark turn. The man in the room is murdered (with his jaw ripped off). Fuller and Lewis are thrown out of town, but they have something bigger to worry about—a stalking, taunting, psychotic trucker hot on their tail. They barely survive an encounter, thinking it’s over. But by the time they pick up Venna, the terror is far from over.

One of the elements that show “Joy Ride’s” effectiveness is the fact that the villain is never seen. We see his big-ass truck approaching; we hear his gravelly voice (which only Ted Levine can provide) on the CB; and he constantly sets up ominous trick after trick to terrorize Fuller, Lewis, and Venna. If that sounds like Steven Spielberg’s 1971 thriller “Duel,” which was also about a character being chased by a faceless truck driver, you’d be half-right. While both movies feature an ominous-looking, huge truck whose driver is never seen, they’re different in tone. “Duel” was a psychological thriller that featured the insanity that ensued as the hero became more and more frightened as he kept running from the villain. “Joy Ride” doesn’t go for that—it’s just mainly a chase picture with nothing specifically deep to be found.

But there’s not anything wrong with that if the movie is entertaining, which it is. There are some good tense moments as well, including that motel-room scene I mentioned where Lewis and Fuller start to worry about what they hear, and the realization that someone is following them the next day (Rusty Nail says on the CB, “You really oughta get your taillight fixed.”).

What also helps make the movie work are convincing characters to follow, and the three principal actors do game jobs. Steve Zahn, in particular, is quite excellent here, playing the ne’er-do-well who keeps getting into trouble, and whose “harmless little prank” gets himself, his brother, and his girlfriend into danger. While he plays the role relatively straight, Zahn displays effective comic relief here as well. He’s goofy, but credibly so. (My favorite bit is when he tries to imitate the noises he heard that night to a questioning cop.) Paul Walker is likeable as nice-guy Lewis—he’s just so clean that it’s easy to let any stupid thing he does slide. Leelee Sobieski is charming as always.

Now, as for the questions I’m sure people would ask about the logic of the movie. 1) How does Rusty Nail know everything the heroes are going to do? 2) Are there other truckers helping him out? Is that he’s able to pull off most of what he does? 3) There’s a sequence in which he chases the heroes through a cornfield; why do the heroes run straight through a row? Rusty Nail can’t turn his big semi around, so why don’t the heroes just run the opposite way? 4) By the way, if Rusty Nail has been following them all this time, how did his large truck go unnoticed?

But because of the pacing and the capable execution of the story, it’s easy to conclude that the unlikeliest situations are expected.

Everything leads to a well-crafted climactic final act that is both effective and breathlessly chilling.

Perhaps it’s not best to ask questions that “Joy Ride” raises a few times. It’s just a fun, scary thriller. It delivers what it promises—nothing more, nothing less. And I was glad to go along for the ride.

Smith’s Verdict: ***1/2

Reviewed by Tanner Smith

Kevin Smith is a great screenwriter—he doesn’t just write dialogue; he creates characters that actually have something interesting to say. His characters are quirky, three-dimensional, and fun and when they talk, it feels like regular everyday people talking. Even Smith realized this when he tried to create an action comedy with slapstick and special effects in his less-than-successful 1995 film “Mallrats.” In fact, he even calls himself a horrible director and actor, but a great writer. He’s better off writing—his direction is not special in a certain sense. But with his movies, we don’t really care because his direction lets the characters breathe and talk through his writing. He did it with his debut “Clerks,” a low-budget comedy, directed by him, with a fantastic script, written by him. Then when “Mallrats” was released, it was such a disappointment that during the screening for his next movie “Chasing Amy,” Kevin Smith even apologized for it. And in the end credits of “Chasing Amy,” this quote is used—“And to all the critics who hated our last flick—all is forgiven.”

“Chasing Amy” is linked with “Clerks” and “Mallrats” with some of the writer/director’s trademarks like pop culture references (discussions of “Star Wars”) and a touch of “Jaws” (in “Chasing Amy,” two characters discuss their scars…from what, I won’t give away). It also has raunchy and vulgar humor and here, it almost goes a little overboard with its frankness of sex. But I have to give credit for not wimping out during these discussions, especially when the main male character asks how the main female character, who is a lesbian, is able to have sex with women. Some people may laugh out loud—others may cringe. But there are many other big laughs, great surprises, and a heart that comes along in the midst of this story.

The premise of “Chasing Amy” may sound like another dumb sex comedy, but Smith handles it more intelligently than you could possibly imagine. Two comic book artists—laid-back Holden (Ben Affleck) and his brash roommate Banky (Jason Lee)—are signing autographs at Comic Con for their latest creation—a comic book about stoner superheroes called “Bluntman and Chronic.” They meet another comic book artist—a woman named Alyssa Jones (Joey Lauren Adams)—and Holden has a crush on her. But then he finds out that she’s a lesbian. But even though she’s gay, he falls in love with her and tries to have a loving relationship with her. This premise may sound confounded, but it’s handled so maturely that you have congratulate Smith for creating something so fresh.

