Smith's Verdict

Smith’s Verdict: ***

Reviewed by Tanner Smith

Really? Five years? Eh, whatever. Should be an interesting TEN-year separation. (Hey, there’s a sequel idea! But I digress.)

“The Five-Year Engagement” is a dopey romantic comedy from the guys that brought us “Forgetting Sarah Marshall” (director/co-writer Nicholas Stoller, star/co-writer Jason Segel, and producer Judd Apatow), and while it’s not quite up there with that hilarious, heartwarming treasure of a movie, it’s still a nicely-done romantic comedy. This is good in my book (or review), especially compared to the many terrible romcoms that just keep coming to the dismay of us critics, but the general public seems to eat up. Come on, how many sappy novels did Nicholas Sparks write that his film adaptations keep coming every year? But I digress.

Jason Segel and Emily Blunt are an appealing couple and exhibit great chemistry on-screen. They play Tom and Violet, whose story begins just how most romcoms would end—a marriage proposal. In an opening scene, Tom accidentally ruins the surprise for Violet that he has set up for a proposal during a skit, but nevertheless, Violet says “yes” and the movie begins.

But the big question after the OTHER big question is, when’s the big date? Violet tries to plan the perfect wedding, while waiting for a college professorial opening in psychology, and Tom is doing well at work as a chef, a job that might get him a promotion. But soon, things start to spiral downward when Violet’s dream job offer arrives. The job is in Michigan, not in the Bay Area, meaning Tom has to quit his job, relocate with Violet, and start anew. Violet is happy with her new job. But the wedding doesn’t seem to be happening anytime soon because of this. As time goes by, Tom starts to become more resentful of Violet’s newly developed success and the continuing engagement seems like it could working its way up to a breakup.

The romcom rulebook states that there must be many concerned family relatives and the best friends who are simply there to provide comic relief. I’m usually very sick of these people because they slow things down and cause the kinds of clichés that I truly cannot stand in romcoms anymore (misunderstandings, revelations, etc.). And while they do slow things down at certain spots, and there is a slight misunderstanding involving Violet and her new boss (Rhys Ifans), they don’t damage the story to the point where it becomes annoying. In particular, we have Tom’s wisecracking best friend Alex (Chris Pratt) and Violet’s sassy sister Suzie (Alison Brie) who meet and married well before Tom and Violet. These two do what their stereotypes have them do, but they still provide laughs. Brie, in particular, has a hilarious imitation of Elmo as she discreetly discusses this “five-year engagement” (yes, the title tells no lie) with Violet in front of her four-year-old daughter. (And Blunt, as wonderful as she is, deserves credit for her equally-funny imitation of the Cookie Monster.)

There are also some funny supporting characters involving Ifans and his psych-study group, which includes Mindy Kaling and Kevin Hart who make the most of their scenes with some very funny one-liners.

One major problem I had with “The Five-Year Engagement” is that it goes on for too long at two hours and four minutes of running time. It especially shows in many scenes that have made their point already and yet are still rolling. You just want to yell “Cut!” at certain points or just wish the editing was tighter.

But what makes “The Five-Year Engagement” worth watching are the performances from Jason Segel and Emily Blunt. Segel has always played a likable, hulking, sometimes-dim guy and he’s just as appealing here. Even when he makes some mistakes (and there are people who even rank him out as stupid), it’s hard not to like him. Emily Blunt is marvelous as always. She’s likable, pretty, funny, and just a fabulous screen presence. I will watch her in anything she acts in.

“The Five-Year Engagement” has just what we want in a romcom—two appealing lead actors and some very funny gags (including one involving a babysitting job and a crossbow). I just wish it was tightened up at least a little bit in the editing process. There’s a very good romantic comedy buried in filler, but it’s better than buried in…well, never mind.

Smith’s Verdict: ***

Reviewed by Tanner Smith

Artistry can redeem any subject matter. In many cases, the material itself doesn’t necessarily matter for a film—it’s what the artist does with the material and how they handle it that really matters. In the case of “The Gift,” top-notch director Sam Raimi and his stellar ensemble cast make the best out of a standard screenplay from Billy Bob Thornton and Tom Epperson (who also wrote the terrific “One False Move”) that is not necessarily bad or even mediocre, but could have been executed like a disposable, run-of-the-mill supernatural thriller if put in the wrong hands. Thankfully, Raimi and his cast make it anything but. It’s intriguing, chilling, skillfully-made, and very well-acted.

