Smith's Verdict

Smith’s Verdict: ***1/2

Reviewed by Tanner Smith

So the housing bubble of the 2000s grew so big that it eventually (and inevitably) exploded in a major way. That would be funny if it wasn’t true. But as impossible it may seem, it really happened, leading to the 2008 global financial crisis. It was chronicled in Michael Lewis’ nonfiction book, “The Big Short,” which was written with the intention of making readers really want to know more about financing—credit-default swaps, collateral debt obligations, etc. I imagine it’d be a difficult challenge to put that same intention into a film adaptation, but not only is Adam McKay’s 2015 film of the same name informative about the situation(s) at hand; it’s also surprisingly funny and entertaining.

Many are surprised that Adam McKay, whose previous films include such dopey mainstream comedies as “Anchorman” and “Talladega Nights,” was able to handle this kind of material well. It wasn’t much of a surprise to me, because whether you like these movies or not, it’s difficult to deny that underneath all the goofiness is sheer craftsmanship and social commentary. For “The Big Short,” the comedic aspects are more in the “snarky” category than the “goofy” category (because most Wall Street people are jackasses, by popular opinion)—the serious, heavier material is still treated sincerely and the comedic edge eases it up and gives the film greater significance, causing it to stand out further. This also gave McKay an opportunity to stretch himself further as a talented filmmaker (which he’s already proven with the well-executed racetrack sequences in “Talladega Nights”); an opportunity he relishes in. He pulls out all the tricks to make this film stand out. He shoots it like a documentary; some shots are intentionally bad, to make the acting and writing stand out in a natural way. Characters often break the fourth wall to let us know what they’re thinking. And there are random show-stoppers, used for informative effect. For example, when the audience might be confused about mortgage-backed securities, suddenly, there’s Margot Robbie in a bubble bath to explain everything! (Though, I doubt most men in the audience are paying attention to what she’s saying, if you know what I mean.)

(Other celebrity appearances include celebrity chef Anthony Bordain using a fish stew equivalence and Selena Gomez playing poker with a doctor.)

The film focuses on five of the characters picked from the original source material. Michael Burry (Christian Bale) is a socially awkward genius with a glass eye and a tendency to work while barefoot and listening to rock music. He’s the first one to notice warning signs of the way Wall Street is overvaluing mortgage-backed bonds, three years before the crash, but no one will listen to him. However, he does see this as an investment opportunity by betting that the housing market will fall. Jackass investor Jared Vennett (Ryan Gosling) decides to do the same and runs it by Mark Baum (Steve Carell), a cynical broker, who reluctantly agrees. While all that’s going on, there are also a couple of amateur traders, Charlie Geller (John Magaro) and Jamie Shipley (Finn Wittrock), who are at the right place at the right time and take the opportunity as well. They get help from ex-broker Ben Rickert (Brad Pitt), who decides to guide them through the madness they’re in for. How often do you see a film in which the heroes are betting over a billion dollars against the American economy, especially since if they’re right, it means very bad times for millions of people who are already in danger of losing their homes? What a tricky subject to focus on. Good thing it works.

And it’s funny. The breaking of the fourth wall leads to fulfilled comedic possibilities, the celebrity cameos are hilarious, the dialogue is sharp and witty, and the humor comes from just how smarmy these people can become. Comedy can help elevate a story like this, which can otherwise be an uninteresting drama or a passable thriller, but what also helps is accuracy, which as far as I can tell (being someone mostly ignorant of financing), it definitely has a large amount of. With sharp filmmaking, great acting (what else do you expect from Christian Bale?), a detailed script, effective hilarity, and a unique amount of precision, who would’ve thought a film about the 2008 global financial crisis would be this deep-cutting and this amusing both at the same time?