I mentioned above that the characters are fun to watch and that they talk like regular people rather than characters—even though they are playing characters—and they do. Holden and Banky create comic books—what do I know about comics? Very little. But it’s great to listen to these guys talk about their work because that’s what they love doing. These characters are so well-developed. I loved the relationship that Holden and Banky have as great friends (although for Banky, it may be a little more). And then there’s the discussions Holden has with Alyssa (sometimes, Banky has his own conversations with her). This is the heart of the movie. Watching these two talk and relate to each other is great to watch and fun to listen to. These two have great chemistry together. But then there comes the more serious scenes which are even better. Holden tells Alyssa that he loves her in one scene and Alyssa doesn’t have a clue about how to respond. Is it possible for her to have second thoughts on her sexuality? Could Holden have a chance with her? One of the very best things about “Chasing Amy” is how unpredictable it is. If you can answer those questions right away, I bet you would be only close but with very little dice.

The script is full of wonderful dialogue. There’s a supporting character—a gay black man named Hooper (Dwight Ewell)—who has a whole speech about racism involved with the “Star Wars” trilogy and his own opinions on the sexuality of Archie and Jughead. And then there’s Jay and Silent Bob, returning from “Clerks” and “Mallrats” and played again by Jason Mewes and Kevin Smith himself, who has their own conversation with Holden. Once again, Jay is a foul loudmouth who can’t shut up. But here’s a surprise—Silent Bob finally opens up and gives his own speech about who the titular Amy was and why she was worth chasing. And also, have you ever wondered what lesbians thought about sex and virginity? Well, those discussions are here too.

“Chasing Amy” is one of Kevin Smith’s best films—funny but also intelligent. When it gets into serious mode, we are brought right into it. We believe everything that is happening on screen because it is handled so maturely and delicately. It’s helped by a fantastic script, a touch of comedy, drama and romance, and its ensemble of great actors. Ben Affleck, who plays Holden, is a nice guy for us to follow, Jason Lee goes as far as he can go with Banky without making him so obnoxious that he’d be unwatchable, and Joey Lauren Adams, who is a real discovery, embodies a really complicated character who is forced to think about her own self and creates a surprising amount of range and wit. Minor missteps for this movie can be forgiven and so can Kevin Smith for “Mallrats.”

Smith’s Verdict: ***1/2

Reviewed by Tanner Smith

Here is a sequel that works—one that delivers the goods and doesn’t deliver just the same material that you’ve seen in the original. This is the sequel to the Oscar-winning film “Rocky,” which starred (and was written by) Sylvester Stallone in a knockout performance as the boxer Rocky Balboa who also has a life aside from fighting. In that movie, what made the movie really special was that great leading performance, as well as the supporting performances of truly original characters. Now, here’s “Rocky II”—the characters are back and just as fresh as they were before. “Rocky II” probably isn’t as great as the original film (I gave that four stars), but it’s still an effective movie.

Sylvester Stallone directs and writes this sequel, and reprises his leading role again. Rocky Balboa is a true original—his personality and his actions are unlike any other movie character that came before. He talks street-smart and ends a lot of his sentences with “ya know,” and he’s really a nice guy. He also has a sense of humor in the way that sometimes, he doesn’t know he’s funny. And when he fights in the boxing ring, it’s just something he feels like doing for a hobby. He’s not a bad guy at all. Stallone lives and breathes this character and makes him just as lovable as he was in the original “Rocky.”

“Rocky II” picks up where the original film left off. If you recall, in the original film, Rocky Balboa (“The Italian Stallion”) had the chance to fight the heavyweight-boxing champion Apollo Creed (Carl Weathers). If you don’t recall, the last scene of the original film is played as the opening scene of this film. Rocky doesn’t win the fight—in fact, he barely survives it. His intensity, and willingness to keep going, had people cheering for him. Those qualities also got his girlfriend Adrian (Talia Shire) to say, “I love you.”

In “Rocky II,” Apollo is very disappointed in everyone’s praises for Rocky that he demands a rematch. But Rocky is more interested in raising a family. He and Adrian wind up married and Adrian winds up pregnant. Rocky isn’t regretful of any of this—he is excited about it. He wonders what the kid will be like, if it’s a boy or a girl.

Rocky also has to get a job to support Adrian and his child, not born yet. Being the “Italian Stallion” who refused to go down in the fight with Apollo, Rocky has an opportunity to star in many commercials and get paid big bucks. Unfortunately, he has a bit of trouble reading. There is a great comic scene in which he reads off the cue cards in deadpan—he’s not messing with the director; he’s just sincerely screwing up.

But Apollo, being the pompous man that he is, demands a rematch. He goes out of his way to humiliate Rocky to the point where Rocky has to accept. This leads to more training with Mickey (Burgess Meredith), the gym owner who trained Rocky in the original film. This also leads to more support from Adrian and her mildly-annoying (but mostly funny) brother Paulie (Burt Young), who is still loyal but somewhat bitter; however, there is a scene in which he is more resentful, but I will not give away why.

