Smith's Verdict

Smith’s Verdict: ***

Reviewed by Tanner Smith

OK, I can assume that you read the “Smith’s Verdict” star-rating of “Godzilla” before reading this review. I can also assume that you think I’ve lost my mind for giving it a three-star recommendation. Well, it may be possible that I have indeed lost my mind for recommending this sci-fi action/adventure romp. But to me, this is a guilty pleasure to be sure. Sure, there are problems and most parts of this movie are cheesy. But mostly though, it’s a fun thrill ride that I, for one, do not regret taking. But if you think this movie is going to be a waste of your time, don’t worry—there are better movies out there.

To be accurate enough, this movie is a lesser movie than you would expect from its clever marketing. The trailers showed as little they possibly could with the story, as well as keeping the monster out of sight. You had to see the movie in order to see the monster Godzilla (or Gojira, as it is accurately named—shut up). The good news is the monster looks creepy and enormous enough to destroy Manhattan. The bad news is that it only comes out either at night or when it’s raining (it rains a lot in this film), as if attempting to hide how computer-generated it is. Sometimes, this works. But other times, you have to wonder—is this turning into the story of Noah’s ark?

But you don’t have to be an idiot to enjoy a movie in which a likable cast is chased around Manhattan by a 300-foot lizard-like monster. Matthew Broderick, who stars as nerdy worm expert Dr. Niko Tatapoulos, is not particularly impressive, but he gives a sort-of nerdy appeal to the role. He is teamed with Maria Pitillo who plays his ex-girlfriend Audrey, Jean Reno as a French government agent named Roache, and Hank Azaria (best known for voiceover work in “The Simpsons”) who provides comic relief as a wisecracking cameraman nicknamed “Animal.” These characters are not particularly well-developed, but I have to say, I didn’t care. To me, it was just fun watching them figure out every preposterous thing about Godzilla. And of course, it’s fun to watch them outsmart Godzilla’s multiple babies which look a lot like raptors (it’s clear that Godzilla is both male and female) and even outrun Godzilla in a taxi cab in the final half (they even wind up inside his mouth at one point).

I admire the element that director Roland Emmerich (who also co-wrote this movie with Dean Devlin) uses in the way that he and Devlin do not seem to care about character development. They only care about destruction and bring us the top-notch special effects. Godzilla destroys many parts of Manhattan and the military attempt to stop him—Madison Square Garden is destroyed, the Chrysler building is ruined, and the Brooklyn Bridge falls down. The characters (including Harry Shearer as a corrupt news reporter) may not be particularly interesting, but they are fun to watch. But two characters that should’ve been taken advantage of are part of missed opportunities. Those two characters are Mayor Ebert (Michael Lerner) and his associate Gene, both of whom are, of course, parodies of the popular film critics Gene Siskel and Roger Ebert. The resemblances are uncanny and the “thumbs up/thumbs down” trademark is even used. But if these two critics are parodied in a monster movie because they didn’t enjoy Emmerich’s two previous movies “Stargate” and “Independence Day,” then Emmerich should have had the sense to have the monster maim or kill them.

Another problem—there are many shots that resemble famous shots from “Star Wars” and “Jurassic Park.” We get the flying scenes from “Star Wars’ and the raptor attack scenes in “Jurassic Park.” You have to wonder if the filmmakers were going for the same kind of wonder those two hits delivered. Oh and then of course, there’s the element of a monster loose in New York that is taken from “King Kong.” But while King Kong was 30 feet tall and was able to climb the Empire State Building. Here, the filmmakers don’t have the advantage of having a creature ten times as large to knock over the building. They already blew up Madison Square Garden—why not the Empire State Building?

“Godzilla” is not for everyone. Or rather, it’s not for anyone who isn’t looking for a dumb thrill ride. But I was drawn into it and I can’t shake myself out of this positive review. But believe me when I say this—there ARE better movies out there.

Smith’s Verdict: ***

Reviewed by Tanner Smith

If you’ve seen “Congo” and read the above verdict, you might think I’m going ape. How can I recommend a movie with silly scenes, cheap gorilla suits, and a ridiculous Romanian character played by Tim Curry? Because I was entertained, darn it. “Congo,” despite its flaws, is an entertaining and funny jungle adventure story, loosely based on a novel by Michael Crichton.