Smith’s Verdict: ***1/2

Reviewed by Tanner Smith

Following my review of “While We’re Young,” this is yet another 2015 film from Noah Baumbach that left a weird impression on me—from confusion to praise in a matter of time. Baumbach usually writes his characters as ignorant, self-praising, gullible, and disagreeable. That, plus his biting dialogue, can throw moviegoers off, but when they, like me, can get past that in order to see the characters for who they are and what exactly Baumbach is saying with his direction, there is something fascinatingly insightful about much of his films. (And it also helps that he’s lightened up a little since 2010’s “Greenberg,” probably thanks to his collaboration with co-writer/actress Greta Gerwig.) That’s how I came to enjoy “While We’re Young” and that’s how I came to enjoy “Mistress America.”

If “While We’re Young” was Baumbach’s “Woody Allen film,” then “Mistress America” is both his screwball comedy and his “John Hughes film,” complete with lots of sharp dialogue, revelations about characters, intriguing but unusual detail, and even some unnecessary comic relief and a hollow tempo score.

The main character is a college freshman named Tracy (well-played by Elizabeth Olsen lookalike Lola Kirke), who has trouble fitting in at Columbia University. She feels overwhelmed by the college experience, doesn’t have anyone to talk to or connect with, and isn’t sure of exactly what she wants. She has some idea when she signs up for a campus literary magazine and writes a short story for it, but she’s not so sure she’ll get in. She meets a nice intellectual boy (Matthew Shear), but he gets a girlfriend (Jasmine Cephas Jones) soon enough. Then she meets Brooke, who is the daughter of the man Tracy’s mother is going to marry…

Greta Gerwig co-wrote the screenplay with Baumbach after working together on “Frances Ha” and stars as Brooke, a 30-year-old New Yorker who has many ambitions…and will not shut up about them. She talks and talks and talks. She rarely listens to people even when they have something important to say because she’s too busy listening to herself. She wants to be influential and prominent and successful, like most young people aspiring for something great. But also like most young people, she has no clear (or at least realistic) plan to achieve her goals (and for that matter, it’s unclear if she truly has any particular talents anyway). She and Tracy meet due to Tracy’s mother’s insistence and belief that they’ll form a mentor/student relationship. Is she wrong or is she right?

The first few minutes of “Mistress America,” which show Tracy attempting to adjust at college life, are pitch-perfect, showing Baumbach is practically a master at satire, dialogue, and observation. You get the gist of Tracy’s plight by the time the opening credits are done; how often does that happen? It’s funny, observant, and even allows for empathy. As Baumbach showed with “While We’re Young,” his attention to detail is astounding, right down to the cracked screen on Tracy’s cellphone. Then along comes Brooke and the film turns into a madcap comedy, with lots of witty lines, odd attitudinal swings, and eccentricity. Yet the film still keeps a proper amount of authenticity that keeps it intriguing and strangely true.

I can understand why people would be turned off by the character of Brooke. She is constantly babbling about what may or may not happen if/when her dreams come true, and some of her eccentricities (like making up words for herself) are off-putting. A few minutes into getting to know her and you’ll find out pretty quickly whether or not you want to spend another hour with her. (The film itself is pretty short, clocking in at barely an hour and 24 minutes.) As for me, I didn’t have much trouble with her or the way Gerwig portrayed her, but I can see why some critics who panned this film did.

But what’s more interesting is the story with Tracy. She’s the “straight man” to Brooke’s “life force,” but this doesn’t turn out to be as predictable as I expected. There’s a parallel story in which Tracy is taking notes on Brooke’s speech and behavior in order to craft a short story about her (without her knowing it). She believes this story will give herself attention, as she would like to write realistic fiction. What she doesn’t realize is what she knows about Brooke is what she knows from spending only one night with her, and this can be seen as cruelty, especially since it would make Brooke uncomfortable if she reads the final draft. Tracy may know what we have figured out about Brooke, but she has even more to discover about her and about herself as well.

