Smith's Verdict

Smith’s Verdict: ***

Reviewed by Tanner Smith

I’m just going to say right up front that I was a little uncertain about writing this review. I thought maybe I should see it a second time just to make sure I wouldn’t neglect to mention something important (non-spoilers, mind you). With that said, there’s a lot that happens in “Valley Inn,” with many side characters and subplots. And if I get to see it again later, I’ll revise my review unless it’s not anything important I forgot to comment on the first time.

“Valley Inn,” which recently premiered at the Little Rock Film Festival, is a two-hour comedy-drama, shot in Northwest Arkansas, and takes place mostly in Hindsville, a small community in Madison County. This is one of those films that show a pleasant portrait of a small Southern town and its residents, and while sometimes it can be a little overly drawn, it manages to present itself as a cute, enjoyable film that didn’t bore me or make me wish I was somewhere other than this town.

“Valley Inn,” directed by Kim Swink and Chris Spencer (and written by Swink and Nelsie Spencer), begins as New Jersey college student Emily (Jordan Scott) is assigned by a Christian book company to travel to Hindsville, Arkansas, to sell books door-to-door for the summer. She brings along one friend, Maddy (Whitney Masters), and stays one night in a secluded rural home. But one day and one night in this change of scenery with some odd folks is too much for Maddy, as she takes the car and leaves Emily alone in town for the summer. (Sheesh, that’s pretty low.)

Emily finds a room to sleep in above the Valley Inn, the local café & hangout where all local gossip is spread. And from here on in, it’s an episodic series of events involving Emily trying to fit into the town, make a good quota on her book sales, and even finding herself in a relationship with the local preacher’s handsome son, Lee (Colley Bailey). Oh, and there’s also a brief subplot involving “Sunday/Fun Day” with other members of her “bookfield,” where everyone is perky and happy, and the leader doesn’t allow tardiness, even for church reasons.

But that’s just the tip of the iceberg. There are also many side characters and subplots in “Valley Inn,” and every now and then, the film cuts back to these people for us to catch up. There’s the nice woman who runs the Valley Inn (Natalie Canerday); there’s the “cowboy” with a reputation (David Lansbury); the waitress he constantly tries to woo (Joey Lauren Adams); there’s the high-class couple (Kenn Woodard, Mandy Fason), one of which may have a secret deceitful plan in mind, and their pretty daughter (Jaclyn Marlan); there’s the elderly woman (Candyce Hinkle) who refers to Jesus by the nickname “Jerry”; good God, there are a lot are a lot of quirky characters she comes across. Some of them are caricatures, and not much time is used to develop anything other than one trait; but to be fair, isn’t there one thing you know about people you only meet once in a while in a strange place? That’s what the film basically is—a vacation from one place to another (in this case, from a New Jersey town to a small Southern town) and the many people they come across. In that respect, I liked these people and was curious as to what would happen each time we cut back to them. There’s a scene later on that begins as people walk out of a church, apparently for a funeral—I actually kind of gasped because I was concerned about knowing which one of them died. That scene comes way late in the film, and that’s how I knew “Valley Inn” worked for me. I cared about these people. And also to the film’s credit, I can see some of these people in my own small hometown. Oh, and there’s also a brief subplot involving “Sunday/Fun Day” with other members of her “bookfield,” where everyone is perky and happy, and the leader doesn’t allow tardiness, even for church reasons.

(Oh, and I forgot to mention the small part of a little boy who makes his own home war movie with his friends and other, older locals. I not only feel like I knew this kid; I feel like I was this kid when I was making random home movies in my hometown!)

We get a good feel of the town. Aside from the Valley Inn, we see rural-area homes, urban houses, annual rodeo events, cattle auction yards, a country-music jamboree, a low-water bridge, a beautiful swimming hole, and even a brief moment at the home of a shotgun-packing meth-cooker (whom Lee must rescue Emily from)—hey, when someone goes door-to-door for a full summer, you expect to come across at least one psycho.

Now I have to make a confession. I went into this movie not knowing exactly what it was about. I knew about some of the cast members and that it was labeled as “a love-letter to small town America,” but not much else. When I was introduced to Emily and Maddy, and it shows Maddy reacting to their place of assignment, the population number of the town, a dead critter on the side of the road, and trying her best not to laugh at the behavior of her house hosts (even when Hinkle refers to Jesus as Jerry), I kept paying attention. I expected the story would be about Maddy as this stubborn New Jersey girl who comes across these people, learns about tolerance and patience, and manages to befriend the locals. Granted, that’s probably predictable, but the way Whitney Masters was playing Maddy, I would have looked forward to it! She has a natural, appealing screen presence that Jordan Scott by comparison seemed kind of bland, even with her perky morning mantra, “I feel happy! I feel healthy! I feel terrific!” (By the way, doesn’t she wake people every time she shouts it in the early morning? Does anyone even mention it to her?)