Its villains hardly show up at all and when they do, it’s only briefly. Then, they barely have enough screen time during the climax of the film to become scary villains. But knowing they’re there is enough. The villains, who live in the Congo jungle, are killer gorillas, said to be a new, dangerous species that hunt and kill. As the movie opens, they make a victim out of Charlie (Bruce Campbell), whose father (John Doe Baker, chewing up the scenery) is a megalomaniac tycoon who sent Charlie to the Congo to find a rare diamond that will bring power to the industry’s newest weapon, which will “dominate the communications industry!”

Sent by Baker to find Charlie (but mostly bring back the diamonds) is Karen (Laura Linney), Charlie’s fiancée. When Karen confronts Baker when the diamonds seem more important to him than his son, he doesn’t care. She travels to the Congo with a primatologist named Peter (Dylan Walsh), who has taught an ape named Amy how to communicate by sign language to power a voice synthesizer…and also to drink martinis. He is going to the Congo to set the ape free, since she keeps painting pictures of the jungle.

Another character is thrown into the mix: a Romanian sinister figure named Homolka (Tim Curry). He’s along for the ride to find the city of Zinge (I’m unsure about how to spell it), which is said to hold many diamonds.  Now, Curry’s performance is the kind of performance you wish had a laugh track to go along with it. Every time he talks with that ridiculous phony accent—listen to the way he keeps saying the word “gorilla” and you’ll know what I mean. In fact, even before he says anything, the way he looks—the way he glowers—gets a laugh.

The best performance in the movie is given to Ernie Hudson. He plays their guide, Monroe Kelly, the “great white hunter who happens to be black.” He delivers his lines in such a calm and droll manner, that he comes across as a potential Clark Gable type. He’s terrific in this movie. And so is Linney, for that matter. She plays a female character that is strong and lends a helping hand for her male cohorts.

Anyway, once the group is in the jungle, the movie is good, dumb fun. They will go through many adventures—nearly get eaten by hippos, encounter a ghost tribe, run through a volcano, and be attacked by the killer gorillas. And they will say lines like, “Let’s get out of here while we still can” and “If you run—“ “He’ll chase me, I know.” Not to mention, “Why are they bringing out parachutes?” We also get some funny moments by Amy the gorilla, whose voice (through he synthesizer) sounds like a schoolgirl’s. I laughed when she drank the martini and moved the killer gorillas away, just by calling them “ugly.” It’s a good thing these moments are provided because I knew, right from her first shot, that it was a person in a gorilla suit playing the part.

Another dumb moment in the film: the group is informed that a ghost tribe is trying to bring a dead man back to life by performing a ritual. They go and watch and the tribe wave and point, while chanting, at the same spot. When they stop, Karen asks, “Where’s the man?” Where do you think, lady?

The climax of the film is  well-done. It has stunning visuals, great sets, awesome cinematography, and a real sense of adventure that you’d feel in an Indiana Jones movie (in fact, the director of “Congo” was a producer of the “Indiana Jones” movies).

Michael Crichton, whom I’ve said wrote the source material for “Congo,” was reportedly unhappy with they did with his book. I wouldn’t blame him—this is not in the same league as many other film adaptations of his books, like “Jurassic Park,” for example. Sure, “Congo” is trash. But it’s good trash. There’s such a thing as good trash, then it’s “Congo.”

Smith’s Verdict: ***

Reviewed by Tanner Smith

Jesse Eisenberg is a talented, subtly humorous young actor whose wit may be dryer than Michael Cera’s, if you can believe that. The odd thing was that he was constantly confused for Michael Cera. That may have something to do with his awkwardness he brings to his young characters in movies such as “The Squid and the Whale,” but also because he happens to be in a movie directed by the director of “Superbad,” which happened to star Michael Cera. (And it was reported that a few high-school girls in fact did mistake the lead for Michael Cera. How about that.) Eisenberg is an appealing actor, and with his quick delivery, you know that he has this way of delivering one-liners almost like he’s at risk. That makes him funny and likeable. He delivers the lead performance in “Adventureland,” a coming-of-age comedy-drama about summer jobs, romance, relationships, and ups and downs with all of the above.

The lead roles in this movie are college-aged, but they are more intelligent and likeable then you would find in lowbrow college comedies. They are real people that we meet every day, and such characters star in this movie, which is funny and realistic. It’s funny for the most obvious reason—its script is funny. It mixes comedy with reality—the best kind of comedy writing you could ask for. OK, so there’s a dorky character that spends every scene flicking the main character in the groin, but even he seems realistic.