I can’t say the film is entirely realistic. Much of the dialogue can be very stagey, especially when the film takes us to a trip to a house in Connecticut where Brooke hopes to guilt a couple from her past into providing her with funds for a restaurant she’s planning. This whole sequence demonstrates what’s good about the film and what may be flying too close to the sun. (John Hughes, who I referenced in the first paragraph, was guilty of similar problems in his films too.) But there’s enough good in it that it doesn’t damage the film, even with the annoying characters of the deluded boy and his overly jealous girlfriend (who’s so pretentious that even Brooke tells her to stop sounding like an adult) and certain lines of dialogue that I don’t think would be said in real life.

I found “Mistress America” to be a very funny, observant film that shows a definite growth and relaxation in Baumbach’s work, compared to his scathing observations in films such as “Margot at the Wedding” and “Greenberg.” I’m excited to see what he comes up with next.

Smith’s Verdict: ***1/2

Reviewed by Tanner Smith

I do not know what to make of this film. The first time I saw it, I didn’t know what to make of it but I felt I liked it. The second time, I noticed a couple more little things and liked it less. The third time, I noticed even more I didn’t catch the first two times and I find myself grudgingly giving the film a positive review because…I think Noah Baumbach’s “While We’re Young” is both ingenious and infuriating.

Ben Stiller and Naomi Watts star as a middle-aged husband and wife living in New York. They admit they’re fine living the life of marriage without children and doing things their own way, unlike their friends (a couple played by Maria Dizzia and Adam Horovitz) who have become boring since they started raising their child. Right away, this is an interesting idea that opens a door for character development; but then again, they’re so vocal about their situations that it feels like they’re complaining too much about something they chose for themselves and other things they claim to be focusing on but aren’t putting enough focus into. The couple meets a younger couple, in their mid-20s, played by Adam Driver and Amanda Seyfried. They’re lively, opinionated, ambitious and definitely hipsters (though the word “hipster” is never spoken once, unless I missed it). Both couples form an unlikely friendship, and it’s here that Baumbach shows an interesting contrast between generations. The older couple has a lust for life but also many awkward moments, and the younger couple is into so many retro things (they collect records, VHS tapes, board games, etc.) that make the older couple feel even older than they are. There’s so much detail put into this contrast and it’s hard to fault Baumbach for accuracy; I wouldn’t doubt the New York hipster culture is like this.

Perhaps the biggest difference between generations is that today’s (in shape of the younger couple) seems to expect to have everything they want handed to them without having to work so hard to get it all. They’re actively nostalgic but perhaps lazily content with life. Stiller’s character, on the other hand, has worked so hard to get where he wants to be. He’s a documentary filmmaker who has spent years on a project that he’s sure will be a milestone in capturing “life.” (The problem there is that it’s overlong and kind of boring; even he admits that.) His wife, played by Watts, is a producer whose father (Charles Grodin) is a pioneer of the genre whom Stiller aspires to be like. Then Driver’s character, also a documentary filmmaker working on an ambitious project, has this idea for his film that will mostly go places and jump-start his career, even with help from Grodin’s character. And Stiller becomes resentful that this kid is having the success that eluded him.

Maybe that’s what kept throwing me off the first couple times I saw this film. There’s too much to keep track of, whether it’s montage or production design or character or truth. It’s overstuffed… But then again, at the same time, it’s hard to criticize the film for that, especially when you see how much Baumbach was clearly paying attention to everything around him in his own life so he could properly portray it on film. He is trying his hardest to make everything work and most of it does work. In fact, this is why I had to see the film again: to catch something I didn’t catch before. And I’ll be honest—the second time I saw the film, I thought to myself, “Oh…*that’s* what he was going for,” as if he were making a smug commentary on something in particular. Then I really thought about it and realized maybe it wasn’t so smug as much as it was observant. I do recognize this behavior around me and at age 23, who am I to judge what a 45-year-old man sees, since the film is mostly told from the perspective of a 45-year-old man (the Stiller character), when even I don’t know much about everything I see in my own generation?