Cate Blanchett stars as Annie Wilson, a psychic living in a backwater Southern town in Georgia. She has three young sons, has lost her husband to an accident, and makes a living by telling fortunes to local people. She genuinely has the gift of second sight (her grandmother had it as well) and has sporadic visions in her dreams and by looking at certain places or objects. She doesn’t fool with people—she listens to her clients and reasons with them in good manner. She doesn’t even ask for money, though her clients are generous enough to give donations. It’s the least they could do for having someone listen to them and give them advice.

Among her clients is a victim of spousal abuse, Valerie Barksdale (Hilary Swank). Her husband, Donnie (Keanu Reeves), is an abusive S.O.B. who beats his wife (giving her “welts the size of footballs on my back,” according to Valerie), and doesn’t approve of Annie giving Valerie advice. He threatens her and her children, even uses a voodoo doll to try and intimidate her, and says he doesn’t want her using her “devil tricks” on his wife anymore.

Also among Annie’s few defenders is Buddy Cole (Giovanni Ribisi), an emotionally troubled mechanic who is afraid he might do something bad to his father. And there’s also a possible romance between Annie and the school principal Wayne Collins (Greg Kinnear), although he’s set to marry Jessica King (Katie Holmes) whose father is highly respected in the town. Everyone else in this town either doesn’t believe in Annie’s gift or believes that she’s in touch with the devil.

Annie starts to see visions of impending doom for Jessica. Soon enough before Annie can even comprehend these visions, Jessica is missing. A few days later, the police go visit Annie to see if there’s anything she can see to give them some sort of lead to her whereabouts, even though they are reluctant to believe that she’s genuinely psychic. Annie is convinced by further visions that Jessica is dead and that Donnie may have killed her. And surely enough, the police find her body in Donnie’s backyard.

But it doesn’t stop there—Annie has to testify while trying to convince the skeptical D.A. of her gift, while also believing that there’s more to this incident than meets the eye. This leads to further plot developments that sort of run “The Gift” off of steam, but are still acceptable mainly because despite everything, we are curious to see where all of this is heading.

Admittedly, the first half of “The Gift” is even better than the second half. The setup is competently handled, and Raimi really knows how to grab our attention with his filmmaking. Notice little details in the Southern town that make it seem like a “Southern gothic” tale—it’s the kind of atmospheric detail that caught attention in Raimi’s “A Simple Plan” (minus the snow). And the story sets itself gradually with a consistently gradual pace, and the characters, for the most part, are well-developed. (For those who aren’t, they still fit their eccentric types, which is suitable enough.) The tension is present, with threats of physical violence and also those upsetting visions that would disturb any nervous viewer.

So, even if the second half of “The Gift” isn’t as intriguing as the first, as it does wind up in the traditional supernatural-thriller fashion with one or two unexpected twists, it’s still admittedly interesting to see where “The Gift” goes with this. As a result, thanks to Raimi’s filmmaking, we’re still not quite sure of what to think of everything being thrown at us, but we’re also still on edge.

The acting is phenomenal—each of the actors give a solid performance in “The Gift.” British actress Cate Blanchett as Annie Wilson, the woman who starts to see this gift as a curse (and she even admits to having a premonition to her husband’s death, thus making her feel guilt), is excellent in this movie. It’s a courageous, understated role that she’s up to (and she nails the Southern accent as well). Keanu Reeves is surprisingly great and manages to radiate pure evil in the performance of Donnie—he’s genuinely menacing. (Keanu Reeves seems to be everyone’s go-to “bad actor,” but watch his performance here and you won’t even see Keanu Reeves.) Hilary Swank makes the best of her small role. The jury’s still out on whether Katie Holmes can act, but she’s suitably cheeky here as Jessica. Greg Kinnear does what he’s required to do (which is to say he’s mild, but supposed to be “too nice”). Giovanni Ribisi is terrific as Buddy—he doesn’t play it over-the-top with the loud fear; he’s genuinely disturbed and even kind of sympathetic.

Thanks to top-notch direction from Sam Raimi and of course solid acting by the ensemble cast, “The Gift” is a good example of artistry overtaking all. This easily could have been a bad movie, given most of its supernatural elements. It’s done very well as it is.

Smith’s Verdict: ***

Reviewed by Tanner Smith

Death is all around us. It’s an unseen malevolent force that decides when we all die. It has this grand design that is already set in motion. But if that design is tampered with somehow, it only becomes worse for those who were meant to die in the first place. One by one, those who were meant to die originally die right away (not later—right away) in all sorts of freak accidents.