The movie is set in the year 1987 for no particular reason other than to have the song “Rock Me Amadeus” play in the background constantly. (Don’t worry—the characters find it annoying too.) Eisenberg plays James Brennan, a recent college graduate who wants to go to Europe with his friends. But his parents are short of funds, which means James must get a summer job. He picks working at Adventureland, a second-rate amusement park where the games are rigged, the employees are bored all the time, and the only good prize is a Giant Ass Panda, which no one should win because there aren’t many of them left. The park is run by a couple, played by Bill Hader and Kristen Wiig who deserve a movie of their own. They’re funny, but they don’t seem like they’re in the same movie as the other characters.

James becomes surprisingly popular, though that could have something to do with the joints that he passes around to others at work. James’ fellow employees are bored Joel (Martin Starr) and the attractive Em (Kristen Stewart). James and Em hang out together and have fun with each other. But there’s a problem—Em is having a secret affair with Adventureland’s maintenance man Connell (Ryan Reynolds), who is married and is said to have jammed with Lou Reed. (“Don’t believe everything you hear,” he tells James.) As “Adventureland” continues to play out, the relationship between James and Em develops further, causing Em to question her affair with Connell. This relationship between James and Em is the highlight of the movie—it’s richly written and complicated, without the usual clichés with romantic comedies. They are well-acted by Eisenberg and especially by Stewart, whose scenes of confrontation bring out the best performance of her career so far.

In year-end 2009, “Adventureland” hit a lot of critics’ best-of-the-year lists, but for me, the subplot involving the park owners and a few unnecessary scenes (yes, there are some) seemed like a different movie than what is supposed to be. I should give “Adventureland” three-and-a-half stars, but I am giving it three stars because of its faults and because of how I felt about it. I thought it was good, but not as great as it could have been.

Smith’s Verdict: ***

Reviewed by Tanner Smith

Robert Downey, Jr. is one of the best actors of this or any generation. He has this way of becoming his character, rather than saying his lines without a proper motive. He made “Iron Man” his own movie, he deserved his Oscar nomination for the heart he put into his performance of a Aussie-turned-black-man in “Tropic Thunder,” and even if the movie “The Soloist” wasn’t recommended by me, his performance in the movie was still exceptional. That is why it’s no surprise that Downey Jr. can pull off the role of the famous detective Sherlock Holmes in his new movie, “Sherlock Holmes.” Why is it called that? Because there hasn’t been a movie featuring the great detective in quite a long time, so the executives thought, “Hey, let’s just call it ‘Sherlock Holmes’ so people will understand it more.”

Yeah, I’ll buy that.

It’s still early in the century; therefore, Sherlock Holmes and his assistant, Dr. Watson (both characters from Sir Arthur Conan Doyle’s famous detective stories), must be evolved into action heroes—I have noticed that Watson, compared to previous films, had lost weight. They go through several action sequences but they’re always ready because they spring into action as early as Batman and Robin. In the meantime, they behave like college roommates. They do indeed live together and Watson (Jude Law) has a complaint midway through the movie: “Do you hear me complaining about you practicing your violin at 3:00 in the morning?” He also has a problem with Holmes firing his gun at the wall whenever he gets bored. Even riskier: Watson is engaged to marry the beautiful Mary (Kelly Reilly) but Holmes isn’t making their relationship any easier. Holmes fans will want Holmes to figure out a person by looking at his/her clothes and Holmes does that with Mary, only upsetting her. In the meantime, Holmes is trying to get through many meetings with the unbelievably beautiful Irene Adler (Rachel McAdams), who is working for a mysterious criminal mastermind. (His identity is a twist at the end, perfect for Holmes fans.)

The movie’s plot: Holmes and Watson stop the fiendish Satanist Lord Blackwood (Mark Strong) from undergoing a voodoo ritual. Blackwood is hanged for his crime, only to return from the grave soon after. So, Holmes and Watson spring into action to figure out exactly how this happened, what he was up to then, and what he’s up to now.

This leads to many sequences, including a brilliant action scene in a boat shed and a desperate struggle atop the under-construction Tower Bridge. Some of them were kind of confusing, because the plot kept rambling and it was almost hard to keep track of what was happening. However, most scenes—that boat shed scene I mentioned, the duel between Holmes and a 10-foot-tall giant, and a desperate rescue in a slaughterhouse—are riveting and fun. And Holmes makes everything come together at the end.

There are some neat ideas put into the mix, as well as some effective jokes—one, for example, involves a sledgehammer and a smaller hammer—and great visual shots by director Guy Ritchie. I was impressed by how faithful Ritchie was to the source material while also keeping us interested with some comic timing and riveting action sequences. But what really holds it together is Downey Jr. as Sherlock Holmes. He’s great in this movie—he portrays Holmes as a socially awkward narcissist who rubs everyone the wrong way and doesn’t know how to take care of himself. But he’s also a whiz at logic and deductive reasoning, which makes him one of the smartest people on the planet. He’s got a great relationship with Watson, played with appealing wit by Jude Law—it’s almost like a cop buddy picture with them, if you think about it, and it’s very interesting in the way they fight crime together in 19^th century London, which is as dark as I’ve ever seen 19^th century London displayed in the movies.

