I Spit On Your Grave (1980)

7 Feb

i-spit-on-your-grave-boat-axe

No Smith’s Verdict rating

Reviewed by Tanner Smith

If it weren’t for the works of the late beloved film critic Roger Ebert, I wouldn’t be writing in this blog today. It rarely happens when a person’s impression on a film leaves its own impression on me; but Ebert’s no-nonsense trademark style of writing inspired me as a youngster to write my own film reviews and try to leave my own impression on readers. (Have I succeeded since then? Well…local Arkansas film-folks appreciated my Little Rock Film Festival reviews, if that counts.) Even when I disagreed with him about certain films (particularly “Jack,” “The Hitcher,” “Napoleon Dynamite,” and “To Kill a Mockingbird,” among others), I could still understand why he felt the things he felt in stating his opinions.

With that said…Ebert, if you’re watching me from heaven, I hope you can understand why I’m writing about the movie you called the absolute worst in your whole lifetime of watching/reviewing movies: “I Spit On Your Grave.”

Meir Zarchi’s “I Spit On Your Grave” (originally released in 1978 under the title “Day of the Woman”) is a horrifying rape-revenge story as simple as this: a woman is brutally raped by four men (which is an understatement of the whole horror genre but I’ll get to that later), but she survives and exacts revenge on them by being far more brutal. That’s about it…

“I Spit On Your Grave” is not a film I hold in high regard. It’s not a film that makes me feel easy. It’s not even a film I would watch again anytime soon. But it’s not the worst movie ever made—it’s competently made, it took many chances and risks, and it’s one of the most disturbing movies I’ve ever seen, in the way that it was intended to be. It may be the film Roger Ebert hated the most, but it’s not the absolute worst.

That doesn’t mean I recommend it, especially to those with a weak stomach. But slamming it because it’s “disturbing,” which is what it was always meant to be, is not something I want to do.

Around the time this film got a wide release in 1980, there was a long wave of slasher & exploitation films that involved “women in danger,” which made Ebert and fellow film-critic Gene Siskel so mad they dedicated an entire episode of their TV show, “Sneak Previews,” to the “epidemic.” They both felt that these films (such as “Friday the 13th,” “Silent Scream,” and especially “I Spit On Your Grave”) were misogynistic messages against independent, free-spirited women; they do their own thing and are punished severely for it…by death. (When “Halloween,” which they say started that “trend,” did that sort of thing, it was a cautionary message for people who needed to make their priorities higher than sexual.) Here, in “I Spit On Your Grave,” we have a woman going through the most horrifying rape scene in film history. Did I say “scene?” My mistake. It’s an entire half-hour long sequence that begins with the woman (Camille Keaton) sunbathing in a canoe on the river and is suddenly interrupted by two rowdy men who come along in a motorboat, tie her and drag her to land, corner her to two other men, one of whom rapes her. Does it stop there? Nope. She runs into the woods, the guys catch up, and she’s beaten and raped again. Does it stop there? Nope! She staggers back to her cabin nearby, attempts to call for help via telephone, but the guys are already there waiting and they beat her and rape her again. It’s one of the most unpleasant, horrifying sequences ever put on film, regardless of the time it was made and released.

(Fun fact: According to IMDb, one crew member quit during filming of the second rape scene, and the film’s makeup artist quit the film halfway through, because she had been gang-raped before and this felt all too real for her.)

The rape scenes go on too long, but I think the reason for that was to make the viewer more uncomfortable and to show the gravity of the horrific situation. I’m not sure it was meant to be tedious, but the point still comes across in showing us why this woman would go through such extreme measures to get back at these brutes. Speaking of which…

Two weeks after the attack (and after the woman was left for dead) is when the woman decides to exact deadly revenge against the four men (one of whom is an otherwise mild-mannered mentally-retarded man constantly egged on by the three brutes). She hangs one, mutilates another, plunges an axe into another’s back, and mangles the last one with a boat motor. It’s all pretty graphic and disturbing, and if it wasn’t for the extremities of the extended rape scenes, it would seem all too gratuitous rather than comprehensible.

There’s an important scene in which the ringleader of the four men, Johnny (Eron Tabor), is held at gunpoint by the woman. He tries to defend his and his friends’ actions by saying things like “you were asking for it!” and “any man would’ve done the same thing!” And when the woman is threatening him to take off his clothes, Johnny retorts, “I don’t like women giving me orders!” And what happens to this guy? She fools him into taking a bath with her, and…well, never mind what she does to him. The point is, while Siskel and Ebert may have used this film to further campaign against the “women in danger” films of the era, the real target of “I Spit On Your Grave” is the chauvinist, violent nature. And nowhere is that clearer than when Johnny, who has a family, is fine with being disloyal and brutal toward women without thinking of the consequences. He sounds pathetic in justifying his actions to this woman who was just minding her own business before, especially when he thinks he’s speaking for the entire male gender. And the consequences he experiences are extreme to say the absolute least.

When the woman has her revenge, she shows no mercy. She even kills Matthew (Richard Pace), the mentally-slow one of the bunch. Harsh, yes. But it’s to show consequences in following peer pressure.

“I Spit On Your Grave” knows what it wants to do, and it’s not meant to appeal to everyone. The whole film feels raw, like we’re not watching a movie and it’s actually happening (well…with the exception of some bad, noticeable ADR in some spots). The camerawork is simple and the editing isn’t too flashy. Also, there’s no music soundtrack; it’s all diegetic sound, which works to the film’s advantage. It actually helps make the disturbing scenes all the more disturbing because it feels real. There’s a tense moment when the woman thinks she got away from the rapists, only to hear the sound of a harmonica playing; the closer she goes, the louder it gets, to be revealed that it’s one of the rapists sitting on a rock and playing the instrument.

Now, let’s look at Ebert’s review: He called the film “a vile bag of garbage” and stated that “attending it was one of the most depressing experiences of my life.” Well, it didn’t make me feel happy, that’s for sure—but then again, when a violent film as raw as this shows the fringes of such violence, that can make anyone feel uneasy. He slams the “moronic simplicity” of the story and the technical mistakes, such as the “poorly recorded” sound. Understandable. And…wait a minute here—he says the violence is “interrupted only by an unbelievably grotesque and inappropriate scene in which [the woman] enters a church and asks forgiveness for the murders she plans to commit.” […] Roger, I’m trying to understand what you were trying to say there, because that scene seemed to me like she was going against her conscience by stooping to the level of the rapists (or below that level) and is hesitant about going through with it at first, hence why she begs forgiveness. Would you have preferred if she just went ahead and murdered them?