And this is why I give “While We’re Young” a positive review (maybe not so “begrudging” as I thought)—it kept me thinking. Why am I not giving it a higher rating than three stars then, you may wonder? Well…because of the last act. The last act tries to juggle ethical dilemmas and reveal the nature of “truth” in art and in life, as Stiller tries to use his newfound discoveries about himself and his friends (old and new) to prove his points in a climax. He desperately wants to prove to everybody that he’s right about Driver on numerous levels. Not that some of what he says are true, but the more he tries to prove it, the more pathetic he becomes, especially when it’s considered the age difference between him and Driver.

But then I realize as I write this review…I think I get the irony here—that Stiller has dropped to a point so low that he’s actually making someone half his age a central figure in his universe. He’s supposed to come off as sort of pathetic and he still doesn’t know what he needs to know in life. He’s almost as if he won and even then he won’t give up.

I could criticize the film’s final act for being so broad, but even so, it has its own points to make and knew how to do it. So why the hell am I criticizing it?! I swear, this review sounded a lot better in my head, but actually typing it for this review is making me feel kind of pathetic. “While We’re Young” is a film that puzzles rather than satisfies. What is necessarily wrong with that? Many character studies (especially Woody Allen’s films of the 1970s) have provided commentary and humor by doing exactly what this film is. Baumbach is becoming a powerful voice in the modern-day independent-film scene and getting his points across in a non-commercial way that is sometimes welcome and other times pretentious. In this film’s case especially, the glass is either half-empty or half-full. Yes, I know this review is all over the place, and for me, writing about it helps me express my full opinion of the film. In the end, I can’t deny it—“While We’re Young” is a terrific film and one I’ll probably watch a few more times because I want to understand it more.

NOTE: The Smith’s Verdict rating was originally three stars. I immediately bumped it up to three-and-a-half after finishing this review.

Smith’s Verdict: ***1/2

Reviewed by Tanner Smith

SPOILER ALERT!

I have somewhat of an understanding of the behind-the-scenes world of independent filmmaking. I document behind-the-scenes video footage of short films being made, I acted in a small role in an Arkansas indie production (Juli Jackson’s “45 RPM”), and I make my own short films as well. There’s still a lot for me to learn if I’m going to be an accomplished filmmaker (though, being an accomplished film critic would be nice too). Maybe that’s why when a film about filmmaking catches my attention, my curiosity and fascination are provoked. There are parts that feel familiar to me, others that feel new to me, and the rest of the material mostly captivates me. Two of the best films I’ve seen show that are Tim Burton’s “Ed Wood” and Francois Truffaut’s “Day for Night.” Then there’s Tom DiCillo’s “Living in Oblivion,” one such film about filmmaking that actually feels the most familiar to me. In my book (or blog), that’s an accomplishment.

What’s even better (and what would bring in those who aren’t that familiar with the craft) is that it’s also a comedy. It’s wonderfully written—the dialogue rings true in a funny way and the situations ring similarly true in a Murphy’s Law sort of way. Anything that can go wrong on a movie set does go wrong one way or another and it’s funny seeing these characters, a film crew, react to them. It’s lively, clever, and flat-out funny.

The film divided in three parts, each one showing the shooting of a different scene for an independent film. Director Nick Reve (Steve Buscemi) is under stress trying to put together a film on a low budget and trying to get this scene complete. But the production is plagued by all sorts of problems—his leading actress, Nicole (Catherine Keener), is losing faith in herself and her acting career; his leading actor, hotshot Chad Palomino (James LeGros), has an ego too big for the production; his director of photography, Wolf (Dermot Mulroney), is suffering emotional problems; the technical crew is having problems with the new fog machine; actors can’t remember their lines; a pint-sized actor (Peter Dinklage) is angry at his role as a dwarf in a dream sequence; and more.

Good comedy is based on cause and effect; someone has to suffer and that’s where the laughs come from. “Living in Oblivion” has a great collection of funny moments in which this guy is trying his hardest to get these scenes off the ground and everything seems to be working against him, leading to further complications he has to keep getting out of. It’s a relatable conflict but also very funny.