I guess the reason I’m giving it three stars is because of the plot’s meandering points, hopefully to be improved in the sequel (and there’s sure to be one, considering the near twist at the end). But what really deserves praise is, again, Robert Downey Jr. and Jude Law’s chemistry and director Guy Ritchie’s riveting directing style with the action sequences. I was entertained by “Sherlock Holmes” and am hoping that the sequel is even better.

Smith’s Verdict: ***

Reviewed by Tanner Smith

“Catch That Kid” is a heist movie featuring twelve-year-olds robbing a bank. And to get right off the bat, this is not a great movie, by any means. It has its dumb moments, the techno George Clinton music is overdone, most of the comedy is beyond over-the-top, and some scenes go beyond sensible reasoning. But the energetic spirit, the respectable elements of the heist genre, and a spunky leading performance from Kristen Stewart turn out to be enough for me to enjoy it. So I’m giving it a marginal recommendation. It may be too much for you to handle; I got a kick out of it.

Just because George Clooney, Brad Pitt, Matt Damon, and the rest of the “Ocean’s Eleven” cast can pull off a heist doesn’t mean three pre-teenagers can’t do it any better. And it’s a clever and complicated one too. They have to thwart a new, high-tech security system in order to break into a bank vault and steal thousands of dollars.

It’s for a good cause, to be sure. It’s to pay for a ridiculously expensive operation that will heal the ill father of Maddy (Kristen Stewart). Maddy is a plucky girl who loves to climb the water tower. Her mother (Jennifer Beals) forbids it, but she got it from her father (Sam Robards), who once climbed Mount Everest and had a nasty fall. Nevertheless, Maddy isn’t discouraged and when we first see her in the movie, she’s scaling the town’s water tower. But her father’s injury causes a certain paralysis that causes a certain life-threatening disease (at least, I assume that’s what it is). There’s an institution that has experimented with this disease, but their insurance won’t cover the expense.

Now, in reality, I’m sure there’d be a heavy charity event for this apparently rare disease. But no—Maddy’s mother, who has installed the new bank security system, has to ask for a loan from the bank president Brisbane (Michael Des Barnes, teeth-gnashingly over-the-top) who of course turns her down. So, Maddy decides that she will break into the bank and steal the right amount of money to pay for the operation. Well OK, that’s a good cause. But how exactly does she plan to use the money without anyone, especially her mother, wondering where it came from? I’m not sure you’re supposed to ask questions like that in a movie like this, anyway. So forget it.

Maddy rallies her two best friends—Austin (Corbin Bleu) and Gus (Max Thieriot)—to help her with this mission. Austin is a computer nerd, Gus is a mechanic at the local go-cart track, and both are rivals for Maddy’s affections. In fact, Maddy actually has to lie to each of them, saying she has feelings for them in order to get them to help her.

Maddy has her mother show her around the bank so that she and her co-worker Hartmann (John Carroll Lynch) can give away some details that will ironically become great use to her in a heist. There are things to watch out for—high-powered motion sensors, vicious security Rottweilers, and a nasty chief security guard with a stun gun. What are the kids’ getaway vehicles? Faster, more silent go-carts enhanced by Gus’ mechanical skills. How do they keep surveillance? Hacking into the bank’s computer via Austin’s computer skills. And can Maddy really scale the bank vault suspended 100 feet in the air?

As you can tell, this is not an easy mission. It’s a hard, complicated heist and these kids have the skills to succeed. Well-executed by director Bart Freundlich, the heist that takes up most of the second half of “Catch That Kid” is quite entertaining. It respects the heist movie genre and gives some pleasant surprises as well.

There are some stupid moments in the movie, though. For example, how in the world is Austin able to create a digital hologram of the building the kids are going to break into? I don’t care how smart he is; he’d have to be the head of Apple in order to create that. And a lot of the physical comedy—crotch shots and flatulence—belong to that weirdo chief security guard played by James Legros who really lets it all out with this performance, but really overdoes it big time. Also, when the kids leave the bank on their go-carts, the police come after them immediately. What would make them sure that kids with go-carts automatically makes them believe they robbed a bank? And there’s a central element that occurs during the heist that really bugged me when it should have been exciting—it features Maddy holding on for dear life up near the vault; I didn’t believe for a second that she was really hanging in the air.