That is the premise for the movie “Final Destination” and what they don’t answer in this movie (or maybe the writers are just afraid to) is where religion fits into all of this. But once you take this premise and combine it with a dead teenager movie, you get a fun, scary thrill ride. This is the same league as dead teenager movies, such as “Scream” and “I Know What You Did Last Summer,” but somehow it’s better because it takes this premise seriously. The teenagers in this movie talk about their situation and try to deal with it before they die in horrific ways. Also, what makes this different from previous dead teenager movies (and more effective) is that the killer in this movie is Death itself—you can’t see it, you can’t feel it, you can’t escape it. That’s chilling enough.

The film opens with a terrifyingly convincing sequence in which a high school senior named Alex Browning (Devon Sawa) and his classmates are leaving on an airplane, heading to Paris for a class trip. But something goes horribly wrong and their plane explodes. This sequence is frightening for anyone about to take a trip on an airplane.

This sequence is a premonition from Alex. He sees the explosion and wakes up at the moment when the plane is about to take off. But he fears that this was no dream and he freaks out, getting himself and a few others (including a teacher) thrown off the plane before it takes off. It turns out his vision was accurate and they all watch as the most horrific occurs. OK, so they escaped Death for now, but this is just the beginning…

Now the question is who’s going to die next and how. One thing is certain—Death is not going to stop and (this is the goofiest part of the movie) no death will be subtle. It seems that Death is a huge fan of Rube Goldberg contraptions. All sorts of unexpected traps are set up to kill off these teenagers one by one. But strangely, it works, especially in a scene where it seems that a teenager is done for—a train is coming while the most macho and idiotic of the teenagers, Carter (Kerr Smith), has parked his car on the tracks; his seatbelt is stuck and the doors suddenly lock. The train is coming and despite the obvious oncoming, I bought the suspense.

Another element I liked about the movie—the teenagers talk about their situation. They have meetings. They try to figure out a way to cheat Death’s design. It’s fun to watch them talk about this preposterous yet terrifying situation. Alex and his girlfriend Clear (Ali Larter) even come in touch with a mysterious mortician (Tony Todd, “Candyman”), who seems to be Death’s spokesman and even has that chilling line, “I’ll see you soon.” (That’s even in the trailer.)

What really helps in the movie is that I actually did care about who lived and who died. Devon Sawa and Ali Larter are appealing as the two leads. The only exceptions are Kerr Smith, who is just plain obnoxious, and Seann William Scott (whom you might recognize as Stifler from “American Pie”), who overdoes it with the white guy-black guy wannabe persona and wardrobe.

Like the “Scream” and “Nightmare on Elm Street” movies, “Final Destination” will inspire the obligatory sequels. I hope at least one of them is as good as the original. But then again, I’m asking for too much. Director James Wong, whose previous TV efforts are impressive, has created a dead teenager movie that has a new twist in the plot, a talented cast, and an intelligence that can’t be described if you asked me to describe it. “Final Destination” is scary, thrilling, well-acted, and well-directed. It is also silly. This is not a great film but a good film. I just hope Death doesn’t take that last sentence the wrong way. If so, I’m committing myself into a padded wall room in a mental institution.

Smith’s Verdict: ***

Reviewed by Tanner Smith

What can I say about “The Thing?” On one hand, it’s an effective, well-made science-fiction/horror movie with a sense of atmosphere and ultimately nifty, well-crafted special effects with elements that I hadn’t seen before. On the other hand, there is a lot of gore and disgusting imagery involving the hostile creatures in this movie, most of which I’m not sure I would even want to see again. It’s an uneasy movie to watch, but it is well-executed—I guess that makes it a reason to recommend the movie as a critic.

“The Thing” centers around a U.S. Antarctic expeditionary crew who follows their routine one day until a dog appears on their outpost, followed by a Norwegian chopper in pursuit. With the Norwegians dead, the dog stays at the post as the people go to figure out what’s going on. They find the Norwegian’s base and find all sorts of secret documents and videotapes, containing information about some thing that was frozen underground and unthawed. No prizes for those who guess that the thing is a spaceship.

But that’s just the tip of the iceberg. It turns out the dog wasn’t the innocent victim of a hunting game. It was actually an alien creature that was buried in the ship long ago and revived by the Norwegians. (How? I don’t know—they didn’t explain it very well.) It turns out this dangerous creature has the ability to digest anything it comes in contact with and then turn into them after it kills them. By the time the crew realizes what’s exactly going on, the peril intensifies. Since this “thing” can transform into anything it touches, no one knows who’s a human and who’s an alien.