They say “art imitates life.” In the case of this film (in addition to the film-within-the-film), it’s art imitating life imitating art imitating life by way of a perceptive, smart screenplay and even better (for me, anyway), instantly recognizable characters. I’ve come across at least some of these types of people on a film crew a few times before. Even if you don’t know about how the film world works, you can empathize with the issues being faced by people trying to get something done with their art. This goes to show that even with an independent feature film on a shoestring budget, there are as many problems to face as those you hear about in the makings of big-budget studio films.

But there’s a big problem I have with the film (and this is where spoilers come in) and it has to do with the segues into the next vignette (or “scene”). They’re dream sequences. A scene is shot, things go wrong, and a character wakes up from the experience, as it was all a dream. To me, this doesn’t work for three reasons. 1) It’s not clever when it happens repeatedly and it’s groan-inducing when you see that reveal, 2) these dreams are so damn precise and surprisingly accurate, considering the different people having these dreams, and 3) it’s not clear whether or not these scenes were even part of the film-within-the-film, so it left me confused. To me, it just came across a pretentious way to be “artful.”

Even with that distraction, I greatly enjoyed “Living in Oblivion.” It made me laugh with joy and it made me smile with recognition. I wanted more of this film actually! When it ended, I couldn’t believe it was really over. I wanted more of these characters and another scene for them to shoot together. That’s the power of this wonderful film about filmmaking.

Smith’s Verdict: ***1/2

Reviewed by Tanner Smith

WARNING: SPOILER ALERT!!!

“The fear of loss is a path to the dark side.” –Yoda

It can be argued that “Revenge of the Sith” is the most complex story in the “Star Wars” franchise, delivering the tragic end of Jedi student Anakin Skywalker and the becoming of the dark lord Darth Vader. Though, I won’t go as far as to say it’s the best film in the series, as it does have its problems that keep it from the status of either the original “Star Wars’ or “The Empire Strikes Back.” But it is still an important chapter in the series that, in a way, improves the other chapters.

“Revenge of the Sith” is the entry in the saga that fans have waited for since the late-1970s. How did Anakin become Darth Vader? In 2005, with George Lucas’ third prequel, they finally got their answer. Anakin was not merely seduced by the power of the dark side of the Force but influenced into believing the dark side can help him save the one he loved, only to pay a hefty price in the end as he became the ruler of the evil Empire we know from the original trilogy. His passion and fear was exploited by Supreme Chancellor Palpatine, who turned him away from the Jedi. The Jedi themselves can’t be ignored either, for they played a part in the creation of Darth Vader by making poor decisions.

But I’m getting ahead of myself. The film begins with one of the best extended action sequences in the history of the franchise, as Obi-Wan Kenobi (Ewan McGregor) and Anakin (Hayden Christensen) are on a mission to rescue Palpatine (Ian McDiarmid) from the clutches of Count Dooku (Christopher Lee) and his droid ally, General Grievous. This takes up the first half-hour of the film. It’s thrilling, it looks great, and even has time for some humor and banter between our two heroes. (I also give it extra points for our favorite droid, R2-D2, managing to take out enemy droids with his resources—I don’t care who you are; that is awesome.) What they don’t know is that it was all staged to give Palpatine a chance to connect with Anakin in order to manipulate him. Palpatine works like the devil, doing a very good job getting to Anakin and feeding his inner demons. This is a crucial time in Anakin’s life—his secret wife, Padme (Natalie Portman), is pregnant, which is going to be an issue seeing as how Jedi are forbidden to fall in love. Anakin also has visions of Padme dying in childbirth and fears for her life. At the same time, the Jedi council have their doubts about Anakin as a Jedi, despite Yoda claiming he is “the Chosen One.” Thus, when Anakin has to make decide what to do for Padme as well as his own life, Palpatine is there to lure him over to the dark side…

Manipulation. Betrayal. Tragedy. Irony. All that and more help make “Revenge of the Sith” become, in my opinion, one of the best “Star Wars” films. Even if we know how it will all end (with Anakin turning evil, the Jedi facing defeat in the war, Obi-Wan confronting Anakin, and Anakin becoming Darth Vader), the joy comes from seeing how everything will play out. It leads to an ending that is all the more tragic in that the very thing he swore to protect has died (in childbirth, having given birth to Luke and Leia, the heroes of Episodes IV-VI) and now he has joined the Empire as a dark lord. To add on to that final nail in the coffin, Palpatine makes Anakin believe it was his fault, and by default, the Jedi’s fault too!