But then he goes from criticizing the film to criticizing the audience he saw it with, who were apparently rude, offensive, and vocal in their enjoyment of the film. He repeats some of their comments like “That was a good one!,” “That’ll show her!,” and “Cut him up, sister!” I don’t think he made any of this up, as there are some audience members who get a kick out of movie violence, but just after writing about this, he mentions how he left the theater “feeling unclean, ashamed, and depressed.” What he doesn’t express is whether or not that was the cause of the movie itself or the audience with which he saw it. But maybe it was both.

He concluded his review by calling the film “a geek show” and “an expression of the most diseased and perverted darker human natures.” I know he’s trying to say that as a mark against the film, but he ultimately described the film itself. (There’s even an exact quote excerpt of the latter statement seen on the back of the DVD box.) There have been many films that explored more deeply “the most diseased and perverted darker human natures,” the best of which came long since this film. It causes viewers to squirm, others to protest, and the rest to try and interpret why it is the way it is.

“I Spit On Your Grave” is disturbing, and it’s meant to be. To make a film with a message against over-the-top violence is to actually show over-the-top violence in great detail. Did it entertain me? No, but I don’t think it was supposed to. Did it make me think? Yes, hence the length of this entire review. Will I see it again? Well…no, probably not. Do I recommend it? Eh…only if you really want to check it out.

I’m not giving the film a Smith’s Verdict rating, but I’m not praising it or slamming it either. It is what it is, and I just reviewed it as such.

Note: If you’re wondering what film I hate the most, it’s Tom Green’s “Freddy Got Fingered.” I won’t even waste time in reviewing that thing.

Operation Avalanche (2016)

28 Jan

la-1473773494-snap-photo

Smith’s Verdict: ***1/2

Reviewed by Tanner Smith

Some day, I’ll write a “Revised Review” for Matt Johnson’s debut feature “The Dirties.” I originally gave it a three-star review, but then as time went on, I wrote an in-depth column about its themes and meanings, after repeated viewings. Now, after seeing it about 40-50 times, I’m unashamed to say it’s one of my new personal favorites and it deserves another review.

But this review isn’t about that. It’s about Johnson’s next film, “Operation Avalanche,” another “faux-documentary” (which shows to be a good style for Johnson, who clearly loves film and filmmaking). Johnson is clearly a filmmaker who loves to take chances—his previous film (“The Dirties”) involved a school shooting, and this one…has a pretty interesting backstory.

“Operation Avalanche” was made illegally (practically), as Johnson and his crew managed to get into locations such as NASA and Shepperton Studios, by disguising themselves as a documentary film crew. Technically, they were telling the truth; but what they were keeping secret was the fact that they were actually making a faux-documentary narrative set in the late-1960s, when NASA was about to launch Apollo 11. (But wait—it gets better.) In the film, they play the film crew hired to stage the moon landing… It’s so crazy, it actually works.

Set in the late ‘60s, the film stars Johnson and Owen Williams (playing themselves, as they did in “The Dirties”) as Ivy League film geeks who are recruited by the CIA and assigned to locate and expose a Soviet spy in NASA. Armed with cameras and two camera operators, they pretend they’re making a documentary about the upcoming race to the moon, and they bug the phones in an attempt to find the spy. But they learn that the U.S. can’t land on the moon, as it’s years behind schedule on the plans. That’s when Johnson comes up with a plan even trickier (and riskier) than the infiltration plan—make a film that simulates a moon landing and make it appear as if it’s Neil Armstrong walking on the lunar surface. They rent a warehouse for a set, build a giant prop that resembles Apollo 11, import sand from certain areas that supposedly resembles the lunar ground, and even get help from Stanley Kubrick (like, the Stanley Kubrick, using photographs and CGI to bring him to life for a brief scene—“Forrest Gump,” eat your heart out). But a hoax this controversial requires the CIA to eliminate any and all participants/witnesses if it all fails…even if they don’t know whether or not it will.

As a filmmaker, Johnson shows how bright he can be when making a film on a micro-budget—he makes the material consistently engaging, he helps us to believe in the story and the execution, and even though he doesn’t like to refer to his films as “found-footage,” it’s hard to deny he knows how to breathe new life into a subgenre that was growing tiresome before. He’s also a very good actor—he’s charismatic and knows how to gain the audience’s attention with his screen presence alone. And as I stated before, he loves to take chances with his films. “Operation Avalanche” could’ve been an easy failure, harping on the popular conspiracy theory that still has people debating to this day. For this film, he presents us with not necessarily his factual interpretation as to the behind-the-scenes of the moon landing (whether it was faked or for real) but with a “what-if” scenario. What if the landing really was fabricated? How would that have been done? What troubles went into it? Etc. Johnson has fun with it.

As with “The Dirties,” “Operation Avalanche” is about an ambitious, film-loving young person wanting to push the boundaries of what he can do with film, without thinking ahead about the consequences first. He wants his fame in helping the government pull off the greatest scam of all time, but what does it matter to anyone but himself? If America found out about it, he’d be the most hated man in the country. And there are also dire consequences for the people helping him. The final moment, in which everything has become all too real and bitter for Johnson, is probably the very best thing in the movie.

But again, as with “The Dirties,” “Operation Avalanche” is also very funny, particularly when it comes to his new film equipment and especially when Johnson is directing Williams in a space suit to hop slowly as if he’s walking on the moon. And there’s also a lot of fun in the film’s in-jokes relating to other films such as Kubrick’s work, which leads to an amazing sequence in which Johnson sneaks his way into Kubrick’s “2001” set to figure out how to use “front-screen projection.” A highlight of this scene—Johnson manages to get Kubrick’s autograph.

The film can also get very tense too, especially in the final act, which includes a car chase shot from inside the pursued car in one take.

“Operation Avalanche” is in the same vein as something like a Christopher Guest mockumentary or an episode of “Documentary Now,” not necessarily “mocking” the style of filmmaking but more appreciating/celebrating it (as well as positively satirizing it). It’s compelling, it’s fun, and it’s yet another example of what a talent Matt Johnson is. I eagerly await his next project, whatever it may be.