The characters are given room to grow and they make up for the probability that the film is not particularly well-shot. Though to Stallone’s credit, he’s trying. There are some great lines of dialogue (some written by Stallone, the others improvised by him) and moments of humor and touching sadness. They, along with the characters (especially Rocky), make “Rocky II” a worthy sequel.

Smith’s Verdict: ***1/2

Reviewed by Tanner Smith

“Friends With Benefits” is the title of a romantic comedy featuring exactly what the title suggests—a man and woman who are friends but also sexual partners with no plans of a loving relationship. (I think Jane Lynch put it best in “The 40-Year-Old Virgin”—the easiest term is “*bleep*-buddy.”) But “Friends With Benefits,” despite its title, is not the first movie to show us this relationship. It hasn’t even been a year since “Love and Other Drugs” and “No Strings Attached” were released, featuring the same “friends with benefits” element. There really isn’t anything new in “Friends With Benefits”—it’s a romantic comedy in which the two leads start out as friends, have sex repeatedly, realize they have feelings for each other, have certain complications in dealing with those emotions, and (spoiler alert) they end up together. But that doesn’t mean it doesn’t work. In fact, I really liked “Friends With Benefits.” It uses rom-com formulas, but has fun with them in a self-referential way.

One of the reasons for the success behind “Friends With Benefits” is the pairing of Justin Timberlake and Mila Kunis as the two leads. These two are impossible to dislike—they’re appealing individually and engaging together. They’re not mismatched in the slightest, their characters are well-developed, and they never annoy the audience.

Describing the plot is somewhat pointless, but it’s probably best to mention a few things. Timberlake plays Dylan, a Los Angeles-based editor of a popular blog, who is recruited for a job in New York working for GQ Magazine. Kunis plays Jamie, a headhunter who flew Dylan there and shows him around the city. Soon, Dylan and Jamie become good friends, but are also attracted to each other physically. So they agree to become friends without romance—“No relationship,” Jamie explains, “No emotions, just sex.”

Of course, this works for a while. Of course, they start to fall for one another. Of course, they don’t know how to handle this. Of course—well, you get it, mainly. You know the formula; it’s been done before. But what makes “Friends With Benefits” worth watching is not only the convincing chemistry and charm between Justin Timberlake and Mila Kunis, but also its self-aware screenplay. There are a lot of funny lines of dialogue (mostly involving the leads picking apart some romantic comedy clichés) and some running gags (some including references to rapper-duo Kriss Kross) that work. This movie is quite funny in a dopey but consistently smart way.

The supporting cast is also game and funny. Jenna Elfman has some funny lines as Dylan’s knowing, sassy sister; Patricia Clarkson is hilarious as Jamie’s wisecracking mother; Richard Jenkins doesn’t overdo it with his character of Dylan’s father, diagnosed with Alzheimer’s disease; there are welcome cameos by Andy Samberg, Emma Stone, and the pairing of Jason Segel & Rashida Jones (whose rom-com-within-a-rom-com that the characters watch is hilarious); and there’s also a young actor named Nolan Gould who has his share of funny moments as Dylan’s aspiring magician nephew. I know I should have already mentioned Woody Harrelson as a gay sports editor who constantly comes on to Dylan, but to be honest…I never found him very funny in this. He just came across as obnoxious.

So even if “Friends With Benefits” is mostly predictable, it makes up for it with two charming lead actors, an engaging supporting cast, and a winning screenplay. It’s easy to like “Friends With Benefits” and not feel embarrassed by saying so.

Smith’s Verdict: ***1/2

Reviewed by Tanner Smith

How Warren Beatty, Buck Henry, and Elaine May were able to take grim material and write it into a feel-good movie like “Heaven Can Wait” is beyond me, but it works. This is a sweet, lighthearted fantasy with some good laughs and sweet moments, despite most of the material having to do with death and murder.

Let me explain—the main character has died before his time and has to go back to Earth in another person’s body, so we get a montage of events for the character to choose somebody. With each turndown, there’s a death. This should be grisly, but the way it’s executed makes it funny. And when he does find a body, there’s a subplot involving people who supposed to be his assistants (one of which is his wife) that attempt to kill him. Grisly? Possibly.

Funny? Yep.

The film stars Beatty (who also co-wrote directed, along with Henry, May, and Robert Towne) as Joe Pendleton, a backup quarterback for the Los Angeles Rams. He’s a chipper young fellow, is more than physically fit, and his team is headed for the Super Bowl. But while riding his bike through the Mulholland Drive tunnel, he collides with a truck and dies…or does he?

Joe finds himself at a way station in the afterlife with his guardian angel (Henry) and the mysterious Mr. Jordan (James Mason). Joe is told that he died, but he believes there’s been some sort of mistake. And he’s right—as it turns out, the angel was on his first assignment, guarding Joe, and mistook the outcome of the incident in the tunnel for Joe’s imminent death. So, Joe was taken before his time and would like to return back to Earth. However, his body has already been cremated and so he must find a new body (someone who is supposed to die, and this is where we get that montage I mentioned).