Most of what “The Thing” has to offer are the creature effects, which compose of some of the most shocking, slimy, nauseating sights you’ll ever see in a movie. As the dog opens its mouth, it turns itself inside out to reveal a creature head, grows many spider-like legs, and sprouts a lot of twitching tentacles to reach out and grab things, including the other wolves in the pen. Then, there’s a scene in which a dead person, killed by the thing, is operated on and then his stomach suddenly opens up and grows a set of large fanged teeth (yes, teeth), bites the operator’s hands off, and grows beanstalks from his neck, which decapitates him. And then the head grows more tentacles and walks around like a spider! And there’s more. Many more. They’re all convincing, but that’s what makes them most revolting.

One other problem with “The Thing” is its poor characterization. The characters are either poorly developed or not developed at all. As I check the cast list, most of the many victims are played by seemingly popular character actors. But aside from Kurt Russell as the film’s tough hero, no one in this movie stands out. Unfortunately, this means I didn’t care much for who all lived and died, and that’s a key element for a horror movie.

Why can I recommend “The Thing” if I tell people that they might be revolted by its disgusting imagery and lack of character development? Well, the effects are well-done and if you’re in the right mind set, they are fun to watch. I like the creativity that came with these special effects—there are some unique monsters here. I also liked Kurt Russell as the hero, because Russell at least made an effort to do something with his character. And there’s a real sense of atmosphere in this movie—the director John Carpenter, who made great atmosphere out of the suburbs in the creepy “Halloween,” makes use of his surroundings and effectively recreates the Antarctic. It looks real and feels real, so the action and terror surrounding it makes for some good tense moments. So don’t say I’m going soft on “The Thing,” because if I was, then…maybe I’m a Thing. (Mwahahaha!)

Smith’s Verdict: ***

Reviewed by Tanner Smith

When Ang Lee’s “Hulk” was released in 2003, it left many movie audience members (and a few fans of the original Marvel comic book series) feeling disappointed. I think it was due to the fact that it was heavy on character development rather than action sequences (the special effects didn’t impress them either). So, a sequel was out of the question and a “reboot” was called on schedule to completely ignore the 2003 disappointment.

As a result, the reboot, entitled “The Incredible Hulk,” is a fairly decent superhero movie. When “Hulk” was more of a character piece, “The Incredible Hulk” has some of the same characters (Bruce Banner/Hulk, Betty Ross, and General Ross), but not much development. And no, I don’t just mean compared to the 2003 film either. But on the plus side, Bruce Banner is given enough development—that counts, considering he is the central character. And the character is played by a terrific actor who almost always has great screen presence—Edward Norton. I have to be honest—I wasn’t sure Edward Norton could hold a candle to Eric Bana (who played the Bruce Banner character in the 2003 film). Eric Bana showed a great sense of vulnerability as the character and was the subject of a tragic case. In Norton, I felt he was just as strong and added some original touches to the character.

The movie begins with an opening credits sequence that shows images of Bruce’s back-story. Bruce Banner was part of an experiment for the government that went totally wrong. Bruce became the Hulk as a result—for those who are new, the Hulk is the nickname for a giant green monster that Bruce transforms into when he gets angry. When the opening credits are over, we see Bruce hiding out in Brazil, where he learns to control his anger so the Hulk doesn’t take over, much like “Jekyll and Hyde.” Bruce is trying to find a cure for…I was going to say, “disease,” but what exactly do you call this? I dunno, but if he wants it gone, it’s a disease in this case. Anyway, Bruce works at an energy-drink bottling plant, where a drop of his blood accidentally drips into one of the bottles. This leads to General Ross (William Hurt, chewing the scenery here) discovering where Bruce is and sending his soldiers to chase after him.

This leads to a few action sequences that I have to admit are more fun than in the 2003 film. They’re so alive and energetic. They’re as much fun to watch as the action sequences in “Iron Man,” of which this film is in the same universe (you’ll find out what I mean when you see the very last scene of this movie). But what doesn’t quite work in “The Incredible Hulk” was an element that helped make “Iron Man” a strong piece of work—the love story. While the romance between “Iron Man’s” Tony Stark and Pepper Potts was fresh and very sweet, the romance between Bruce and Betty Ross (Liv Tyler), the daughter of General Ross, just seems all too generic. Also, Liv Tyler’s performance was pretty bland. But to be fair, I think that had to do with the way the character was written. There isn’t much juicy material written within the Betty character. There is one exceptionally clever moment with Bruce and Betty’s relationship later in the film as Bruce and Betty are about to make love when Bruce realizes that he can’t get too excited. (I would love to explain the dangers of a superhero sex scene, but I’ll save it for a superhero movie that actually has one.)