But no—Maddy is gone from the movie after 15 minutes, and she never returns. So instead, we have a character arc for Emily as she goes from being repressed to a free-spirit. There’s nothing wrong with that, as Emily does seem like the type of person who needs a change in her life, and the people she comes across, particularly Lee who manages to kidnap her from one of her door-to-door business days (by the way, guys, don’t try that at home), are just the people to help her break free. And Jordan Scott did manage to make me care for her.

Yes, “Valley Inn” does go all over the place (actually, you could call this five or six LRFF Arkansas Shorts thrown into one). Yes, some of it is corny and predictable. Yes, some of it is over-the-top (I won’t go into “Fun Day” and its crazy leader). But I can’t hate this movie or even give it a mixed review; there’s just so much that I like in this—the actors, the overall atmosphere, the smart writing (some good dialogue here), and little details that amount to the big picture. Something else I like about “Valley Inn” is that it’s very chill. It has a laid-back tone that strangely works in the film’s favor. A lot of it is just watching these people interact with each other and go about their days and make a living in this town. And I don’t mind that in the slightest. I enjoyed “Valley Inn”—it’s cute, it’s funny, and it contains a great deal of atmosphere.

Smith’s Verdict: **1/2

Reviewed by Tanner Smith

The premise for “Non-Stop” goes like this. A Federal air marshal on a non-stop flight receives menacing messages from an anonymous terrorist aboard the plane, threatening to kill a person on the plane every 20 minutes until his demands are met. It’s up to the marshal to figure out who’s behind this as time is running out.

Liam Neeson, still showing that even at age 61 he’s a badass action hero, stars as Bill Marks, an air marshal who is also a bitter alcoholic whose life is falling downhill. He boards a transatlantic flight to London. Midway through the flight, he receives e-mails from an anonymous messenger on a secure system. His demands are millions of dollars into a bank account given to him. Until he gets the money, he will kill one person on the plane every 20 minutes. While searching for the terrorist on the plane and trying to figure what to do next, he enlists the help of head flight attendant Nancy (Michelle Dockery) and a trustful passenger named Jen (Julianne Moore). But things go from bad to worse as Marks is labeled as the cause of the disturbance, as it turns out the bank account is in his name. And the plot thickens…

This is a neat idea for a thriller; you could say it’s something you would have liked to see Alfred Hitchcock try to create into a tense thriller. And for the first hour or so of “Non-Stop,” directed by Jaume Collet-Serra, it is a tense, nail-biting thriller that keeps you on edge and guessing. The tension keeps rising as the mystery develops and the body count rises. It’s handled in a plausible way, given its subject material.

But once the film gets to its final act, that’s when things start to go downhill. When the action has to take over, it makes the film into what looks like a generic action-thriller, and it just gets too preposterous. The action becomes too absurd; clichés are thrown in once the passengers get involved; and without giving anything away, there’s a right-wing element that may be seen as bad taste from some people, and I don’t think it’s just me. I could tell what they were trying to do, but was it something that was needed?

If this film had eased up on the action a bit and had a bit of a rewrite, “Non-Stop” would probably have more lasting power as an edgy nail-biter. If Collet-Serra and his team of screenwriters had just focused more on the paranoia of being trapped on the plane where almost everyone is either frightened, angry, or possibly a suspect, this film would have been great. As it is, I could say it’s forgettable entertainment. But the thing about that is, to me, the first hour is too well-done to be considered forgettable. In that respect, I suppose I could give “Non-Stop” a marginal recommendation, mainly because through it all, Liam Neeson manages to keep everything interesting. But I can only give it a mixed review, because it could’ve been a lot more riveting if only it stayed riveting.

Smith’s Verdict: ***

Reviewed by Tanner Smith

“About Last Night” is a modern update of the 1986 romantic comedy of the same name, which in itself was an adaptation of the play “Sexual Perversity in Chicago” by David Mamet. And while you can hardly hear Mamet’s dialogue for a majority of this remake, I’d have to say this new film is just as good as the original. It’s good for the reasons the play and the 1986 movie are good. It’s still an effective, sometimes funny story that examines the sex lives of two men and two women. The play looked at it from the 1970s; the movie from the 1980s; and now this one looks at it from the 2010s.