I’m willing to forgive the movie for all of that, mainly because of the film’s energy and the performances from the actors. Kristen Stewart is a real star ability—she’s plucky, fun, and instantly likable. She’s at the center of the movie, and she owns it. Max Thieriot and Corbin Bleu are fresh and appealing as her two friends, and their adolescent rivalry for Maddy’s affections are handled and performed realistically.

I also like that “Catch That Kid” is attempting to create something realistic from this “spy-kid” material. As a result, it’s never boring and a good deal of fun. You may disagree, seeing as how it may be seen as a dopey kid-adventure (which I don’t see it as). But I’m not here to agree with you. I’m merely here to state my review.

Smith’s Verdict: ***

Reviewed by Tanner Smith

Post-apocalyptic world. Futuristic technology. Aliens. Impending doom. Chases. Dogfights. Crashes. Tom Cruise racing to the rescue. How many times have we seen that in a sci-fi movie? (OK, maybe not all at once, but you get the point.)

“Oblivion” is the latest sci-fi action-thriller to contain all of these elements, and more. We get the usual science-fiction basics that we’ve seen in such movies as “The Matrix,” “Total Recall,” “Minority Report,” and many more I could go on naming. But strangely enough, “Oblivion” is welcome for two reasons—1) It is still pretty intriguing and exciting, and you can sense that the filmmakers have a real respect for the genre; 2) It is always good to see a sci-fi film that is mainly idea-based. There may be a lot of action and special effects, but there are also all sorts of twists and turns along with many different concepts that are brought into the story.

However, that probably wouldn’t work in the film’s favor for box-office reasons and even for narrative reasons. For the former, I mean that “Oblivion” might actually be the rare sci-fi flick that teenagers won’t enjoy unless they’re willing to open their minds to such puzzling inclusions that come into place, particularly in the final half. Therefore, it may not make as much money as it would like to. And for the latter, I mean that there is way too much story material to fit into a 126-minute movie. I admire the creativity, but maybe half of it could have been the main focus (most of it is backstory, anyway). As a result, there are a few questions that come to mind because not all of them are answered in the movie.

But to the credit of the movie, I actually did care about what was happening onscreen, and even though I was somewhat confused by certain parts, I find myself thinking more about possible answers. That’s a sign that the movie did indeed work for me, and so I’m recommending it.

“Oblivion” takes place in the year 2077, years after a war between humanity and an invading alien race. Humanity won but Earth was destroyed—survivors have fled to Titan and set up home there. The Earth is watched by a series of drones and a few humans whose job is to look after them, while a few scattered survivors (known as Scavs) lurk about the remains of New York City. Tom Cruise stars as Jack (because just about every action hero needs the name “Jack,” doesn’t he?) who teams with Vic (Andrea Riseborough) to take care of these drones, just a couple weeks before they’re allowed to join the other humans. Their memories have been wiped out before the mission, but Jack seems to recollect certain vague memories that appear in his dreams, most of which involve a beautiful woman (Olga Kurylenko). Jack spends his days locating and repairing lost drones, but he isn’t as anxious to return to Titan as Vic, who would just as soon forget about anything except Jack and the mission. Jack would rather stay in a make-shift cabin he built himself in a safe zone because Earth feels like home. “We won the war,” Jack thinks to himself. “Why do we have to leave?”

Period. That’s all I’m going to say about the plot. Let’s just say that Jack comes across one important, revealing situation/development after another, and leave it at that. “Oblivion” piles on idea after idea after idea, and you have to pay attention because you just might miss something.

Tom Cruise delivers what the role of Jack needs—the same physicality and roughness that made Tom Cruise eligible for action flicks and sci-fi films in the first place. And he’s pretty solid, making us like and root for him as Tom Cruise does best in this kind of movie. But he shares no chemistry with Andrea Riseborough, who is pretty bland anyway; however, once Olga Kurylenko comes into the picture, those two actually click. And Kurylenko is an actress I can describe as “ethereal”—she has a wonderfully expressive face and brings a true appeal to her character. Also in the cast is a cigar-chomping Morgan Freeman as a ringleader for a human resistance living on Earth (don’t worry, that’s not a spoiler, as the ads for this movie make clear). He does what Morgan Freeman does best—express coolness with that distinctive deep voice of his.