I also should say I like this 2008 Hulk better than the 2003 Hulk. It looks a lot better than the former Hulk (which looked more like Shrek on steroids) and has better movements. Sure, it’s CGI and there were times when I didn’t believe it was there. But in the 2003 film, I really didn’t believe the Hulk was there. Wrapping this up, what have I left out? Only the soldier played by Tim Roth, whose character’s motivations are given away by the film’s trailers (shame on the marketers, by the way).

Smith’s Verdict: ***

Reviewed by Tanner Smith

The title “September 30, 1955” refers to the date of James Dean’s death. The actor was only 24 years old and his best movies (“Rebel Without a Cause” and “Giant”) hadn’t been released yet. But “East of Eden” took movie audiences by surprise—or rather, it was James Dean’s performance that took them by surprise. As “September 30, 1955” opens, we meet our main character—a young man named Jimmy J—as he watches “East of Eden” in a cinema. As he watches James Dean perform the touching final scene, a tear falls across his face.

Whether this is the first or one of multiple times he has seen this movie isn’t clear, but one thing is certain—Jimmy J feels that James Dean is a close friend. That is why when he hears that James Dean died in a tragic accident the very next day, it really hits him hard. His mother and friends don’t understand his grief. Jimmy J has to remind them that they really don’t. The worst anybody could say was that James Dean was only a movie star. He was more than that. That’s what anybody might have said on the actual date that people heard about the death of James Dean. There may be a lot of other people who feel the same way as Jimmy J, but this is a sleepy Arkansas town where an event like this isn’t very important. Quite odd—this could have been the most-talked-about event to come along in a long while. But with the upcoming homecoming (excuse that pun) at college, what’s more important?

“September 30, 1955” does a nice job when it focuses on Jimmy J’s grief and interaction with his friends. Jimmy J is played by Richard Thomas (best known as John Boy on “The Waltons”) and while the character isn’t given much of a personality throughout the film, he nearly makes up for it in a bedside scene with a great amount of range. Strangely enough, the final half of this film is the best thing of the movie. The characters—including those played by Tom Hulce, Deborah Benson, and Lisa Blount—are given room to grow after a couple of painfully long sequences—one involving an attempted séance (the only saving grace is Lisa Blount’s Vampira exterior) and the following one involving an attempt to scare a couple of ex-friends with makeup. I felt if those scenes were trimmed down a bit, I’d be a bit more satisfied. I wouldn’t ask to delete the latter scene because it sets up the bedside scene (not giving anything away here).

So do I recommend the film? Well…it’s a close call, but I do. The director James Bridges has a good feel for the town that Jimmy J and his friends live in, the actors are good (especially Lisa Blount as Jimmy J’s ex-girlfriend who believes she can communicate with spirits), and the writing of the dialogue that these kids say is spot-on. There are flaws, of course—this is not particularly well-executed. As I’ve said, some sequences drag on for too long, some hints of comedy fall flat, and the final shot is unsatisfactory. But as a drama and a portrait of those grieving over the legendary actor James Dean, “September 30, 1955” works.

Smith’s Verdict: ***

Reviewed by Tanner Smith

“Hostage” could be seen as another entry in the “Die Hard” series, seeing as how it is an action-thriller starring Bruce Willis, but you’d be wrong. On the one hand, it’s gripping, suspenseful, and well-made. On the other hand, it’s grim and dark (as opposed to the excitement among the violence in the “Die Hard” movies) with a much more conflicted Willis character than his infamous action-hero character John McClane. Instead of being the “fly in the ointment,” the “monkey in the wrench,” or the “pain in the ass,” Willis plays a troubled person stuck in a situation he was hoping never to fall into, after a similar terrible experience a year ago. (No, this isn’t a sequel.)

The film opens as LAPD hostage negotiator Jeff Talley (Willis) is called upon for a scene in which a madman endangers a mother and child. After trying to play it calm, his method doesn’t work, resulting in the deaths of each. One year later, we see that Talley has left the city and joined the police force in Bristo Camino, where he is police chief. He feels extreme guilt over the lives he could have saved that year ago and finds himself better off serving in a community where nothing much happens. His biggest concern as of now is dealing with his unhappy wife Jane (Serena Scott Thomas) and daughter Amanda (Rumer Willis, Bruce’s real-life daughter), who only live with him “part-time.”