There are notable differences here. For one, this film takes place in Los Angeles instead of Chicago (though one of the characters goes to Chicago for a work trip at some point). For another, the cast is mostly comprised of African-American actors, including comedian Kevin Hart and comedienne Regina Hall. And another notable difference is the tone that the film is going for, particularly in the ending. Mamet in his play didn’t see any hope for his characters, as the men and women just weren’t meant to be because they had so much trouble relating to each other no matter how hard they may have tried. Here, there are troubles among the characters and they are presented well, but it ends on a note that is much more hopeful than sorrowful, to say the least.

The film stars Michael Ealy and Kevin Hart as Danny and Bernie, best friends living in L.A. Bernie is a loudmouth horndog who is always looking for action, while Danny is looking for something more. When Bernie brings his date, Joan (Regina Hall), who in turn brings her roommate, Debbie (Joy Bryant), for a double-date, Danny and Debbie hit it off really well and become friends-with-benefits. But soon enough, they accept who they are as a couple, she moves in with him, and the rest of the film is about how everything they like about each other will grow tiresome and lead to romantic weariness.

The story is interwoven with the comedic subplot involving the relationship between Bernie and Joan. After a few nights together, Joan can’t stand him anymore and mostly tries to make sure she never sees him again. But when they do see each other, she goes out of her way to make sure he’s as uncomfortable as she is.

The strangest and yet most intriguing about the film’s writing, dialogue-wise, is that the lines are technically still recalling Mamet, but most of the dialogue is updated and melded with new dialogue by writer Leslye Headland. It’s funny listening to Kevin Hart seamlessly blend Mamet with Headland as he spews the film’s best lines with the comedian’s usual trademark quickness.

“About Last Night” makes a statement about how relationships are even harder to understand than love itself. With love, there’s the belief from one or both of the characters that they will live a very happy life together with no complications in the future. But once the Honeymoon Phase is complete, there’s the challenging world of working to stay together and trying to find compromise. This is where the film really works, when Danny and Debbie reach the point where they wonder if they deserve each other anymore. Can they make it work? Will they make it work? It’s not as easy as it may seem in most romantic comedies.

Now, granted, this film isn’t much of a downer and it offers more happy hopes than it should. But it is more accurate than most romantic-comedies because it doesn’t give contrived misunderstandings or other sorts of clichés that cause rough patches to happen. Even in a scene in which Danny’s ex-wife (Paula Patton), when you’re praying that it won’t go in the direction it should go, it manages to answer that prayer by giving a low-key, true-to-life payoff.

Michael Ealy and Joy Bryant make an engaging couple and they each share convincing chemistry with Kevin Hart and Regina Hall, as well as with each other. Hart is very good here as Bernie who is the romcom-sidekick who spews bad advice to the main character sometimes, but learns a thing or two about love and relationships himself. He also has the funniest lines in the movie. And then there’s Regina Hall as Joan. This was the actress and character I never got into. First of all, Hall overdoes it, even in the less comedic moments. Sometimes I found her funny but other times I found her annoying. And also, I never got into the plight of her character, because she’s a conniving bitch. Now, I know that could be because she’s secretly jealous, but she’s too much of a mess for me to care about her, and I think that might be because of the way Hall plays it as well.

Aside from my problems with Hall and some unevenness with the film’s tone, “About Last Night” is a worthy remake that keeps true to the original’s theme while changing details to make it modern while no less satisfying.

Smith’s Verdict: ***

Reviewed by Tanner Smith

Just to get this out of the way, the tagline for the “Contracted” poster reads “Not Your Average One Night Stand.” And the problem with that is I don’t think the sexual encounter in the opening of this film could be considered a “one night stand” so much as “rape.” Our female protagonist is clearly drunk, the predatory male picks her up, the next thing we know is that they’re getting it on in the back seat of a car with her repeatedly telling him to stop when he doesn’t, and it’s indicated later that roofies were more than likely involved.

Yeah, I’d consider that “rape.”

Now that that’s out of the way, let’s talk about Eric England’s “Contracted,” an effectively horrific, suitably gross horror film with as many smarts as gore. It’s a nicely-done chiller that plays as horror and as a cautionary tale about safe sex. It begins as 20something lesbian Samantha (Najarra Townsend) attends a party held by her best friend Alice (Alice Macdonald). Feeling her relationship with her girlfriend Nikki (Katie Stegeman) is deteriorating, she gets smashed, making her the perfect target for a mysterious stranger named BJ (Simon Barrett). Before she knows it, she has unprotected sex with him in a car, which will result in the impending horror.