Split (2017)

20 Jan

james-mcavoy-split-image.jpg

Smith’s Verdict: ***1/2

Reviewed by Tanner Smith

I never lost faith in M. Night Shyamalan. He gets a bad rap because his failures failed tremendously, especially taking his earlier successes into account. But that’s really not fair because other famous directors have gone through career slumps and came back from them; yet for some reason, it’s “cool” to make fun of Shyamalan. I knew some day, he would find himself back on the right track. With his previous film, “The Visit,” he seemed to find his footing, and even though it wasn’t “great,” it was still a welcome return for Shyamalan after such disappointing messes as “The Happening,” “After Earth,” and especially “The Last Airbender.” It was like he let the studio system corrupt him after he’d done many good things for it (particularly “The Sixth Sense,” “Unbreakable,” and “Signs”), and he made a smaller movie in an attempt to find the magic of filmmaking again.

Shyamalan’s follow-up to “The Visit” is another “small movie” called “Split,” and while I don’t think it’s quite up there with “The Sixth Sense,” “Unbreakable,” or “Signs,” it still shows us why we held Shyamalan in high regard in the first place. This is an imaginative, tense, even funny psychological-thriller that shows the talent of M. Night Shyamalan on display.

“Split” begins as three teenage girls (Anya Taylor-Joy as Casey, Haley Lu Richardson as Claire, and Jessica Sula as Marcia) are abducted by an odd man (James McAvoy). While kept in an underground bunker of sorts, they find that he’s a man of many personalities. It turns out he has dissociative identity disorder, with 23 different personalities (a few of which we get to meet, like mischievous 9-year-old Hedwig, feminine Ms. Patricia, and obsessive-compulsive Dennis). But there seems to be a 24th personality awakening soon—one the others refer to as “the Beast,” who will “feed” on the three girls. Meanwhile, as the man has frequent sessions with psychiatrist Dr. Fletcher (Betty Buckley, the self-proclaimed “crazy old lady from ‘The Happening’”), Dr. Fletcher has to figure out what exactly “the Beast” is before it’s too late.

(And that’s as far as I’ll go in describing the story. Don’t worry—this review is spoiler-free.)

Shyamalan still has tricks up his sleeve when it comes to the plot. There are many neat twists and turns in his storytelling; the more that was discovered about what’s really happening here, the more tense everything became. By the time this film reached its final act, I was on-edge, with goosebumps that wouldn’t go away until the film ended…and even then, I had trouble shaking it off. Good job, Shyamalan.

Almost a majority of “Split” is kept in this undisclosed location somewhere underground (flashbacks of last year’s “10 Cloverfield Lane”), and with Shyamalan’s direction as well as the superb cinematography by Mike Gioulakis, it’s easy to feel the confinement and the anxiety of each situation that comes.

Shyamalan also isn’t afraid to make us laugh at times, particularly when it comes to the weirdness of the disorder and how the girls react to it in both confusion and fear. Some of the comedic bits belong to the personality of Hedwig, the 9-year-old troublemaker within McAvoy…as well as some of the most frightening bits.

James McAvoy takes center-stage, and he turns in a brilliant performance as a man of many identities. McAvoy has a complicated task to pull off, differentiating each personality from the other (and the other…and the other…), and he amazingly succeeds. This is an actor’s dream come true, and McAvoy goes all out for this role. One particular moment for which I have to commend McAvoy is a close-up shot in which he instantly transitions from one role to another—how he did that, I would love to know.

Of the three girls, only Anya Taylor-Joy (who was also very good in “The Witch”) makes an impression. She plays Casey, who was in the wrong place at the wrong time after being invited to a birthday party of one of the two other girls out of pity (and she was riding home with the others when they were captured). As the film starts, we see her as an uninteresting, stereotypical outsider-girl. But as the film continues, we get glimpses into her past to make us understand more of who she is, which makes us glad for moments when she starts to grow as she tries to find ways out of each predicament in this claustrophobic hellhole. Even when we’re questioning why she doesn’t do certain things at times, we get to understand it better, the more we find out about her.

However, the other two girls (Haley Lu Richardson and Jessica Sula) aren’t given the same treatment. I didn’t particularly care for them, as they were only there to cry, cower, and say obvious things like “we have to get out of here” and “I’m scared”. Granted, we don’t want to see anything bad happen to them, but they don’t do much to make us care much for them either.

I would love to talk about the final moment. But again, this review is spoiler-free and there aren’t any hints or clues or anything given by me. All I will say about it is it will delight people and annoy others—I have to say, it took me a while to think about how I felt about it, but I couldn’t help but admire it. I even bought it more after thinking about it. That’s all I’ll say about it…but, by God, I’d love to talk about it! (Sorry, lost myself for a moment there.)

M. Night Shyamalan is having fun with his movies again, and it definitely shows with “The Visit” and “Split,” two inventive thrillers. Since “Split” is, by definition, probably more intriguing than “The Visit” (and that was a damn fun movie), then it’s safe to say that Shyamalan is back in the game. “Split” has its problems (including a slow first act), but as it progresses, it becomes a neat thriller that reminds us of what Shyamalan can do when he puts his heart and soul into it. Let’s hope he keeps up the good work in the future.

2016 Review

8 Jan

10151537_10100316206882202_966228584_n

2016 Review

By Tanner Smith

Happy New Year, everybody! It’s that time of year that makes me look back on the previous movie year and consider the films I liked the most and the ones I liked the least. The time I feel like a true film critic!