Meanwhile, an accountant (Kevin Pollak) is driving his kids (teenage Michelle Horn, grade-schooler Jimmy Bennett) home from school when he is spotted by three teenage thugs who decide to steal his car. They follow him home and sneak in to steal his keys. The intruders are Dennis (Jonathan Tucker), his brother Kevin (Marshall Allman), and their companion Mars (Ben Foster). When they’re inside the house, what seems like a simple robbery turns into something else, as the accountant is knocked unconscious, the two kids are held hostage, and Mars shoots a patrolling cop, thus bringing the whole police force on the scene and leaving Talley to have to deal with it. Talley does what he can until someone else takes over in authority, but it turns out that there are darker matters at hand, as members of the mob hold Talley’s wife and daughter hostage. They will let them go if Talley deals with the situation involving the other hostages.

OK, so maybe I could have done without this second plot thread, as the scenes involving the three interlopers and the two young hostages are tenser. By comparison, this other element is still pretty tense, but doesn’t do the credibility of the rest of the film that much service. As a result, the final (inevitable) showdown between Talley and these other criminals just seems sort of ordinary. I will give credit, though, that they do connect with the story of the accountant, who is also there for the showdown as well. So, it’s not pointless. But it is somewhat unnecessary.

How “Hostage” handles the messed-up situation involving the three guys and the two hostages is quite effective. For one thing, they don’t make the little boy (Bennett) into a whining boor—he’s resourceful and quick enough to grab his sister’s cell phone, sneak through the air ducts, and make secret calls to Talley (after seeing him on TV), to give him helpful information. Although, I have to ask—how come nobody checks up on the kid to make sure he hasn’t escaped his room?

What I really liked is the original treatment given to the three teenage crooks. Dennis is the hothead of the group, making sure he’s the one in charge of the situation and covering the fact that he’s a scared kid. Kevin is the nervous conscience who didn’t want to go along with this plan in the first place, and is stuck with nothing to do about it, other than hope no one gets hurt. Mars, on the other hand, is a complete psycho. He has a tendency to act first and think later, and he has a criminal record. The reasons as to why things go from bad to worse are because of his actions.

Bruce Willis is outstanding, playing a much different version of the heroic cop that made him a noticeable action star in the “Die Hard” movies. You can totally buy him as this tortured cop looking for redemption and finding it in yet another near-tragic position. He completely sells the drama portrayed with this character. You enjoy spending two hours watching him sort through everything that occurs in “Hostage,” a gripping, nicely-done thriller.

Smith’s Verdict: ***

Reviewed by Tanner Smith

There is a chaos theory that even the smallest thing, such as a butterfly’s wing fluttering, can cause disarray. That theory is quoted at the opening of “The Butterfly Effect,” a weird and disturbing film that intrigued me with interest and weird plot elements that are as strange as “Donnie Darko.” (And I mean that as a compliment.)

“The Butterfly Effect” is a thriller right from the start. As the movie opens, a man runs into a room and writes a message saying that he may be dead if anybody finds it, but he can “save her” if he can “go back to the beginning.” Then the movie flashes back to thirteen years earlier, to that man’s childhood at age 7.

The kid’s name is Evan Treborn and there is something very strange going on. He blacks out certain memories that may have been horrible. He doesn’t know why he holds a large knife at one point, he doesn’t know why his clothes are off in the basement of his friend’s father’s house, and he doesn’t know why his institutionalized father tried to strangle him on his visit. The thrilling aspect of this opening is that we don’t know why, either. We just have to wait and see…

Then the film flashes forward six years later. Evan is thirteen years old and has a crush on his friend Kayleigh, whose father is an abusive pervert and whose brother Tommy is a sadistic little snot. Evan has more blackouts this time—he doesn’t know why his friend Lenny went into shock after they, Kayleigh, and Tommy tried to blow up a mailbox with a blockbuster; and he doesn’t know why Tommy acts up whenever he’s asked about what happened that time. But he has another thing to worry about when he and Kayleigh really become close with each other, which leads Tommy to violence.

Then, the movie pushes forward seven years later. Evan is now a college student (and played by Ashton Kutcher) and hasn’t had any blackouts since he was thirteen. But something strange happens when he reads the journals he kept since his first blackout. He discovers that by reading the journals, he can experience the memories that he blacked out. But soon, he also discovers that he can change the way things turn out. When Kayleigh (Amy Smart), who has grown depressed, commits suicide, Evan decides to go back and change things to prevent that from happening.

But every time Evan tries to go back and fix things, he ends up making them worse—when he first changes things, he and Kayleigh are happily together, but he ends up killing vengeful Tommy (William Lee Scott) and going to prison; then he changes things and ends up making Lenny (Elden Henson) a murderer and Kayleigh a hooker; and he even brings a remarkably drastic change to himself after a disastrous alteration.