Joe finds himself in the body of millionaire industrialist Leo Farnsworth, who had just been poisoned by his wife Julia (Dyan Cannon) and his personal secretary Tony (Charles Grodin), who also happens to be Julia’s lover. Mr. Jordan, the angel, and we (the audience) see Joe as Joe, making it easier for us to follow his character—everyone else in the movie sees Joe as Farnsworth, making for some comedic moments of confusion for them. He’s now in charge of the company, which is confusing for him already. But once he gets the gist of it, he’s able to get through to his executives through football talk. He puts an end to the pillage that seems to come through with the company.

Eventually, Joe is able to convince his long-time friend and trainer Max (Jack Warden) who he really is. So Max can help Joe get this new body into shape so he can play for the Rams (after he buys the team), and play in the Super Bowl. Meanwhile, there’s a romance he develops with an environmental activist, played by Julie Christie. He likes her a lot, and the feeling becomes mutual—she hated Farnsworth’s policies and actions, but falls for Joe’s easygoingness.

“Heaven Can Wait” has a lot of fun with its story gimmicks, and provides a lot of laughs while keeping the audience ahead of the show. And like I said, there’s a great deal of cheerfulness that makes everything easier and more appealing.

The funniest parts of the movie revolve around Dyan Cannon and Charles Grodin, who are absolutely hilarious as the main reactors to most of the stuff going on with Farnsworth (not knowing it’s really Joe in his body). Of course they’re surprised and confused that their murder scheme didn’t work and as Cannon freaks out and screams at the top of her lungs, Grodin must calm her down, even though Cannon doesn’t want him to cover her mouth to keep her from exclaiming loudly. And of course, they must try again to murder him swiftly when Joe makes silly decisions.

Jack Warden plays the role of Max very well and has his share of good moments as well, and the same can be said for James Mason and Buck Henry as Joe’s invisible (well, visible only to him) advisors. Warren Beatty is possibly too sincere as Joe (though he is likable for us to follow him). But Julie Christie, as appealing as she is, doesn’t do enough with the nothing role of the love interest.

The ending doesn’t work well for me. It seemed too odd and also kind of contrived. I guess it’s the obligatory happy ending, but I’m just not pleased with the resolution. Without giving it away, it just didn’t do anything for me.

“Heaven Can Wait” is a fun screwball comedy mixed with afterlife-fantasy, mixed with somewhat-macabre material.

Smith’s Verdict: ***1/2

Reviewed by Tanner Smith

Well it figures that, in a Disney animated feature, when a father and daughter are having a good time, and the little daughter calls her father the “best daddy in the whole world,” it only makes it necessary for the father to suddenly be taken out of the picture. This way, she can embark on the movie’s adventure. But here’s a surprise (for a Disney animated movie)—the father isn’t dead. He’s just been kidnapped, that’s all.

The main gimmick of Disney’s “The Great Mouse Detective,” a very well-put-together family-adventure, is that the main characters are all mice and rats living in Victorian London. It’s like a parallel world underneath our own, which makes sense considering the title character (indeed a “great mouse detective”) lives under the dwelling of Sherlock Holmes. The film draws heavily on traditional Sherlock Holmes elements—of course, for example, the main character, named Basil, is a heroic mouse who has the intelligence and personality of the famous fictional detective.

The aforementioned little girl (or mouse, whatever) witnesses her father being captured by a nasty, peg-legged bat. So with the aid of friendly Dr. Dawson, she tracks down the rodent-equivalent of Sherlock Holmes himself, Basil of Baker Street. She hopes that Basil will be able to help get her father back. While following a series of clues, Basil, Dawson, and the girl (aided by a loyal dog named Toby) set out to rescue the kidnapped parent and stop an evil scheme devised by a villainous sewer rat named Ratigan, whose plan requires the help of the father.

By the way, the father is a toymaker and Ratigan plans to use his inventiveness to create a robotic clone of the mouse Queen, so that it can trick the attendees of a royal event into thinking that Ratigan is now ruler of the land…I am aware of how dumb that sounds, but I’ll let it slide because it’s Disney-magic. The mice talk, yet Toby the dog and Ratigan’s pet cat don’t. Let them do whatever they want.

“The Great Mouse Detective” is quite the entertaining Disney film. It takes us on a wild adventure through this intriguing mouse-world and has sequence upon sequence of pure delight and mystery. It will delight kids, and also keep their parents entertained as well.

While it does feature a little mouse-world mixing with the giant human world, what “The Great Mouse Detective” is really centered around are the characters that go through it and have this adventure. The hero and villain are very enjoyable. Basil (voiced by Barrie Ingham) is a great hero to follow—he’s quick-thinking; he’s intelligent; he’s observant; he’s energetic; and he’s narcissistic yet still very likeable. You can tell that from the first moment he arrives on screen that you’re going to enjoy watching this guy (or mouse) on this film’s journey. And the villain is great. Ratigan is voiced by Vincent Price, whose sliminess is very existent in his voiceover work for this character. Ratigan is brilliant, dastardly evil, and enjoys every second of what he does. He’s enjoying what he does so much that even we as a result can’t help but enjoy it as well. The hero and villain of “The Great Mouse Detective” are very appealing, and they play off each other perfectly as two intelligent minds trying to outwit each other.