And as with my 2014 Review and my 2015 Review, I am going to start off my 2016 Review with my least favorites before I get into my true favorites. Just like last year, I have very few films for this category, because I try to save my money for good movies, since I don’t get paid for reviewing films and so I’m not obligated to see some films that people and critics consider bad or trashy. For example, I did not see Nine Lives, Norm of the North, or Why Him? because I had more sense than to think they would do anything for me.

cabin-fever-image-via-ifc-midnight

However, I have no explanation or excuse as to why I rented the dreadful remake of a 2002 film I didn’t even like to begin with. (Maybe a part of me was curious, I don’t know…) Cabin Fever was the worst film of this or any year. There is not a single thing I can think of that was better than the original film by Eli Roth. If anything, this ghastly remake made me appreciate the original just a little bit more. That’s not saying much, but Roth at least had ambition when he made the original—this one just feels dead, dead, dead in the water. And thankfully, I’m not alone in this—last time I checked Rotten Tomatoes, the film has received a rare 0% rating. I don’t even want to waste more time writing about it.

mv5bmje1njk0njk3nv5bml5banbnxkftztgwodcwmdq3ode-_v1_cr059640360_al_ux477_cr00477268_al_

There was another horrible film I saw this year—one that was a tremendous disappointment to me, because I was sort of anticipating this film ever since I heard about it. It’s Cell, based on a novel by Stephen King and starring John Cusack and Samuel L. Jackson (both of whom starred in another King adaptation, “1408”). This movie was so badly made that it made me wonder how it got a release (not a big release, but still). The dialogue is godawful, the “social commentary” is not subtle in the slightest, it’s near incomprehensible, the effects are average at best, and it takes one bizarre turn after another. But come to think of it…it was actually kind of hilarious. This movie was so laughably bad, embarrassingly awful, and pretty much “The Happening with cellphones.” When the first moment of “panic” hits in this movie, I was laughing my ass off! I had to pause the DVD to let it all out…and it took 20 minutes to calm myself down. Cell is one of the worst apocalyptic thrillers I’ve ever seen, one of the worst movies I’ve seen all year, and one of the most entertainingly terrible films I’ve seen in a long time.

The reason I was looking forward to seeing Cell was because the central premise (that being, our mobile technology turns us into zombies) was very similar to a short film I helped make with YouTube’s Andrew “Nukazooka” McMurry, called “Reboot,” in 2012. Take a look at this film made by some kids for the 48-Hour Film Project and tell me whether or not you think it’s better than anything in Cell.

And then there were three other films I saw in 2016 that I didn’t hate but I didn’t particularly care for that much either. They were:

Batman: The Killing Joke—Another film I anticipated seeing and another one that disappointed me. You’ve heard what everyone says about the film’s opening half-hour—it’s unnecessary, it’s awkward, and it has nothing to do with “The Killing Joke.” I agree. But the actual “Killing Joke” part is pretty good, in my opinion. As an overall film, however, it’s a mixed result.

Ghostbusters—The film that spawned a nonsensical, unnecessary controversy—if you liked it, you were disrespecting the original 1984 classic; if you didn’t like it, you were sexist, apparently just because the leads were female…yeah this was a weird time. I liked parts of this movie, and I thought Kate McKinnon and Leslie Jones were very funny and appealing. But the script really needed work. The film was directed by Paul Feig, who directed the very funny “Bridesmaids.” Does anyone else think this movie could’ve been better if actress Kristen Wiig and her “Bridesmaids” collaborator Annie Mumulo co-wrote the script instead? (I mean, come on—their script for “Bridesmaids” was nominated for an Oscar! You had Kristen Wiig already. I assume she’s a Ghostbusters fan…)

Review: https://smithsverdict.com/2016/07/19/ghostbusters-2016/

Greater—I didn’t want to dislike this movie. I have some friends who worked on the film’s crew. But my problem with “Greater” is the same problem I have with most recent faith-based films; its message is too heavy-handed that it loses sense of realism and causes the film to go off-track. The intentions were great, but the results just didn’t affect me.


Before I stray away from negativity, I should list some films I have not seen that I pretty much want to kick myself for not seeing. They are: The Boy and the Beast, The Edge of Seventeen, Fences, The Handmaiden, Hidden Figures, Hunt for the Wilderpeople, A Monster Calls, Moonlight, Nocturnal Animals, OJ Simpson: Made in America, Paterson, Pete’s Dragon

OW! I just kicked myself. I’ll check these films out sometime in the future.

OK, enough negativity. Let’s move on to the films I did see and I did like!

But wait! Why limit myself to films? I saw the Hulu miniseries 11.22.63 (a far more superior Stephen King adaptation than Cell, to say the least!) as well as the popular Netflix Original series Stranger Things. I think those two shows deserve some Special Mentions!

112263_franco_russ_martin

11.22.63 was a gripping eight-part miniseries that had me hooked from start to finish. Based on the Stephen King novel, “11/22/63,” the story features an English teacher (played by James Franco) who discovers a time tunnel that leads to the early 1960s, which he uses to gather intelligence in an attempt to prevent the assassination of John F. Kennedy. But something in time doesn’t want him to succeed… As someone who loves the idea of time-travel and is fascinated by conspiracy thrillers, this miniseries intrigued me and had me on the edge of my seat.

strangerthings_promotionalstill-0-0

Watching Stranger Things: Season 1 on Netflix probably provided me with the most entertaining thing all year for me. A loving mix of Spielbergian elements and Stephen King elements, this eight-episode contained season gave us a compelling mystery, a good sense of suspense and horror, a large group of appealing characters to follow, and a madly entertaining adventure from beginning to end. Viewers love it, and it’s easy to see why. If this wasn’t a series, I’d call it my favorite film of the year. (But to be fair, my favorite “film” of the year is pretty damn good too.) I can’t wait for Season 2 this coming year…

Review: https://smithsverdict.com/2016/11/01/stranger-things-season-1-2016/

OK, enough stalling! Let’s get to some good films now!

Honorable Mentions (films that could’ve made the list, in alphabetical order): 10 Cloverfield Lane, Audrie & Daisy, Don’t Breathe, Eye in the Sky, Finding Dory, Hacksaw Ridge, The Little Prince, Manchester by the Sea, Raiders! The Story of the Greatest Fan Film Ever Made, Sully, Swiss Army Man

Might As Well Mention These Too, Since 2016 Was A Good Year For Movies: The Accountant, Batman: Return of the Caped Crusaders, The Conjuring 2, Doctor Strange, Fantastic Beasts and Where To Find Them, Green Room, Hail Caesar!, The Invitation, The Jungle Book, Lights Out, Midnight Special, Moana, Ouija: Origin of Evil, Popstar: Never Stop Never Stopping, Rogue One, Sausage Party, Storks, Tallulah

Oh, and I Liked These Too: Blair Witch, The Fundamentals of Caring, King Jack, In a Valley of Violence, Pee-Wee’s Big Holiday, Risen, Star Trek Beyond, Suicide Squad, The Wave

And finally, before I get to the main Top-15 list of my Favorite Films of 2016, I have another Special Mention:

13th-image-5

13THAva DuVernay’s powerful Netflix Original documentary feature about the US prison system simply doesn’t belong on a list that also includes more-mainstream fare such as Deadpool and Captain America: Civil War. But I do think it is a special film that deserves the high praise it has been getting, and so I put it in a separate category by itself. It’s available on Netflix, so check it out when you get the chance.