The next day, which is given the foreboding caption “Day 1.” Samantha awakens with a slight case of the chills. She also has a rash and a bloody…well, never mind. She goes to see a doctor about it, but she gets that usual lame story about blood tests (though why she isn’t given a prescription at least, I couldn’t figure out). But things get even worse during the next couple days, and on Day 3 (which is labeled “Day 3 of 3”), things get even worse as her eyes change color, she gets a sore on her lower lip, and her hair, teeth, and fingernails fall out. (I won’t even mention the maggots.) This is far from STD; she is slowly but surely falling apart and losing her life.

The “grossout quality” is evident throughout “Contracted” and the makeup and effects in how they change the appearance of Najarra Townsend and do some neat practical effects for parts of the body are definitely something to be complimented, as they are well-done. And they did make me squeamish, particularly when Samantha notices something is not quite right with one of her fingernails.

But if that were all “Contracted” was, it would have been creepy but sort of ordinary. What I like about “Contracted” is that it is more of a character study than a straight-up horror flick. We come to understand Samantha as a person and thus we feel for her as she slowly and literally falls apart. There are hints given by her mother (Caroline Williams), whom she lives with, that she has had a troubled past involving drugs and that she has enough to be mad about, particularly with her lesbian lifestyle which her mother disapproves of. And I like that we’re not given expository dialogue about what Samantha has gone through in her life; everything is said to us through either hints of dialogue or how relationships between these characters flow with each meeting.

And Samantha does have a lot to deal with—her mother is overbearing; her girlfriend Nikki is hardly interested anymore; Alice is a little too clingy; there’s a nice guy (played by Matt Mercer) who won’t take the hint that Samantha isn’t interested in him; she isn’t too fond of her waitress job; she would rather do something with her hobby of growing orchids; and so on. There’s too much for her to deal with, which is why she sometimes makes mistakes due to her muddled priorities and sometimes-standoffish attitude. And now she’s had sex with a man for the first time, which came to this disease that is disturbingly ruining her life. But she’s too scared and too naïve to get everything on track once at a time. All that and more leads her to descending into madness and becoming destructive to herself (and to others) once it’s clear there’s no hope for her.

Samantha is not always easy to like, but she is easy to empathize with and you do feel sorry for her. And Najarra Townsend does a great job in the role. There isn’t a single false note in the performance, as far as I’m concerned.

Also, by having “Contracted” be more ABOUT a person, it also has the advantage of being an effective allegory about how people feel in the weird stages of early adulthood and how their deeds can lead to mistakes and consequences.

Not everything in “Contracted” works. Some of the mother’s reactions to her daughter’s illness are a little too unrealistic. You could argue that she’s afraid she’s resorting to old bad habits and she thinks that’s what this led to, but come on. And then there’s the second visit to the doctor, when the doctor notices that Samantha’s “condition” has only gotten worse. He doesn’t take her in for observation; he just tells her not to get in contact with anybody. Really? Then there’s a really nasty encounter with the nice guy who has been stalking Samantha for quite a while. Maybe if he were a little sleazier (or maybe if he were replaced by BJ), that would have been an effective comeuppance, if that’s what it was supposed to be. And what about BJ? (By the way, a brilliant move on the filmmakers’ part is that BJ is always kept out of focus during his scenes.) We don’t see him again except for a moment in which he picks up another woman. Why not put him in the nice guy’s place and give Samantha a moment of revenge?

(Granted, the fact that BJ isn’t given a form of comeuppance is somewhat chilling, since it’s obvious he’s going to keep spreading the disease around.)

Now I must admit I did read a few reviews of this film before watching it, because I am friends with this film’s 2^nd 2^nd Assistant Director and I wanted to know how the film was doing, critic-wise (as of now, it ranks 50 percent on Rotten Tomatoes). Each one of the reviews I read mentioned a certain word that made me correctly guess the film’s ending. What was that word and would it lead you to assume (possibly correctly) what the payoff to the disease is? I’m not sure I should reveal it. On the one hand, knowing beforehand made the film a little more fascinating in where it was going. On the other hand, I’m not sure how people would react to the final shot. I could see it having mixed reviews—some might react with an awed “whoa” (in a positive way); others might react with a dissatisfied, deadpan “what?”

Well, great. Now I can’t reveal that word now that I’ve built it up so much. People would guess the payoff for sure. Well, I guess the best thing to do would be to say to check out this film and decide for yourself whether you like the payoff or not.

I liked “Contracted.” It has a great protagonist; it’s well-made; it has a nice supporting cast, especially Katie Stegeman as unfriendly Australian lesbian Nikki and Charley Koontz as perpetually high Zain; the make-up effects are outstanding; it’s chilling; and its ending…well, I accepted it. Maybe you will too.