Dawson, who becomes Basil’s loyal sidekick, is also very likeable. With nervous mannerisms, a distinguished quality to himself, and a loyalty that leads to bravery as the journey continues, Dawson is an effective equivalent of Holmes’ partner Dr. Watson.

But being a Disney animated feature, the animation deserves credit, especially since this is apparently the first time Disney used computer-generated animation. What really stands out among this animation is the climax, in which Basil and Ratigan have a showdown in the clock tower. The way this sequence is animated is just so fascinating, and the way it’s put together makes for a quite intense fight scene.

“The Great Mouse Detective” constantly gets overlooked when it comes to mentioning Disney animated films, but it really is a small treasure. It may be the mouse version of the Sherlock Holmes story, but don’t let that throw you off. It’s an entertaining movie with terrific animation, interesting characters, and a good sense of fun.

Smith’s Verdict: ***1/2

Reviewed by Tanner Smith

“Safety Not Guaranteed” takes a neat idea and uses it for an independent film that starts out as cynical as its characters (and as many other smart-aleck indie films I’ve seen lately), but then turns into a pleasant, involving experience once the characters have become more involved in the mystery of the situation.

What is the situation, the neat idea? It’s a “classified” ad in a newspaper. And a most unusual one at that—it reads: “WANTED: Someone to go back in time with me. This is not a joke. You will get paid after we get back. Must bring your own weapons. I have only done this once before. SAFETY NOT GUARANTEED.”

How can you ignore an ad like that? You can’t help but be the least bit curious about the person who placed that ad in the paper. Sure, you wouldn’t actually try and track him or her down; you’d think about doing it, but you’d never actually do it. “Safety Not Guaranteed” plays that angle, as three Seattle magazine employees decide to track down and report on whoever placed that ad—is it a joke or is it for real?

The slacking reporter, named Jeff (Jake Johnson), volunteers to take this story and brings two interns with him to Ocean View, Washington. The interns are Darius (Aubrey Plaza) and Arnau (Karan Sonl). Darius is a disillusioned college grad and Arnau is an Indian-American studious biology major. They all drive down to Ocean View to do some digging, but since Jeff is more focused on hooking up with a high-school girlfriend, the interns do most of the investigative work.

Finding the guy comes off as pretty easy—Darius and Arnau spy on the post office until someone opens the Box posted in the ad. The man who placed the ad is a mid-30s grocery clerk named Kenneth (Mark Duplass). Darius has her own simple way of approaching him—by answering his ad, convincing him that she’s the right one for him to “travel back in time with,” and find out what his deal is. It turns out that Kenneth is dead serious about time travel and Darius manages to get him to trust her because she’s quirky, aggressive, challenging, and quick. And as Darius finds out more about Kenneth, she finds herself more intrigued and fascinated and just wondering, just like us, what exactly is going to happen with this time travel plan.

Who is Kenneth? Why does he want to travel through time so bad? Why does he want a partner? Can he really create a time machine? Is that what’s going on in his secretive shed? Is there really someone following him, like he says? All of these questions aren’t given simple answers. There are some answers, mind you, but director Colin Trevorrow and screenwriter Derek Connolly handles them subtly and impeccably. But more importantly, they make us care for the characters involved. A crucial example is the scene in which Kenneth reveals why he wants to travel back in time—we can easily relate to his reasons.

“Safety Not Guaranteed” starts out as an oddball road comedy with these three diverse people looking to find something unusual. But once we get into Kenneth’s characterization, whatever it may be, and further into the sweet relationship that develops between Kenneth and Darius, the movie does become a more involving, more pleasant movie that deals with its characters and their situations in a paranoid and quirky yet intriguing and investing way.

Darius becomes less of a deadpan cynic and shows moments of vulnerability that really make us care about her. The same can be said for Jeff and Arnau. Jeff, in particular, starts out as a typical unlikeable jerk, looking to hook up and also to get Arnau laid before the trip is over, until we go through a subplot involving him and his old girlfriend (Jenica Bergera). When he notices that the years haven’t been kind to her, he still enjoys being with her and realizes that beauty is in the eye of the beholder. Arnau becomes less of a stereotypical Indian-American sidekick and has his own life-changing moment as well. Actually, the whole movie could be like these three, particularly Darius—sardonic on the outside, sweet on the inside. It starts out as a grim, cynical indie flick and turns into a pleasurable story.

“Safety Not Guaranteed” can be seen as a star vehicle for Aubrey Plaza. Usually known for her deadpan-sarcastic, comic supporting roles on TV’s “Parks & Recreation,” as well as movies “Funny People” and “Scott Pilgrim vs. the World,” Plaza tries a lead role this time and succeeds. She proves a real acting talent when she’s calmed down and displays a true sense of vulnerability.