And now…my Top 15 Favorite Films of 2016!

9_kung_fu_panda_3

  1. Kung Fu Panda 3—2016 was a very good year for animation, and its streak began with the unexpected surprise that was “Kung Fu Panda 3,” the third entry in a series of animated family films that only gets better with each chapter, in my opinion. I’m serious—“Kung Fu Panda” is to DreamWorks Animation what “Toy Story” is to Disney/PIXAR. These films have worked surprisingly well—they’re funny without resorting to pop cultural references, they’re lots of fun while also telling a touching story in each film, they evolve the characters without having them learn the same lesson over and over again, and they’re all visually incredible. And KFP3 is definitely no exception.

zootopia

  1. Zootopia—And speaking of outstanding animated works, Disney has had some delightful ones: “Finding Dory,” “Moana,” “The Jungle Book” (well, that one’s mostly animated), and “Zootopia,” the best of the bunch. Strangely enough, I only thought the film was “fine” at first. After a couple more viewings, I appreciated it more and more. It’s an inspiring, gorgeously animated fable that has a valuable message to deliver and delivers it in the most entertaining way it can with its animal cast of characters. The comedy works, the action works, even the drama works surprisingly well. I have but one thing to say that not many people are addressing—shame on the people in charge of marketing for showing the entirety of the film’s funniest scene (the sloth/DMV scene) in one of the trailers. But at least they didn’t spoil the dramatic aspects of the movie.

thewitch2

  1. The Witch—This was not only a very good year for animation, but also for horror as well. And no film felt as creepy and unsettling to me as “The Witch,” a madly atmospheric and intensely executed thriller that kept me awake the very night I saw it. There are no standard horror-movie tropes to be found in this film. It’s heavy on the chilling atmosphere and the tragedies that surround a family in 1630s Massachusetts who come to fear themselves. It’s a terrible situation brought on by a supernatural entity that becomes even worse as it escalates. It’s both suspenseful and tragically dramatic. It’s quiet, it’s slow, it takes its time developing the issues at hand, it’s grounded in its situation, and that ending…THAT ENDING…you’ll just have to see for yourself.

Review: https://smithsverdict.com/2016/12/10/the-witch-2016/

HUSH16REV

  1. Hush—As noted, this is a list of my “favorites” of the year. So, even though I think “The Witch” is the “best” horror film of the year, “Hush” is my personal favorite (and the one I’ve seen about six or seven times now). This is a Netflix Original horror film in which a psychopath stalks a deaf-mute woman alone in a secluded house, and it’s masterfully handled by director Mike Flanagan (who had another winning horror film this year with “Ouija: Origin of Evil,” a prequel that was better than it deserved to be). It’s a entertainingly chilling thriller that impressed me the whole way through. Don’t just take my word for it—Stephen King even Tweeted about it, comparing it to both “Halloween” and “Wait Until Dark.”

Review: https://smithsverdict.com/2016/05/11/hush-2016/

mv5bmtq3njiwmzk5mv5bml5banbnxkftztgwmjy0mjy1ode-_v1_cr060640360_al_ux477_cr00477268_al_

  1. Captain America: Civil War—I could easily call this one “Avengers 2.5: Civil War,” because that’s what it feels like. All these Avengers fighting against each other for reasons that…honestly, are very understandable. The advertising may have had people choose if they were either Team Iron Man or Team Captain America, but the reality is it isn’t that easy to choose. I always admired “superhero movies” that ask the right questions and raise discussion amongst the audience, and the Marvel Cinematic Universe has turned in yet another entry that gave the audience what they wanted and much more. And Spider-Man? Awesome!

Review: https://smithsverdict.com/2016/12/10/captain-america-civil-war-2016/

everybody_wants_some

  1. Everybody Wants Some!!—In the same vein as director Richard Linklater’s 1993 film “Dazed and Confused,” his “spiritual sequel” “Everybody Wants Some!!” perfectly captured the feel and nostalgia of being away from home for the first time and enjoying those days leading up to your first day of college. As is expected of a Linklater film, the writing is outstanding, capturing that certain essence of the human element that reminds me of Eric Rohmer.

la-1473773494-snap-photo

  1. Operation Avalanche—I originally gave Matt Johnson’s “The Dirties” three stars in my review, but it became one of my personal favorite films of recent years as time went on and I found myself admiring it more and more with more viewings. So, I was excited to see what Johnson’s next film was going to be. And when I heard the premise for said-film, “Operation Avalanche,” I was immediately hooked. It goes like this: Set in the late-1960s, a group of CIA agents/film buffs go undercover as a documentary film crew to find a mole inside NASA, and instead, they find a shocking truth…and decide to make a film that stages the moon landing. Conceived as a fake-documentary (much like “The Dirties,” but a little more grounded), this film has fun with documentary conventions, government conspiracy theories, old-style filmmaking, and even Kubrick films (Stanley Kubrick himself even makes a cameo appearance, fascinatingly). Matt Johnson is one of my favorite filmmakers working today; I admire this guy’s ambition. I can’t wait to see what he comes with next.

deadpool-movie-poster-2016

hero_the-nice-guys-2016

  1. TIE—Deadpool and The Nice Guys—I know it’s a cheat, but I had trouble choosing between these two R-rated action-comedies. They’re both crudely smart, they’re both relentlessly thrilling and entertaining, and most important, they’re both funny as hell.