Smith’s Verdict: ***

Reviewed by Tanner Smith

There are times in a high-schooler’s life in which he or she just wants their voice to be heard, and no one is listening. And when the school is as messed up as the one in “Light It Up,” you can kind of understand the anger and confusion the students feel when they just want to state what they want or maybe even need. Things can get worse when authority figures don’t give them the type of attention they need, and that tends to lead to extreme measures. That’s what happens in “Light It Up,” which is about how six high-school students who stage a hostage situation in their own school in order to get their points across.

Now, despite how that sounds, this is far from an exploitative thriller or a hostage-negotiation film. While some of those elements are present, they’re not what are important to the story. Instead what the film focuses more on is character development and getting its message across. People who want to boycott a film like this need to consider what they haven’t seen more than what they’ve heard, because “Light It Up” is an effective urban drama.

It begins with a typical day at a ramshackle Queens high school, except for a newcomer on campus—the new security guard, former cop Dante Jackson (Forest Whitaker). Jackson is ready to take force to get these kids in line. And he’s ready to jump into action when a group of students start to protest when their favorite teacher, Mr. Knowles (Judd Nelson), is suspended. When a couple of the students try to reason with the principal, they are suspended too. When they argue, Jackson is there to break it up. But the situation becomes dangerous when a kid he apprehends gets ahold of Jackson’s gun and it accidentally fires, hitting Jackson’s leg. When Jackson pegs it on the kid and tries to take him away, another kid grabs the gun and holds Jackson at gunpoint. So he, the kid, and four others hole up in the school’s library, holding Jackson hostage.

The group is led by star-athlete Lester (Usher Raymond). On his side are Ziggy (Robert Ri’chard), an innocent artist who inadvertently started all this; class-brain Stephanie (Rosario Dawson); pot-dealer/class-clown Rivers (Clifton Collins, Jr.); pregnant loner Lynn (Sara Gilbert); and Rodney (Fredro Starr). Rodney is the only gang member among the group, but the media has already labeled the others as being criminals. When the kids realize the gravity of this situation, they decide to use it to their advantage. As they negotiate with the H.N., Audrey (Vanessa L. Williams in a thankless role), they decide to make global news as they make their demands. Their demands to be heard and to improve their school surprise everyone, but also earns support from most of the public.

As the film continues, we get to know these kids in ways that Jackson never even bothered to do before he labeled them immediately as bad people. Ziggy comes from an unwelcome home, which is why he secretly lives in the school. The main reason he freaked out in the first place was because Jackson was going to call his parents to take him home. And when Jackson sees the scars on Ziggy’s back, he sees why Ziggy wasn’t going to have it. And also when he sees Ziggy’s true gift for drawing and painting, he can also see his pure innocence. Rightfully so. This is a kid you don’t want bad things to happen to.

Lester is a strong leader, but there are layers of depression and tragedy hidden that he doesn’t like to talk about. The reasons for that come through when he finally lets out his reasons for hating the police. Stephanie is the type of smart, intelligent student you wouldn’t expect to find in a situation like this, but any situation in which she can help somebody is one she can’t say “no” to easily. Lynn’s plight is obvious (unexpected pregnancy and a jackass boyfriend who wants no part of it), but it’s still effective enough. Rivers doesn’t have much, but his presence is welcome to lighten things up a bit. Actually, I take it back. If he wasn’t the only one on drugs, I don’t think he would have taken things seriously, and there are times when he does; he’s not dumb and he’s very reliable. Rodney is the closest thing to a criminal-type, is only there to hide from a gang that would like their way with him, would like to shoot Jackson if he had the gun and not Lester, and also has a hard time controlling himself.

We even get to know Jackson a little bit, as we find out why he’s a security guard at a public school instead of a police officer on the beat. We see that he lives in a cruel, difficult world just like these kids do. And he realizes that too, so there’s also room for him to grow in this film.

When the film focuses on these characters’ plight and growth, “Light It Up” works. The actors all do solid jobs, especially Forest Whitaker, Usher Raymond, and Robert Ri’chard. And even when the script goes for certain clichés that I’m not sure could be helped, the situations are kept fresh for the most part. You could argue that sometimes it preaches, but these are issues that need to be addressed. In that case, “Light It Up” is also an effective parable that speaks about the American inner-city public school system. The questions asked early on in this film are legit, and authority is too uptight and too unfocused to answer them.

And I should also mention that “Light It Up” is also a nicely-done thriller as well. The situations with these kids, the gun, and their hostage is tense, and the film knows that. Sure, the outcome of the hostage situation may be predictable for some, but there are moments when you find yourself not knowing exactly how certain situations, particularly in the final act, will play out. For all you know, somebody could die.