The visual effects in “Oblivion” are practically Oscar-level. We have small aircraft for Cruise to fly around in, a high-rise apartment that sees over practically the entire East Coast, and of course a post-apocalyptic environment that includes the ruins of cities such as Washington DC and New York City. Even though we’ve seen this sort of world before, it’s still an effective setting for this sort of film. Even if people don’t care much for the story and how everything sort of (though sort of doesn’t) play itself out along the way, you can’t deny that “Oblivion” isn’t a great visual experience. See it in IMAX if you can.

After you’ve seen “Oblivion,” it’s probably best to talk about it with someone who already has seen it. This is one of those sci-fi movies that require to really think about what has just been thrown at you. Talking to someone about certain details may surprise you in what you can come with as a result. Or maybe just see it a second time and hope you catch certain things you didn’t notice the first time; that’s exactly what I’m going to do soon. I may have missed something, but I give “Oblivion” credit for actually making me care about what it was I had to consider. For that, I give it a mild recommendation.   

Smith’s Verdict: ***

Reviewed by Tanner Smith

“Zathura” is a fun entertainment for the whole family. You could call it the outer space version of “Jumanji.” However, when “Jumanji” had a bit of a mean edge toward younger viewers, “Zathura” is a complete family film. It’s a smart and funny kid-adventure that will keep parents entertained as well. I really like the energy that went into this movie.

“Zathura’s” plot somewhat resembles “Jumanji,” which is obvious as the children’s books both movies were based upon were authored by Chris van Allsburg. “Zathura” features two young squabbling brothers who discover an old game. They begin the game and are suddenly put upon an incredible journey through the game world.

The movie opens with the brothers—ten-year-old Walter (Josh Hutcherson) and six-year-old Danny (Jonah Bobo)—competing for the attention of their divorced dad (Tim Robbins) on a boring Saturday. The boys fight almost all the time—Walter can’t even seem to tolerate Danny’s existence. (Their constant arguing grows kind of tedious but that’s the point. They behave just like realistic sparring brothers.) Dad has to go to work for a while, leaving the boys supervised by their teenaged sister Lisa (Kristen Stewart)…that is, supervised from under the covers of her bed.

In the basement of their house, Danny finds an old game called “Zathura,” a cool-looking, retro board game that seems to have a mind all its own. It has a futuristic look to it and it looks to be just a simple race to a black planet with a huge “Z” marked on it. How to play: Wind the key, push the “GO” button, wait until the timer winds to one number between one and nine, let the little ship move up how many spaces the timer says to go, and read the card that pops out of the game when it stops. Danny brings the game up to the living room, hoping to get Walter to play with him (but Walter would rather watch ESPN), and does just that. But when he gets Walter to read the card that pops out of the game, saying “Meteor Shower—Take Evasive Action,” the two brothers are surprised when a couple of small meteors zoom down into the room! Then, more meteorites attack and pulverize the room, with Danny and Walter racing for shelter.

And right away, you know what kind of adventure this is going to be; during the meteor attack, the kids are untouched. So, right away, you know that nothing is going to happen to them and it’s just going to be fun. You just sit back and enjoy the inventiveness that comes with each danger that both boys come across.

After the meteor attack, the kids look outside and get a fantastic view of not a pulverized neighborhood…but Saturn! The kids are in space now, as their house is floating around, because of that game. After reading the instructions, they learn that in order to get back home, they have to finish the game. With each spin, the boys are put into more adventure and danger—their sister Lisa is frozen in cryonic sleep for five turns; a short-circuited robot runs amok; and alien battleships use their house as a collision course! Eventually, the boys are aided by a mysterious stranded astronaut (Dax Shepard), who guides them through whatever else might happen.

“Zathura” is a smart and funny children’s adventure that will keep the parents entertained as well. There are some good twists at the end, there’s some humor put in, there are moments of suspense, and the special effects aren’t all wall-to-wall CGI but like the robot and the lizard men that invade the house, they’re made the old-fashioned way to look more real. And “Zathura” is just a ton of fun. This is genuine fantasy and that explains why the astronaut hasn’t grown a beard after flying around for years (or light years), and how the kids are able to breathe when they step into space to see Saturn outside. And I loved the way the game looks. It’s an ingenious contraption that moves spaces for you and makes its own cards when the space is reached.

“Zathura” is the third film directed by Jon Favreau who also directed “Made” and “Elf.” Favreau is like Ron Howard—an actor who may have be born to direct, as he clearly knows and loves movies. He does a nice job here, and the movie looks good and bright, whereas “Jumanji” looked a bit too dark and mysterious. “Zathura” isn’t as menacing or as emotional as “The Polar Express,” but it works well as an exciting space opera. “Zathura” is a fun adventure and I was happy to go along with it.