Mark Duplass, as Kenneth, hits the right notes with his performance. He’s a misfit and an oddball, but also earnest and somewhat relatable. You can tell he means everything he’s saying and just want things to go well for him. Even when it seems like he’s possibly gone off his rocker, it’s hard not to empathize with him. What should also be noted is that not once does the movie make fun of him—even in the “training montage” in which Kenneth gets Darius prepared for their trip through time, we’re still with him instead of making fun of him. He’s taking this whole thing seriously, and we have to know if he’s on the right path.

Is time travel possible in this movie? I’m not saying. Though I can tell you this—“Safety Not Guaranteed” is not about time travel. It’s about right here, right now. It’s about these characters who become people we care about and these ideas that we’re fascinated by. The end result is quite satisfying—showing little, but leaving a lot to the imagination. I did not correctly guess the ending to “Safety Not Guaranteed” and I find myself thinking about what I’d just seen. As I continue to think about this movie, I find myself liking it more and more. That is the sign of a terrific movie.

NOTE: By the way, is it a coincidence that Darius resembles MTV’s “Daria?” Just askin’.

Smith’s Verdict: ***1/2

Reviewed by Tanner Smith

OK, what would you say if I told you that Adam Sandler starred in a movie that featured a family with a crazy member? You’d just say, “OK. So?” But what would you say if I told you that Adam Sandler does not play the crazy family member? That this movie is not a typical “Adam Sandler comedy,” but a James L. Brooks comedy-drama? “Spanglish” is that movie and it does star Adam Sandler. But Sandler plays a man who is trying to keep everything calm. His wife is played by Tea Leoni, and she isn’t just simply crazy—she shouldn’t even be living in a house with a relatively calm husband and two innocent kids. I feel sorry for those kids living in this household.

There’s a third major character in “Spanglish”—a quiet, sensitive Mexican woman named Flor (Paz Vega). Her husband has died, meaning she has to look after her daughter by herself. She leaves Mexico to live in America. To support her daughter (named Cristine), she goes to work for the Claskys, an American dysfunctional family. She is sucked into the drama that happens in this family. John (Sandler) is a chef who is named the Number One Chef in America, but really doesn’t want a lot of attention. His wife Deborah (Leoni) isn’t making life any easier for him. He is so “stark raving calm,” as Deborah puts it, and Deborah simply waves good-bye to reality as she goes cuckoo. She sounds so desperate about everything, stumbles over things, and has a bizarre sexual encounter (though this movie is rated PG-13). John and Deborah have two kids—one of which is teenaged Bernice (Sarah Steele).

Flor doesn’t speak fluent English (she only knows a few words), but she’s patient and tries her best to go along with this family. Complications arise when Deborah practically steals Flor’s daughter (who speaks fluent English) and takes her shopping. In a brilliant comic scene, Flor expresses her anger to John and asks Cristine to translate into English for her. The comic timing of Paz Vega and Shelbie Bruce (as the daughter) in that scene is just great.

A relationship builds slowly and tentatively between Flor and John. One of the movie’s finer things about it is that the relationship is so nicely developed. It doesn’t start quickly; it simply builds up to it. They spot each other on the street, say “hi” a few times at glances in the house, and have late-night chats after Flor is just learning to speak English. The chemistry between these two is convincing. Also, the relationship between Flor and Cristine as mother and daughter is handled quite nicely. I love the final scene they share together. Without giving too much away, it shows convincingly that all parents fear for their children’s futures. That scene is an excellent curtain-closer for this film, which is well-acted and powerful.

It’s nice to see Adam Sandler in this kind of relaxed performance. He’s a lot better as an actor when he isn’t manic, sadistic, or obsessive. Here, he’s restrained and gives a convincing performance as a guy who just things to be better. (After all, who doesn’t?) Tea Leoni is great at making her character not a monster, but rather an unfit parent and uptight klutz. You have to wonder if she took lessons from Adam Sandler’s previous films and brought more class to the character. Also, Paz Vega is wonderful here. One of the best things about “Spanglish” is that while she speaks Spanish (and she does speak fluent Spanish through the first hour of the film), she isn’t given English subtitles popping up on the screen for us to understand her. We don’t need subtitles. Her expressions and actions say it all. It’s a wonderful performance. Also delightful is Cloris Leachman as Deborah’s alcoholic mother. She starts out as a drunk and ends up being an actually wise person in the ways of relationships. I love the scene where she corners Deborah and warns her about what would happen if she keeps messing up.

“Spanglish” is an effective comedy-drama. This is not simply a sitcom featuring caricatures with phony problems. Real people have real problems. Relationships are complicated. Flor’s “fixing” of the family may not end the way we expect it to be. “Spanglish” is a nice movie with a terrific ensemble cast, a good script, and a good dose of comedy and drama. And after “Punch-Drunk Love,” this is further proof that Adam Sandler can handle serious roles well.