Review of Deadpool: https://smithsverdict.com/2016/05/18/deadpool-2016/

hell-or-high-water-poster-1280jpg-5bb653_1280w

  1. Hell or High Water—I wasn’t sure where the this quiet Southern-Gothic-like dramatic thriller was going at first. I was getting kind of a Coen Brothers vibe from the feel of the production. But as it went on, I found myself becoming more and more engrossed by it. Brilliant performances by Jeff Bridges, Chris Pine, and Ben Foster (who I barely even recognized here) aided by incredible cinematography that made the Texas atmosphere shine (…even though it wasn’t really shot in Texas) helped make this a film I won’t forget anytime soon.

lead_960

  1. Kubo and the Two Strings—My favorite animated film of the year. This movie is constantly entertaining with hardly a dull moment at all, but it’s also very thoughtful and mature—maybe the kids won’t get as much of the themes as the adults do, but then again, maybe as they get older, these things will stick with them as time goes on. Much like the best family films we grew up watching—we went into them for the entertainment, but the meaning grows on us the more we watch them. That’s what I think “Kubo and the Two Strings” is like. And watching it as an adult, I can already tell you it’s both delightful and meaningful, and it works on so many levels. Keep going, LAIKA—your animated works (including “Coraline” and “ParaNorman”) impress us more and more.

brian-de-palma-in-de-palma-documentary

  1. De Palma—I was surprised by how much I enjoyed this documentary from Noah Baumbach & Jake Paltrow about the career of filmmaker Brian De Palma, because even though I like some of De Palma’s work (such as The Untouchables, Blow Out, and the underrated Casualties of War), I’m not a big fan of his overwhelming style of filmmaking. And when you get down to it, it’s just a well-known director sitting in front of a camera, telling stories (with clips of his work shown). But the stories he tells are fascinating—I was never bored by what he was saying; even when he’s talking about his movies I don’t particularly care for, I’m still intrigued in what he recollects from those experiences in making them.

loving2_h_2016

  1. Loving—Jeff Nichols is one of my favorite filmmakers working today, and he had two films released in 2016. One was “Midnight Special,” which I thought was good. The other was “Loving,” which I thought was very good. It’s based on a true story from the late-‘50s-mid-‘60s about a Virginia married couple that was arrested and exiled before they brought their plight to the Supreme Court. Their crime…was being an interracial couple (at the wrong place at a very wrong time). We’ve seen many movies that remind us of how nasty things were back in the day, with racism, segregation, anti-miscegenation, whatever and so on. But “Loving” tells this particular story in a simple, straightforward way that works very effectively without hitting the audience on the head with the message. Powerful performances from Joel Edgerton and Ruth Negga also help a lot.

Review: https://smithsverdict.com/2016/12/13/loving-2016/

arrival-trailer1-screen2

  1. Arrival—Honestly, I didn’t have much expectations going into this film; all I could think was what this alien-arrival movie could do that hasn’t been done so well already. Then I saw it again, and I thought to myself, “I gotta see that again.” This thought-provoking film surprised me, delighted me in doing so, and even resulted in a discussion between me and my father who saw it with me—what did everything mean, why was this the resolution, and so on. That’s a sign of a great film: when it can get people talking about it for hours after seeing it. I can’t wait to see this movie again.

Review: https://smithsverdict.com/2016/11/13/arrival-2016/

la-la-land-ryan-gosling-emma-stone.jpg

  1. La La Land—One of the best musicals I’ve ever seen. No lie. No doubt. Maybe not even hyperbole. This is a brilliantly done film with beautiful execution, cinematography (and choreography), and story, paying homage to old-style Hollywood musicals while also bringing it to the modern time and showing the dark side of dreams and passion. What happens after the traditional “Hollywood musical” ends? That’s where “La La Land” really cements its status as one of the truly best films of recent years: its second act is honest, truthful, and challenging. Critics love it, audiences love it, I love it. I rarely predict the Oscars, but…I think this is a sure bet for Best Picture.

And my personal favorite film of 2016 is…

singstreetband15

  1. Sing Street—Without a doubt, this is my favorite film of 2016. (Or maybe I’m saying that because it’s the film I’ve seen the most in 2016.) It made me smile, it moved me in a way I didn’t expect, it delighted me in each direction it took, and there was hardly a moment when I wasn’t invested or didn’t have a smile on my face. Shaded with sheer optimism, this film could’ve been just a simple film about a boy who starts his own rock band to impress a girl he likes, and in some way, it is that simple. But that’s what I love about it—there’s a genuine passion thrown into the making of this delightful film that is felt all throughout, like director John Carney (who also made the great musical-drama, “Once”) had this story in his head and wanted to get it out any way he could. His ambition shows in the way he tells the story of this kid growing up in Dublin, falling in love for the first time, relating to his older brother, writing music with his friends, and dealing with the hardships of his life the only way he can (through art). I could easily relate to and sympathize with this kid, Conor (played very well by Ferdia Walsh-Peelo), and the things he goes through. On top of that, the songs are very good, especially “Up” and “Drive It Like You Stole It” (at least one of those songs needs a Best Original Song nomination). It makes me happy watching this movie again and again; that is why it is my favorite film of 2016.

Review: https://smithsverdict.com/2016/11/18/sing-street-2016/

See you next year!

Rogue One (2016)

24 Dec

static1-squarespace

Smith’s Verdict: ***1/2

Reviewed by Tanner Smith

With the arrival of last year’s smash hit, “Star Wars Episode VII: The Force Awakens,” the “Star Wars” franchise was back, and Lucasfilm/Disney was going to prove it. Not only were there going to be two further “episodes,” but there was also going to be a series of “Star Wars anthology” films in between said-episodes. To every “Star Wars” fan, this was great news, and while they would wait for “Episode VIII” in 2017, they were definitely going to see the first entry in the anthology: “Rogue One.”

(By the way, I know “Rogue One” is marketed as “A Star Wars Story.” That’s not how I’m going to label it. It sounds too run-of-the-mill.)

If you thought “The Empire Strikes Back” (Episode V) and/or “Revenge of the Sith” (Episode III) was dark, you haven’t seen anything yet. “Rogue One,” set just before Episode IV (which spawned the franchise in the first place), is darker, grittier, and more of a war film than we would expect from the franchise (funny, seeing how it’s called “Star WARS”). It still has its share of spectacular, rousing moments of sci-fi adventure and lighthearted, witty one-liners, but when it takes its dark turns, it gets pretty heavy. When characters are in battle, you have to be able to accept that there probably won’t be any turning back.

“Rogue One” works fine as a stand-alone film, but it’s even better when associated with the other films. Actually, those who don’t appreciate the silly turns taken in the prequels (Episodes I-III) will appreciate this film more as “the prequel we’ve been waiting for.”