The gimmick here is that Evan can read the journals and go back to those memories, change things, and go back to the present where things have changed. But is it always a parallel present? Is it an alternate universe? “The Butterfly Effect” doesn’t fully explain how that works, but I guess we’re supposed to figure it out ourselves. That’s what makes it so interesting. This is a compelling and intriguing thriller—as good as “Donnie Darko” and way better than “Final Destination 2,” which have similar elements (also, “FD2” was written by the writers of this one).

Ashton Kutcher—whom I still haven’t forgiven for “Dude, Where’s my Car?”—isn’t who I would’ve picked for the lead character. He’s been just plain goofy in everything else he’s in and the question is, “Can this guy really take on a serious role?” Well, yes, he can. Kutcher is very good in this movie. We believe him when he goes through this weirdness, and he just plays the character as just a confused college student, which is very refreshing. Amy Smart gives a good performance as Kayleigh, who goes through a lot of personalities in these different parallel worlds while Evan stays the same. First, she’s a nice waitress, then she’s a sorority chick, then she’s a dirty hooker, and she also shares a scene with Evan near the end of the film where she shares how she really felt about Evan when they were younger kids and things can be different.

The ending is most upsetting, but I won’t give it away.

“The Butterfly Effect” works on the level of making us question the consequences for own actions. With its weird and intriguing plot, its good performances, and its grim look, “The Butterfly Effect” is a very good thriller that is effective and holds our interest.

Smith’s Verdict: ***

Reviewed by Tanner Smith

It’s strange how 1994’s “Lassie” is not an adaptation of the TV series of the same name, or a remake of the film “Lassie Come Home” for that matter, and yet the dog in this movie shares the exact same characteristics of the infamous smart canine in the original media. How do I know it’s not an adaptation? Because the young hero’s younger sister watches the original show on TV (even though her brother would prefer her to watch MTV—“You’ll thank me when you’re older”). But here’s the thing—the dog in this particular “Lassie” (which, let me remind you, is not supposed to be a remake or adaptation of the original media) is exactly like Lassie! She’s a collie, she’s unbelievably smart for a dog, and it doesn’t help that it’s given the name Lassie, either. Why not just say it’s a modern retelling of the original “Lassie” media? Maybe it is, but why bother mentioning the original at all in this film?

Aside from that questionable element, I’ll admit that I really liked this version of “Lassie.” It’s cute, it’s innocent, and surprisingly well-executed and very well-acted. That, and it features a very smart dog, of course named Lassie.

Lassie has just adopted a city family that has moved to a small farm in the hills of Virginia, after her original owner died in a car accident. She’s given her name by the little daughter Jennifer (Brittany Boyd) watches the “Lassie” show on TV (of course). The family decides to keep her (“for a while,” according to Dad) as they move out into the country. The family’s troubled teenage son Matt (Thomas Guiry) is bored and would rather stay in bed, listening to his Walkman. But Lassie, being the good dog that she is, knows how to get him in the great outdoors. She snatches Matt’s headphones away and leads him to an old swimming hole near the house, with a rope swing that he enjoys using.

The plot thickens when Matt’s dad (Jon Tenney) loses his job. Matt, who grows to love his new home, gets the idea of raising sheep on the land between their farm and the rich Garland farm. The family, with the help of kindly Grandpa (Richard Farnsworth, always welcome) and of course Lassie (to help move the sheep), fixes up the own farmhouse as they all grow more accustomed to rural values.

But of course, there’s a problem in the form of the evil Garland clan. Sam Garland (Frederic Forrest) is a mean-spirited man who has raised two teenage boys who are just as nasty. They’ve made a hefty profit from raising sheep themselves, and are not too thrilled that their new neighbors are taking their sheep (though it’s explained that sheep have to be at a certain part of the spread to be considered property).

Oh, and did I mention they all wear black hats? Or that they have a nicely-decorated house? Or that the boys have fun by racing their ATVs at the sheep to frighten them? Did I even have to mention all that?

Aside from those clichéd characters (and an overwrought climax in the final act, partially caused by the two boys’ behavior), there’s a lot like about “Lassie.” One is how the film captures the essence of the countryside—the beauty of nature, if you will. The dog is a good sport, and the bond that the boy grows with it is in the great tradition of boy-meets-animal stories. And “Lassie” also needs to be credited for its family drama, particularly with the relationship between Matt and his new stepmother Laura (Helen Slater). Laura is sweet and warm; she loves Jennifer very much and would love for Matt to accept her as a new mother figure. But to Matt, the empty space left by his late mother can’t be filled by anyone and thus has trouble accepting this new woman in this family’s life. Eventually, Matt and Laura do share a nice moment together, when Laura tends to Matt’s wounds after being beat up by some local boys. Matt doesn’t want to call Laura “Mom,” but doesn’t want to call her “Laura” anymore either.