Smith’s Verdict: ***1/2

Reviewed by Tanner Smith

At age 11 (“Harry Potter and the Sorcerer’s Stone”), the young wizard Harry Potter and his friends Ron and Hermione spent their first year at Hogwarts School of Witchcraft and Wizardry as they encountered a giant three-headed dog, fought a troll, and played a life-size game of chess. At age 12 (“Harry Potter and the Chamber of Secrets”), they solved a deadly mystery that included mutant spiders, a dark underground chamber, and a giant snake. At age 13 (“Harry Potter and the Prisoner of Azkaban”), they were pursued by a mysterious prisoner of Azkaban (the wizard prison) who turned out to be something more. At age 14 (“Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire”), Harry was faced by deadly challenges (including a dragon, vicious merpeople, and a treacherous hedge maze) before he witnessed the return of the evil Lord Voldemort, the former Hogwarts student who became evil and tried to overrun the wizarding world before he disappeared (but not before killing Harry’s parents). Now Voldemort is back and is slowly but surely gathering other wizards and witches to create an army to finish what he started. So at age 15 (“Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix”), Harry taught other students how to defend themselves, should they have to fight against Voldemort and his followers. Then at age 16 (“Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince”), Harry and school headmaster Dumbledore discover a way to defeat Voldemort. But Dumbledore is killed, leaving Harry, Ron, and Hermione to eventually, at age 17 (“Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows: Part 1”), find hidden objects that contain remnants of Voldemort’s soul. Once they destroy them, Voldemort is vulnerable.

Whew! I tell you, these kids have been on more adventures than Indiana Jones.

Anyway, they’ve destroyed three of these “Horcruxes” so far, now with two more to go as Voldemort and his army grows stronger. Thus, we have the long-awaited cinematic conclusion to the beloved and successful “Harry Potter” film series, adapted from the most-beloved book series by J.K. Rowling. This is Part 2 of the seventh and final book “Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows,” leaving this to be the eighth and final film. The result is a most satisfying conclusion to a wonderful series of films.

“Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows: Part 2” picks up where “Part 1” left off. Voldemort has found the wand that is said to be the most powerful of them all as he seeks out Harry and sends out his army of Death Eaters to overtake Hogwarts. In the meantime, Harry, Ron, and Hermione still have to find the last two horcruxes. They locate one in a scene that’s in the spirit of the previous films’ harrowing adventure scenes (this one involving a dragon) before racing off to find themselves back at Hogwarts.

The only thing I can say about the rest of the plot is this: For those who were upset that “Part 1” may have ended abruptly (by the way, what’d you expect from a “part 1” anyway?), it’s time to watch “Part 2” and witness what we’ve all been waiting for—the final confrontation between Harry Potter and Lord Voldemort. The previous films have been building up to it and now it’s finally here. I can say that it doesn’t disappoint. It’s dark and epic, just as we wanted it to be.

Every past setup has its payoff and every character has his/her moment (I especially like how Professor McGonagall, played by Dame Maggie Smith, rolls up her sleeves) as Hogwarts becomes a battleground for the students and teachers of Hogwarts versus Voldemort and his large army Death Eaters.

Now, I can’t say exactly what the bolts shot out of each character’s wands do to whoever is hit by them. But I don’t care—they’re lethal. Isn’t that enough? I suppose so.

We get an introduction to Dumbledore’s brother Aberforth Dumbledore (Ciaran Hinds) who helps the central trio back to Hogwarts. Then, we get other sides of characters we already knew, particularly Snape (delightful deadpan Alan Rickman) who has become Voldemort’s assistant. We had our suspicions about him before we found out he was just unpleasant. Now, he’s turned over to the dark side and even killed Prof. Dumbledore (Michael Gambon) in the sixth film. Not giving anything away, we discover why Snape wasn’t so fond of Harry from the start and why…he is what he is. As for Draco Malfoy (Tom Felton), Harry’s slimy bully at Hogwarts who also became a Death Eater along with his father (Jason Isaacs) and mother, we get hints at where he’s going but we get the point nonetheless. We get a more heroic side of the once-nervous Hogwarts student Neville Longbottom (Matthew Lewis) and—I swear, I am not kidding here—an actual emotion—though brief, mind you—from Luna Lovegood (Evanna Lynch). And then there’s Voldemort (Ralph Fiennes). We know what we already knew from the previous films and that’s all the character needs in the end. Who have I left out? Well, two characters briefly seen in the first film make appearances here (but they’re very crucial)—they’re played by Warwick Davis and John Hurt. Oh, and of course, there’s Ginny Weasley (Bonnie Wright), Harry’s love interest. Well, let’s just leave it at that.

The actors—young and old—have become their roles, as is expected after seven previous films. In fact, you wonder what feature film roles the young actors Daniel Radcliffe (Harry), Rupert Grint (Ron), and Emma Watson (Hermione) will take on next. To me, they will always be Harry, Ron, and Hermione. They have become their characters in these movies, physically and emotionally. It will be interesting to see what they do next.