There was true effort put into “Light It Up” that made it into an effective, well-acted film that works as a coming-of-age story, a thriller, and a cautionary tale.

Smith’s Verdict: ***

Reviewed by Tanner Smith

Is it a requirement in a lot of family films that a majority of side characters must be a jerk so that the nice, plucky protagonist can give us more reason to like and root for him/her? It seems like a common device in a lot of family films I’ve seen—people who won’t listen to reason and are very cruel to the young hero, and thus we root for escape so the journey can continue. Take Disney’s “The Journey of Natty Gann.” The main reason (or one of the main reasons) its plucky heroine, Natalie “Natty” Gann, runs away from home to travel cross-country in search of her father is that her caretaker who’s fed up with her calls an orphanage, reporting an “abandoned kid.” She does this despite already being told that Natty’s father will soon send for her! I don’t know about you, but to me, that’s low even by Disney-animated-villain standards. But Natty escapes her caretaker and sets off to find her father.

“The Journey of Natty Gann” is set during the Great Depression and begins in Chicago. People are out looking for work quick, and Natty’s widower father Sal (Ray Wise) is lucky enough to get himself a logging job. But there’s one major problem—the job is in Washington and his transport leaves very soon. Natty (Meredith Salenger) is playing with her friends at this time, and so Sal has to leave without saying goodbye. He leaves a message to her saying he will send for her as soon as he makes enough money, but until then, she is left in the care of a bad-tempered hotel caretaker (Lainie Kazan) who treats her like dirt. It’s all she and Natty can take from each other, so Natty decides to travel by railroad to the West Coast to be reunited with Sal.

Along the way, she is befriended by a wolf who accompanies her after she gives him food. The wolf in turn brings her a rabbit to eat when she is alone in the wilderness. The wolf becomes Natty’s protector and friend, defending her from vile, cruel people they come across (again, that aforementioned rule comes into place—there’s even a pedophile thrown in at one point for no reason other than the wolf has to protect Natty from him). But they do come across another companion later in the film—a teenage drifter named Harry (John Cusack) who joins them. He does this begrudgingly so, but he does prove to be a good guy to travel with.

We see more of Natty with the wolf than we do of her and Harry. He only appears at the beginning of her journey and then much later, he comes back into the film and accompanies her and the wolf until he must part. As moving as the scenes involving Natty and the wolf are, I have to admit I was kind of hoping for more of this relationship between Natty and Harry. True, their relationship isn’t quite romance-intended, and it seems more like a sibling relationship in the ways they both hate and like each other; but the human companionship and them trying to relate with one another and gain a friendship is very interesting, especially considering what Natty has already been through on her quest. Probably a personal complaint, but I just wish Natty and Harry had more screen time together. I liked this guy and I felt he was underused.

But like I said, the scenes with Natty and the wolf are moving and effective. The wolf is cute enough so that its moments on screen can cause people to say “aww.” And the girl-and-her-wolf angle works well in the girl-versus-nature element that comes midway through the film, as Natty is learning to survive after taking a detour through the woods.

“The Journey of Natty Gann” is a good-looking movie. The cinematography by Dick Bush is top-notch; the film looks remarkably like the period it’s set in; the railroad scenes are incredible; there’s a good sense of atmosphere. It’s just terrific to watch.

Another strength to the film is the leading performance by Meredith Salenger as Natty Gann. She portrays Natty as a girl who is suitably witty, appealingly spunky, sharp, sometimes standoffish, but doesn’t take “no” for an answer. She’s absolutely terrific here. The supporting cast includes a few that stand out—one is Cusack, who is very likable here; another is Ray Wise, who turns in a solid performance as Natty’s father whom the film catches up on from time to time; and Barry Miller who has a brief role as a quick-thinking street-smart would-be-entrepreneur that runs with a gang of young runaways.

Not everything about “The Journey of Natty Gann” works. The aforementioned “everyone’s-a-jerk” rule follows through with scenes that are rather painful to watch, including a character who gives Natty a ride and turns out to be a pedophile. That scene was just creepy and unnecessary. There’s also a dead-spot for me that I usually fast-forward through—it’s a 15-minute long sequence in which Natty is mistakenly tossed in a girls’ orphanage and has to escape. And sometimes, the film is a little too desperate for its audience to cheer. After a well-done adventurous scene in which the wolf must jump onto a moving train to join its human companions, the film does it again to try and make us cheer again. It didn’t quite work for me the second time. (But I’ll admit, I was glad he made it the first time—that was a terrific scene.)