Smith’s Verdict: ***

Reviewed by Tanner Smith

“Fireproof” is a movie drenched in sentimentality, and yet it worked for me because it remained consistent in tone. Somehow when the message in “Fireproof” draws itself even clearer than it already has, the movie became more touching. It comes close to the edge of becoming too sentimental for its own good, and I think other people who see this movie will believe it did already reached the edge, but it still worked for me. It touched my heart, and that’s what it was trying to do in the first place.

The film, made by a Christian film company called Sherwood Pictures (based upon the Sherwood Baptist Church in Albany, Georgia), is a drama with this message—be true to your spouse. It also coins a process for married couples to use when it seems like their marriages are falling apart—this process is called “The Love Dare.” It’s a 40-day procedure that the main character in “Fireproof” has to perform in an attempt for his wife to love him again.

Caleb Holt (Kirk Cameron) is a fireman whose marriage with Catherine (Erin Bethea), a nurse, is falling apart. Catherine hates Caleb’s addiction to Internet pornography and his large savings for a boat he intends to buy. She would rather use the money to buy a better hospital bed for her sick mother.

Catherine says she wants out, and then files for divorce. Caleb turns to his father (Harris Malcom) and tells him about the impending divorce. His answer is “The Love Dare.” Caleb isn’t so sure about this at first, but soon enough, he’s going through this procedure day by day. In the meantime, Catherine isn’t buying her husband’s sudden niceness and just ignores his offers, while also possibly having an affair with a handsome doctor she works with. But the truth of the matter is that Caleb has indeed changed and he realizes that his motto—“Never leave your partner behind”—doesn’t just count at the firehouse or on rescue missions, but also—and arguably, most importantly—with your spouse.

“Fireproof” handles this plot by making me think that it’s going one way, while really, some of the time, it’s going another—I won’t even go into the point where the divorce papers come in—and that was a surprise. I’m uncertain that audiences for this movie will notice that—Christian audiences, mainly—but I am certain that the film’s weepy ending will sincerely move them. And I need to be honest here…I came so close to crying. The film’s ending did indeed touch me and that counts for this review.

The film isn’t entirely based on those moments that make people want to weep, however. There are comic antics performed by the other firemen—I love the scene where Caleb challenges a rookie to a tobacco-sauce-drinking contest. And there are two rescue scenes—one involving a car on train tracks and the other involving a burning house. This is a surprise, too. The action is well-directed (by Alex Kendrick, pastor at Sherwood Baptist Church) and well-paced.

“Fireproof” doesn’t feature acting that would cause consideration for awards, but there are some decent performances, especially from Kirk Cameron as the lead character and from Ken Bevel as a fireman who encourages Caleb to become a born-again Christian. Erin Bethea is adequate as Catherine, but her shouting scenes are a little off.

I understand whom “Fireproof” will appeal to and I believe that other people—especially those with marriages that are falling apart—should see it too. It’s a sweet, sentimental film with a positive message—what’s wrong with that?

Smith’s Verdict: ***

Reviewed by Tanner Smith

After the success of the first “Wayne’s World” movie, you’d think they couldn’t come up with a sequel that works, like maybe there wouldn’t be enough charm and humor to carry over. But fortunately, “Wayne’s World 2” does work. It’s a funny sequel with the same endearing characters and some very funny jokes. It’s not quite up there with its predecessor, but it’s still an enjoyable film that made me laugh.

Wayne (Mike Myers) and Garth (Dana Carvey) are back and they now live in an abandoned doll factory after moving out of their parents’ houses. They still do their cable access show, “Wayne’s World,” and still know how to party. But also, they are still insecure about their careers. That’s good—if they were, they’d be too confident and possibly unlikable. Wayne’s girlfriend Cassandra (Tia Carrere) is also back and even hotter than she was in the original. (As Wayne would say—schwing!)

One night, Wayne has a dream in which Jim Morrison (Michael Nickles) and a weird naked Indian take him to a desert to tell him the purpose of his life. So, Wayne decides to put on a concert in his hometown of Aurora, Illinois, called “WayneStock.” Aerosmith, Van Halen, and Rip Taylor are among the choices for the concert, but it doesn’t seem like they will sign on. This is not going to be easy.

But the movie isn’t all about music. The plot thickens a little bit when a blockhead record producer Bobby (Christopher Walken)—who is promoting Cassandra and her band—has his eyes for Cassandra and tries to steal her away from Wayne. Cassandra doesn’t take Bobby seriously but Wayne has his own thoughts about the two of them together. Garth, on the other hand, is timid towards a really hot babe named Honey Hornee (pronounced Hor-NAY) who happens to be played by Kim Basinger. I love the scene where she invites him over for dinner and puts the move on him—Garth is scared and when the two finally kiss, Garth is floating in the air.