Despite being clichéd, “Lassie” works for the most part. It’s enough to grow on me, and worth another viewing. It’s just a cute, good-hearted, feel-good family movie that I can’t bring myself to hate. There’s a lot to like about it.

Smith’s Verdict: ***

Reviewed by Tanner Smith

Someone has taken the phrase “time is money” way too seriously, in order to have the regular-Hollywood amount of time to create the sci-fi/action film “In Time.” I say that because in “In Time,” the currency of the future (or a parallel dimension, which I will accept more) is time. Thanks to genetic alternation, humanity stops aging at 25 and “time” to continue living can be transferred among individuals, shown on a timer-clock implanted on people’s arms—when the clock stops, the person dies. Think of it as a visible internal clock. You go and purchase something, you pay with your own time. You want more time, open an account at the “time bank.” Like money, be careful how you spend it; though in this case, be careful not to use it up and end your life.  The poor, with limited time to live for even a day, live in the ghettos of Dayton. The rich, who have enough time to live for centuries, live in the deluxe New Greenwich.

In the movies, it’s always miserable in the future, isn’t it?

If that genetic-altering element sounds even a little like the setup for a film such as “Gattaca,” it should be, as Andrew Niccol, who happened to make “Gattaca” in 1997, directed “In Time” as well. But “In Time” is a slick, entertaining, well-made film that has fun with its premise, does a great job of establishing the rules of this world, and gives us some real characters to root for and against.

Will Salas (Justin Timberlake) is 28 years old and lives with his mother Rachel (Olivia Wilde), who is 50 but still looks 25. They live day-to-day, but Rachel’s time has run out and she expires because she couldn’t get to Will in time for a “recharge.” At the same time, Will has been given an incredible amount of time by a wealthy stranger (Matt Bomer) who believes that people shouldn’t live forever and just make the most of their time. The stranger gives up almost all of his time before he dies. Provoked by his mother’s death, Will decides to go to New Greenwich to somehow gamble enough time for most people in the ghetto.

A “Timekeeper” (a “time cop,” if you will) named Raymond Leon (Cillian Murphy) accuses Will of murdering the stranger and corners him with the charges of murder and theft. To get away, Will takes Sylvia (Amanda Seyfried)—daughter of the wealthy Philippe Weis (Vincent Kartheiser)—hostage. They go on the run and eventually Sylvia becomes Will’s fugitive accomplice as they plan to rob the banks of time and deliver to the less fortunate.

This is when “In Time” switches gears and turns into a futuristic version of “Bonnie and Clyde” mixed with a Robin Hood tale. Surprisingly, this is not the downgrade I expected it to be. In many ways, it’s respectful that the story would continue as opposed to laying down new rules of this world. We’ve set up the story, and now we’re going on a little journey.

Some things are a little clumsy, like all the obvious puns involving “time” (though now that I think about it, “time is money” is never used at all). And also, I kept asking questions like, why age 25? Why not 35 or 40? I won’t question that anymore; it’s their logic, not mine. But I can ask why this way of life was chosen. What was the purpose of this to begin with?

What I did like are the ways in which this time-currency concept is developed, and it leads to some intriguing scenes of surprise. For example, there’s a scene in which Will and Philippe are playing a high-stakes poker game where time is on the line—you’re betting your life for this game. And I enjoyed the littler elements, such as these handheld cartridges that these people use to grant themselves more “time.”

Justin Timberlake has already established himself as a real talented actor, and while he’s not necessarily playing one with so many dimensions, he is likable and enough to hold our attention for almost two hours of running time. Amanda Seyfried (sporting an odd hair choice) is quite engaging as Sylvia. She starts out as a captive, but once she becomes an accomplice in Will’s plan, she’s allowed to have some genuine cool moments. Vincent Kartheiser is suitably creepy as Philippe and Olivia Wilde also deserves credit for being surprisingly credible as Will’s mother, given the circumstances (and also, Timberlake is actually three years older than Wilde in reality).

Is “In Time” worth your time? Well, if you have very little time to waste, I probably wouldn’t recommend it. For those with too much time on their hands, I would have to say…something other than “check out ‘In Time’” but otherwise, it’s fine. I can relate to both at certain points in life, and I do recommend “In Time.”