However, the things that work in “The Journey of Natty Gann” work really well. It’s a nice cross-country adventure, it has a good, smart protagonist, and its setting is more than convincing. And it’s also interesting in that it’s Depression victims that are involved here, and for the most part, they act the way real Depression victims probably could have acted. Kids who see this film (though I’m not sure how many did, as this is one of Disney’s most overlooked, along with “Tex,” when it comes to their live-action films) might be fascinated by this portrait of the Depression Era and how these smart, independent young people learn to survive it. “The Journey of Natty Gann” is an entertaining, well-made journey indeed.

Smith’s Verdict: ***

Reviewed by Tanner Smith

Before I begin, let me state that while I like this film adaptation of Jeanne DuPrau’s science-fiction fantasy novel “The City of Ember,” I can’t help but wonder how more effective it would be if the prologue was omitted from the final product. Let me explain—it’s not that we don’t need somewhat of an explanation for some of the elements given to the film (even though some elements, we have to figure out for ourselves—I’ll get to one specific example later); it’s that there could have been a great surprise twist that would have made sense and, more importantly for a sci-fi film, would have been intriguing.

As “City of Ember” opens, we’re given a prologue (with the voice of Tim Robbins narrating the setup) that lets us know right away that the action is going to take place in an underground city that was built to protect the survivors of a catastrophe that has gotten the best of Earth, so that new generations will live on. A box is given to the first Mayor of the City of Ember—inside the box are rules and instructions that will help the people of Ember to come back to the world, 200 years later. (A timer is set on the box to be opened in a specific 200 years—by the way, you ever wonder if that box’s batteries run out after a couple weeks or something? But I digress.) As time passed, the box was unfortunately abandoned and forgotten until finally, on its 200^th year, it opens.

Do we really need to know right away that Ember is an underground city? Wouldn’t it have been a great twist if it were revealed to us, while being revealed to the film’s heroes, that Ember was underground the whole time? With this prologue, we’re now ahead of the protagonists instead of wondering along with them what else is out there among this “post-apocalyptic” world. It would have been more interesting to try and figure out where Ember was, but it’s set up early on that it’s underground.

Aside from that missed opportunity, “City of Ember” is a nicely-done sci-fi family adventure film with a unique visual look, an interesting setting, a cast of characters we can root for, and a mystery that keeps you invested. And no, that mystery isn’t where Ember is—it’s how to escape from it.

The box with instructions is found by two Ember children—teenagers Lina Mayfleet (Saoirse Ronan) and Doon Harrow (Harry Treadaway)—who ultimately use the written guides to find an exit. And just in time, too—the city’s generator that provides the city’s light and air is broken, leading to frequent malfunctions for Ember. Not only that, but the food storerooms are running empty and the water supply is low. Lina and Doon follow complicated, enigmatic clues that lead closer and closer to a safeguarded path to a place outside of Ember. But while on this journey, they come across a treasonous plan of Ember’s corrupt mayor Cole (Bill Murray), meaning they must work fast in order to ultimately figure everything out.

The setting of Ember is fun to look at, with one of the most fascinating movie sets I’ve ever seen. It reminded me of a George Orwell/Terry Gilliam type of city, with its claustrophobic setting, its color palette, which mostly consists of browns and golds, and even somewhat-retro technology without the updated present-day luxuries we’re used to. There are no computers in this world, which is kind of odd, but there are messengers running from place to place to deliver a new message to somebody from a customer. Everything is much more mechanical, with all sorts of gears and motors. There’s a fitting metaphor for how life has drained long since our modern technologies somewhere in here, and I think that’s what makes it all the more intriguing.

The last third of the film shows the two kids on their journey to find an exit from Ember. This leads them to a secret passage that leads to a couple of waterwheels and an old control room, where it all seems like a Rube Goldberg invention. Again, we have more visual effects to admire and the sets are very impressive. This city of Ember is a very inventive vision and has just what a sci-fi film such as this needed.

Oh. Yeah. I should mention the gigantic mole-like creature that is loose in the pipes down below. It only has a couple of scenes on-screen, but its presence is never explained in the slightest. Why is there a giant mole in this world? Did it have something to do with the end of the world? If it was due to radiation that Ember was created, was this a side effect? There’s also a cat-sized moth that Doon comes across and helps after it’s broken its wing. It seems to fly up to the surface; that’s a clever way of establishing some sort of radioactive-related theory. But still, it’s kind of a confused way of letting us take it seriously when a random giant mole is scattering around the city.

By the way, here’s something odd—the novel doesn’t even mention the giant mole or moth at all.