And then there are a lot of big laughs here. The funniest scene in the movie is a fight scene in which Wayne does battle with Cassandra’s father—their voices and dialogue are badly dubbed and every time an arm moves, a whooshing sound is heard. And I also liked the Village People/”Y.M.C.A.” reference, the jokes about the Doors and the naked Indians, and the character of an old roadie (Ralph Brown) who now tells the same boring stories again and again. I also liked the bit where a “better actor” (Charlton Heston) is brought in to replace a “bad actor,” as well as a quick satire of a famous “Jurassic Park” scene.

Wayne and Garth are still likeable and funny without being mean-spirited. One aspect of their comedy is their vocabulary—they say “Excellent!” a lot, they go “Schwing!” whenever a babe passes by, they say they’re going to “hurl” on some occasions, and Wayne even lets out “lung butter.” It’s hard not to like these guys—they live in a world all their own, but they’re definitely not nerds. The movie shows that too—early in the movie, when the guys go to an Aerosmith concert, they run into two nerds and they are nothing alike. There are a lot of laughs in “Wayne’s World 2”; it’s a fine sequel.

Smith’s Verdict: ***

Reviewed by Tanner Smith

As “Little Manhattan” opens, we’re reminded of how it was back when we were little kids when it came to boys and girls. Before we even started school, we got along okay. But then, after the first few years of grade school, boys and girls lived in a universe separated of each other. Also, it was feared that if a girl touched a boy, it would lead to “cooties.” But as you get a little older, you get a little wiser, as boys start to see girls in a different way.

Deny all you want, but that’s how it was back when we were all little and cute and not too bright. “Little Manhattan” reminds us of how it was, guided by a narration from the film’s main character—a ten-year-old kid named Gabe who lives in Manhattan and has fallen in love for the first time in his life.

Gabe (Josh Hutcherson) is a good kid who confused about love at first. His parents are going through a divorce and he doesn’t understand how it all works. With basketball with his friends and football with his dad, he doesn’t understand girls yet. Then, he asks his dad if he can take karate class. When he starts taking that class, he is surprised when his sparring partner is the pretty eleven-year-old Rosemary Telesco (Charlie Ray). After a few “spars” together, they start to become friends. This is unusual to Gabe, and there’s a sweet scene set in a clothing store, where Rosemary tries on a dress with Gabe accompanying her; Gabe wonders why he is looking at her as if she were the most beautiful thing in the world.

To Gabe’s surprise, he and Rosemary spend more time together and he becomes very interested in her. As the movie progresses their relationship, Gabe questions what is happening to him and why he is falling in love with Rosemary. But when things go great, Gabe learns that Rosemary is leaving for summer camp and won’t be back until the end of summer. Gabe takes the news a bit too far and almost ruins their relationship from being so frustrated.

“Cute” would be the best way to describe “Little Manhattan”—actually, the film barely gets away with being so cute. But it strangely works. The two child actors are very good. Josh Hutcherson has enough credibility and energy to carry this movie successfully. There is another sweet scene with Gabe and Rosemary on a date to a fancy party with Rosemary’s parents. Gabe gets the nerve to hold Rosemary’s hand and through his narration, he’s afraid that his hand is too sweaty and she’s disgusted. There is a lot of the kid’s narration through about 60-70% of “Little Manhattan,” and it works. Charlie Ray is quite good as Rosemary. She plays the character as a smart-for-her-age eleven-year-old girl. She has an effective scene in which Gabe finally tells her he loves her and she is confused. She isn’t quite sure what love is. These two young actors are forced to carry the movie and they do it well.

“Little Manhattan” is a sweet and smart family treasure. After a few dumb family movies that are supposed to be truthful, this one hits the nail right on the head. This movie captures the memories of falling in love for the first time, and captures the true mentality of falling in puppy love. It also has a harsh but truthful subplot in which Gabe copes with his parents’ oncoming divorce, which constantly has Gabe questioning the true meaning of “love.” And the scenes with Gabe and Rosemary together are sweet, and the actors share convincing chemistry together. “Little Manhattan” is a sweet story about young love with two appealing leads and an enlightening view on love.

NOTE: Now, I have to admit—I had my doubts during the first shots of the movie, which show a lot of vomit as a symptom of “cooties.” But don’t run away from those first shots—stay a while so the movie can get to its story.