So what else is there to say about “Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows: Part 2?” The pacing is brilliant (there isn’t a dull moment here), the dialogue isn’t hurried, and there are pleasant surprises for those who haven’t read the books and are fans of the films (don’t worry—those who read the books may be delighted as well). Even though the epilogue leaves an open door for a continuation, J.K. Rowling informs the public that it won’t happen. So I suppose what is left to say is…goodbye.

Smith’s Verdict: ***1/2

Reviewed by Tanner Smith

I love these science-fiction thrillers that keep the sci-fi elements in obscurity (for the most part, at least). “Sound of my Voice” is an example of this type. The basic idea is that there’s an underground cult led by a woman who claims to be from the future. So OK, you have the time-travel element that is talked about a lot in this film. Is it true or false?

And to be honest, I can’t exactly write about “Sound of my Voice” without mentioning a film that was released the same year as this—another indie film that also had to do with the possibility of time-travel, titled “Safety Not Guaranteed.” That film was more of a lighthearted, upbeat comedy-drama—the exact opposite of “Sound of my Voice,” which is grim, more mysterious, and even kind of creepy.

But it’s still as fascinating.

“Sound of my Voice” was co-written by writer-actress Brit Marling, who also co-wrote and starred in the terrific sci-fi/drama (if you will) “Another Earth.” The best thing about both films is that they use their sci-fi elements to serve the human stories that are the main focus.

The plot involves a Los Angeles couple—aspiring filmmakers Peter (Christopher Denham) and Lorna (Nicole Vicius)—as they decide to make a documentary that exposes a mysterious cult. In order to do so, they have to join the cult. On the first night, they are blindfolded and led to a basement to join cult members, dressed in white robes. And they learn the cult’s complicated secret handshake as well.

The cult’s leader, also dressed in white, is Maggie (Marling). She comes into the room, and the cult just bows down to her, as if she was their Savior. When she tells the new members her story, those who buy it sort of see why the others see her like this. She announces that she is from the year 2054 and she started this cult to prepare them for a civil war. She seems very serious about this, and her voice is quite comforting, so people will listen to her—even Peter, who at first seems cynical about all of this. Among her peculiarities—she carries an oxygen tank because she’s allergic to our air; because present-day toxins are easy for her to catch, so she eats organic food grown by one of her followers; and her methods are most unusual. For example, she gets the cult members to purge themselves by vomiting. Peter won’t do it (though he says instead that he can’t do it), and so Maggie does some pushing to get him to do it. She even manages to touch at something so personal from his past that he ultimately and successfully hurls.

By the way, if you’re wondering how Peter and Lorna are getting their footage, I forgot to mention—Peter has a hidden camera in his eyeglasses, and he also swallowed a small radio transmitter to record audio.

Anyway, who is this woman Maggie? Is she telling the truth? Is she a con artist, like Peter believes? Even he is starting to have doubts about what he thought before, which is actually starting to bring concerns from Lorna, as motivations for joining the group are starting to feel unsure.

The odd thing about “Sound of my Voice” is that Maggie’s stories of her “appearance in the present-day” and her “future-day” aren’t as convincing because time-travel is not the only explanation. She says she woke up in an apartment, with no memory and a tattoo that made her realize who she was—there’s some kind of symbol tattooed to her ankle, and the number “54,” which she “recollects” as being the sign of the traveler from 2054. And how about when the cult asks her to sing a song from the future? “We want to hear the future,” someone says. She chooses a popular song from the Cranberrys, saying it was covered by a future artist. I don’t want to give too much away, but “Sound of my Voice” has this odd tendency to keep Maggie talking about her back-story without ever declaring if it’s true.

“Sound of my Voice” has a consistently-unnerving tone as it progresses, and manages to tell an effective commentary on changing lives and beliefs or disbeliefs with tense results. It also helps to have solid characterizations to tell a more human story than you might expect. Peter is classified as a cynic to this cult’s existence, but he’s a nice guy and grade-school teacher, and honestly, who wouldn’t feel this way at first? But he also has a tragic past (his mother died on the night before his 13^th birthday) that Maggie is able to play to with the “sound of her voice” (if you will) and this starts to open something in his mind. It’s almost as if he’s starting to be like the brainwashed followers she has led. Christopher Denham delivers a great performance, in a role that could have been thankless. He nails it.

Nicole Vicius is also good as the girlfriend who too is fascinated by what goes on in this cult, but she still remembers why she and Peter joined the group and is starting to question Peter’s sanity, even though he insists that he still believes it’s all a con. But it really comes down to Brit Marling, whose ethereal performance as Maggie brings so many fascinating details to wonder about with this character. She’s perfect here. (And I look forward to another one of her screenplays as well.)

The final act gets more suspenseful, as it moves into a plot development, which I won’t give away, that is both eerie and unusual. But I will say this—I mentioned that nothing is truly declared in this plot, so don’t be surprised if the ending leaves things unresolved. Like “Another Earth,” it’s an ending that leaves things open for interpretation. The mystery is still there, but there’s one little bit that they end on that brings about a whole other part of the mystery to read into. “Sound of my Voice” is an intriguing sci-fi thriller that keeps you guessing all the way through, and still has you guessing after it’s over.