There are some problems I have with “City of Ember.” One is a few scenes go on a little longer than they should and some parts feel like filler to fill in the hour-and-a-half running time. Another is that the CGI ranges from passable to…in the case of the moth in particular, not very good. And the dialogue could have used a little work, particularly from Doon’s mentor, vague old Sul (Martin Landau, cashing a nice paycheck), and his father (Tim Robbins) who mostly speaks through trailer-type dialogue. And then unfortunately, there’s Bill Murray. As big a fan I am about Bill Murray, I really don’t believe his performance here. Murray just seems to be phoning it in and I couldn’t buy him for a moment.

But “City of Ember” has more things for me to appreciate that I enjoy watching the film and recommend it. The two young leads are appealing; the setting is unbelievable and very imaginative; there are clever twists and turns to the story here and there; the adventures are fun; and what’s probably most refreshing is that unlike most post-apocalyptic stories, this one is more centered on hope rather than misery. And that’s what made the ending of the film all the more satisfactory (even if it is ambiguous).

Smith’s Verdict: ***

Reviewed by Tanner Smith

Kids often have that feeling that the grownups are out to get them, and in “The Witches,” the children have much to fear from the women of the world—particularly those with gloves and purple eyes. As an elderly woman tells her grandson (and as a result, the audience) a story about real witches, they apparently look like real people walking the streets. If you look closely at them, you can see the purple haze in their eyes. They have square feet, so they wear plain, ordinary shoes. And whenever a witch is near a child, she often holds her nose, since clean children have a distinct odor.

They’re out to destroy every child in the world. And they’re everywhere, in every country.

The story is told early on in Nicolas Roeg’s “The Witches,” based on Roald Dahl grim children’s story of the same name, as the Norwegian grandmother, Helga (Mai Zetterling), tells her American grandson, Luke (Jasen Fisher), all she knows about witches. When she was a little girl, her friend was taken by a witch and imprisoned in a painting until her image aged, withered and vanished. (Helga kept seeing her image move as years went by. She also lost a finger due to an encounter with a witch.)

That’s a very chilling opening sequence, told in flashback and with effective atmosphere, and it sets the tone for the rest of the movie, which is like a well-told children’s bedtime story that would probably scare little kids and give them nightmares. But I think kids like to be scared (or else they wouldn’t go out for Halloween or watch scary movies that their parents forbid them to) and “The Witches” would probably delight them. Though, granted, some of them might want to prepare themselves first, as there are some disturbing elements in this movie.

Helga takes Luke on a vacation to England, where they stay in a fancy hotel. At this particular hotel is where all of the witches of England have an annual secret meeting, including the Grand High Witch, the most dangerous, fearsome one of them all. These witches pose as a children’s charity group hosting a convention at the hotel. They’re led by Miss Ernst (Anjelica Huston, having a lot of fun playing the role), a tall, striking woman with a distinctive manner and accent that lets us know immediately that she can’t be trusted. She is indeed the Grand High Witch, as Luke realizes as he stumbles upon the witches’ meeting and overhears their secrets, as well as their secret plan. Their plan is to use a magic formula to hide in sweets—when children eat them, they are transformed into mice.

Luke is discovered (a little too late, conveniently—I thought they would’ve smelled him earlier, since witches have a keen sense of smell) and he is forcibly turned into a mouse (a talking mouse too—OK, maybe it’s a little too convenient now). Luckily, he’s able to convince his grandmother who he really is, and so they come up with an idea to stop the witches before they carry out their plot.

The late Jim Henson produced “The Witches”. He and his special-effects crew bring their genius and talent to work in the sequences in which Luke, in mouse form, and his friend Bruno (Charlie Potter), also turned into a mouse, run about gigantic pieces of furniture and, even in close-ups, are able to make us believe that they really are talking mice with specific actions to perform. For kids, this is a fun adventure to take with the boy-mouse, and for adults, it’s an interesting visual look that impresses. It’s the best of both worlds.

It’s here that “The Witches” turns into a romp and loses of its tenseness that was set up in the aforementioned opening scene. But it is a good deal of fun, and it’s hardly predictable, as we can’t exactly see how everything will play out. It’s also a race against time, which makes things more exciting for the final act of the movie.

I admire how grim Nicolas Roeg made “The Witches” to be, given that it’s a family film that could have been played relatively safe. While it has a certain sensibility to it, the implications of the story are very grim and the imagination contains what could become or what might have become. If there is one problem, it’s probably the ending, but this is coming from someone who has read the book. I won’t spoil it, but let’s just say some kids may enjoy a happy ending after all the grim stuff is over with. Mostly though, “The Witches” is quite fascinating.