The film’s heroine is Jyn Erso (Felicity Jones), a bright, spunky, heated soldier and criminal. She’s also the daughter of scientist Galen Erso (Mads Mikkelson), who tried to escape the ruthless Empire before he was forced back in to design the planet-destroying Death Star. At first, Jyn wants nothing to do with the Empire or the terrorists that follow, but when she receives a message from Galen that includes crucial information about the Death Star, she joins a group of Rebels on a mission to retrieve the original structural plans and bring them to the attention of the Alliance. (It should probably come as a surprise to no one that they succeed. But like any good movie, what really matters is how they succeed.)

Among the band of would-be heroes are badass pilot Cassian Andor (Diego Luna), extremist Rebel Saw Gerrera (Forest Whittaker), defective Empire pilot Bodhi Rook (Riz Ahmed), blind monk warrior Chirrut Imwe (Donnie Yen), Chirrut’s friend & fellow warrior Baze Malbus (Jiang Wen), and comic-relief robot K-2SO (voiced by Alan Tudyk)—a wonderfully diverse cast of characters.

Director Gareth Edwards (“Monsters,” “Godzilla”) was given some difficult tasks to perform in making this “Star Wars anthology” film—neatly tie it in to Episode IV, pay respect to George Lucas’ original vision, and make a war movie in the “Star Wars” universe. He succeeds in all three tasks. “Rogue One” is still set in the “Star Wars” universe, but it doesn’t feel entirely like what we’re used to. There’s something new and something old. It has to do with the execution, the feel of the piece, and also the way the war aspects in particular seem grounded and realistic. For example, when those giant mechanical-elephant things (and I’m sorry for forgetting what they’re called) are attacking, they’re seen from the ground perspective of the soldiers fighting them. This makes us feel the size and impending danger of these oncoming obstacles. You can feel the stakes are higher in this one.

Darth Vader returns in this one (and is again voiced by James Earl Jones), as many people were wondering before the film’s release. He’s only on screen for about five minutes total, but when he shows up…let’s just say there’s an action that reinforces the reason we were afraid of this guy.

And speaking of returning “Star Wars” characters, I can’t neglect to mention the reappearance of Grand Moff Tarkin, played in Episode IV by the late Peter Cushing. Using high-quality CGI effects, this character was brought back for somewhat of a supporting role. This easily could’ve been a downfall for the film, and yet, even though I’m distracted by the fact that this isn’t really Peter Cushing but a recreation of the deceased actor (with the aid of computers, a stand-in, and possibly a voice imitation), I have to say they did an impressive job “reviving” him and giving him a new performance. To my surprise, I buy it.

Also in terms of tying in to Episode IV, “Rogue One” managed to ingeniously resolve a flaw that has plagued many fans for decades. I won’t give it away here, but you’ll know it when you see it.

My only real problem with “Rogue One” is the villain. It’s not that Ben Mendelsohn doesn’t do fine work as Orson Krennic, the Empire’s Director of Advanced Weapons Research. But when you put him next to previous “Star Wars” villains like Darth Vader and Kylo Ren, he simply isn’t as memorable.

But the heroes are an appealing bunch. Even though Jyn is the one we grow closer to, due to knowing much of her background, the others are still fun to follow. Cassian is a dashing pilot, which would inspire shades of Han Solo, but actor Diego Luna makes the role his own. (Plus, I like how he represents a side of the Rebel Alliance that not many would expect. This guy isn’t to be messed with.) Chirrut Imwe provides many of the more awesome moments of action plus some appreciated deadpan humor. And K-2SO is a great addition—this droid doesn’t whine as much as C-3PO, and he provides the film’s biggest laughs with his snarky manner.

Oh, and a friend of mine (who is a “Star Wars” fan) says I should mention the use of composer Michael Giacchino’s replacement of John Williams’ iconic “Star Wars” score. It’s fine. It’s a bit distracting, but it still feels very “Star Wars”-ish.

Simply put, “Rogue One” is a compelling “Star Wars” entry, with riveting action, a more grounded feel, and a perfect splice of this “anthology piece” and Episode IV. This can only be the start of something great for “Star Wars”; I look forward to the next “Star Wars anthology” film in addition to Episode VIII.

Honey, I Shrunk the Kids (1989)

18 Dec

url

Smith’s Verdict: ***

Reviewed by Tanner Smith

Size change in fiction has always fascinated me. It’s interesting to imagine the world you live in from a different perspective. What would it look like if you were bigger? Or smaller? Disney’s 1989 smash hit “Honey, I Shrunk the Kids” took it to the extreme, shrinking its heroes to ¼ inch in height so that an ordinary backyard becomes a treacherous jungle for them to trek through.

How does this happen? Well, brilliant but hapless scientist Wayne Szalinski (Rick Moranis) invented a machine that could shrink things down to microscopic size if he could get it to work. One of the neighbors’ sons, Ron (Jared Rushton), accidentally hits a baseball through the window and it somehow fixes the machine’s problem upon hitting it, causing it to work all too well, shrinking Ron, Ron’s older brother Russ (Thomas Brown), and both of Wayne’s own kids, Amy (Amy O’Neill) and Nick (Robert Oliveri). They’re too small to get Wayne’s attention, and they get swept up and taken out with the trash. So now they must travel miles worth of enormous backyard, where they come across many dangerous obstacles—bees, sprinklers, lawnmowers, and more.

Will they be saved? Will they be restored to normal size? Well, seeing as how it’s a family adventure by Disney, don’t feel bad in correctly assuming the answer to both questions is “yes.” Just have fun with this comedic, thrill-packed adventure and enjoy what it has to offer, which is a darn good time.

The thing that intrigues me the most about “Honey, I Shrunk the Kids” is its visuals. For a film released in 1989, many of the effects hold up surprisingly well. The sets are outstanding, with oversized props and glorious attention to detail. The jungle-like backyard looks unwelcoming. The animatronics, such as a giant friendly ant and a monstrous scorpion, look convincing—the ant especially will steal your heart…or at least it stole mine. At one point, one of the miniature kids is thrown into a bowl of Cheerios and milk, and it looks amazing. Even some of the blue-screen effects, such as a dangerous ride on top of a soaring bee, look nice. (Though, not all the blue-screen shots are well-done, such as when the kids are falling through the air—it’s a bit awkward. But those are so few and far between superior effects.)

If “Honey, I Shrunk the Kids” were all about the look, it’d be fine, but I was engrossed by the human characters walking through it all. The kids are all likable and are given room to develop and…”grow” (forgive the pun). Russ starts as a meek wimp who quits the football team and the behest of his former-jock father, Big Russ (Matt Frewer), and as the film continues, he becomes a swashbuckling hero and an unofficial leader of the minute group. Amy is a popular but shallow teenage girl who just wants to “get home, get big, and get to the mall,” but throughout the journey, her priorities change for the better. Nick is a pre-teenage version of his father, and all he wants is to be heard by his father; he gets his chance by providing an important clue by the end of the film. My favorite development came from Ron, who starts off as a bratty 12-year-old jock and is still a wise-guy by the end of the film but much friendlier. All four young actors do good jobs, but Jared Rushton as Ron impressed me the most.

But the film’s main comedy comes from the two sets of parents—Wayne and Diane Szalinski (Marcia Strassman) and Big Russ and Mae Thompson (Kristine Sutherland). Rick Moranis is delightful as Wayne, goofy enough for us to laugh at him but more than likable enough too. He’s a perfect everyman. (Honestly, I like Moranis’ work here a little more than his goofier roles in “Ghostbusters” and “Spaceballs.”) And speaking of “goofy,” Matt Frewer is surprisingly effective as Big Russ, a man who goes through his own change while worrying about his missing kids. Most of the laughs come from Wayne’s inventive method of searching the yard for the kids without even touching the ground, Big Russ’ reactions to Wayne’s bizarre behavior, and the byplay between parents trying to work together but simply can’t (er, they can, but they…won’t).

Oh, and there’s also the Szalinski family’s dog, Quark, who of course knows more than the human characters. Simply put, this dog is a delight. Anytime the camera is on him, he’s a natural actor.

The film is a ton of fun but it isn’t great. I get that it’s just supposed to be a fun adventure, but sometimes I think things turn out a little too well for these kids. Also, I’m not so sure James Horner’s music score is the best fit for this material—it’s a little too foreboding and overly serious at times. It makes scenes that are already intense (such as when the kids are about to be sucked into a lawnmower) overly so.

And I have to ask—where in the world did that killer scorpion come from?! It leads to a neat-looking fight between the scorpion vs. the ant and the kids vs. the scorpion, but seriously, where did that thing come from?

But whatever. “Honey, I Shrunk the Kids” is loads of fun and in the great tradition of Disney. Much of it still holds up today as it did in 1989 when it was originally released, and I have fun watching it now as much as I did when I was a kid watching it over and over.

Green Room (2016)

18 Dec

960

Smith’s Verdict: ***1/2

Reviewed by Tanner Smith

Just read the premise for writer-director Jeremy Saulnier’s “Green Room”: a punk-rock band must fight to survive a night in a bar run by ruthless neo-Nazis run by Patrick Stewart. Admit it—you want to see this film on the basis of that concept alone.

I’ll be honest and say I was expecting a more conventional (albeit fun and thrilling) film than the one I actually saw (thrilling but definitely not “fun” in the “conventional” sense). It’s a brutally realistic chiller that had my stomach knotted up and got under my skin. And it confused me; but it only confused me because nothing was happening the way I expected it to happen. Then I realize, that’s a good thing! Let me give an example—in this film, someone comes in to help and you expect him to save the day, but what happens instead? Out of the blue, he gets a shotgun blast to the face! No buildup, no tense music—it just happens. And I’m not even going to mention what someone does with an ultra-sharp razor blade.

This simple, straightforward thriller that begins with the introduction of our soon-to-be-in-jeopardy protagonists—a four-member punk-rock band called the Ain’t Rights. They don’t partake in social media, they siphon gas for their van in which they all live/sleep, and they’re not as “hardcore” as they like to think they are but they try. They go from gig to gig collecting as much money as they can, but their next gig is one they’ll wish they avoided. It’s a bar in a part of the Pacific Northwest populated by rednecks and neo-Nazis. After playing their set, all they have to do is collect their payment and leave. But oops—bassist Sam (Alia Shawkat) left her phone in the green room backstage and guitarist Pat (Anton Yelchin) has to retrieve it…only to discover a dead body in the green room. A murder has occurred, and before Pat can call the police, he and the band, including two other members Reece (Joe Cole) and Tiger (Callum Turner), are kept inside the green room while the bar’s owner, Darcy Banker (Patrick Stewart), tries to think of what to do. His plan: close the bar early so the patrons can leave, call in his band of brutes and thugs (as well as man-eating attack dogs), somehow lure the band outside, and murder them, thus eliminating all witnesses. Knowing the danger they’re in, the band, as well as a bystander named Amber (Imogen Poots), realize they must fight to survive if they are even going to consider leaving the room.

The film is an exercise in realistic violence in response to the question of what people can do to other people when facing against each other. I mentioned the shotgun to the face and the razor blade, but there’s also a hand that’s nearly chopped off, a machete to the neck, and even a dog after someone’s throat. This isn’t a film for anyone who’s easily squeamish. The violence is handled in an unpredictable way so that anyone invested in the material will be on-edge wondering what will happen next. As expected from a film like this, you wonder how the characters are going to get out of one situation before they get into another one. But this is a film that disposes of a few of these characters quicker than anyone would have expected.

Who is the right audience for “Green Room”? That’s a difficult question to answer. Certainly not people looking for a b-movie thriller where you whoop and cheer for the bad guys to get their comeuppance. This isn’t a gutsy, go-for-it thrill ride; it’s more of a nightmare, as one character proclaims by the end of the story. Nothing feels overwritten or exaggerated—it’s just a matter of saying, “This is what happens when this happens, so save your popcorn for a different movie.” In that sense, maybe “Green Room” is only for people who just want to see “what happens when this happens,” based on the premise I opened the review with.

“Green Room” is a well-executed thriller with an intriguing hook and a fascinatingly original take on the situation. The actors are terrific (especially Stewart, who is more subtle than a frothing-at-the-mouth bad guy), the cinematography is top-notch, and as was Saulnier’s intent, it left an impact on me that might have actually been better than what I expected.