Palpatine is one of the most joyfully despicable villains in film history. Fans are quick to make fun of him for his cackling and screaming (and his infamously silly “NO…NO…NO!!!” scream), but when he’s not doing any of that nonsense, he’s cold and calculating, manipulating Anakin cunningly and effectively. He’s able to use Anakin’s fear, guilt, hopes, etc. to see the Jedi in a different way and lose sense of who he is and what he’s fighting for. He’s responsible for the Empire’s most horrifying ally and you can see he’s able to make anyone join him if given the right amount of time with that person.

George Lucas has always been a masterful storyteller, even if his direction and writing still don’t work as strongly as they should. Some of the dialogue is better than in the previous prequels, “The Phantom Menace” and “Attack of the Clones,” with the exception of some (thankfully-) brief romantic banter and moments when they simply bellow how they feel (I’ll get to Darth Vader’s big reaction at the end later), but his direction still shows some weaknesses occasionally. He’s much better at directing darker material than comedic moments and when it comes to directing actors, he has a lot of responsibility he sometimes isn’t able to follow through with. (I’ll get to that latter element in the next paragraph.) The bigger moments in the film are very well-handled and give fans probably more then they expected to see, especially after seeing what Lucas did wrong with the previous two films.

Hayden Christensen is often criticized for his performance as Anakin Skywalker. But I think it’s unfair, because personally, I think Lucas has had some trouble directing actors to say dialogue properly in these movies. Christensen does his best when reciting these lines, and honestly, he’s better as the tragic figure than as the whiny teenager Anakin was in “Attack of the Clones.” But there are times when he is unable to successfully pull these lines off (especially when he yells) and he comes off as dull. I can’t blame it on him, because he’s not the director—Lucas should have given more guidance to this performance, as well as the other actors’ performances, for that matter. Even Ewan McGregor, who is usually known as the best actor in the prequels, has his offbeat moments as well (remember the close-up on his eyes, during which he taunted and grunted sporadically?) that can be blamed on mediocre directing. That can also explain McDiarmid’s silliness in certain parts of the film. And so, I’d leave Christensen alone—he’s trying, he’s acted well in other films (like “Shattered Glass”), he’s better here than in “Attack of the Clones,” and when his character turns to evil, it’s very believable.

And yes…let’s get to that infamously laughable reaction from Darth Vader upon learning of Padme’s death. He stands himself up and shouts “NO!!!” Audiences were laughing and/or groaning at this response…but I didn’t mind it that much. Yes, it can seem silly out of context and it is another example of Lucas allowing his characters to shout how they feel rather than physically show it. But when you really think about the situation and what Anakin went through to try and save Padme (really think about it—the very reason he joined the dark side in the first place was to protect the woman he loved), it’s hard to blame him for having that reaction. It is a bit perplexing for one of the most badass villains in cinema history to do something Anakin Skywalker would do (hey wait a minute!), but when you think of the dread he must’ve been feeling, it’s a sensible response.

Overall, I feel that “Star Wars Episode III: Revenge of the Sith” is a good film. It’s leaps and bounds above Episodes I and II and arguably even better than Episode VI (which is a fine chapter in its own right). It’s suitably dark, full of several little moments that make up for the film’s weaknesses (Anakin’s reaction to Padme being pregnant; the scene in which Palpatine uses a story to further influence Anakin; moments that lead into Episode IV, which the film obviously brides into; and more), and adds plenty of depth to all the other chapters of the series. And you can tell this is the “Star Wars” film Lucas has wanted to make for a long time and it’s the story fans wanted to see. The result is not a perfect sci-fi film but a compelling one nonetheless.

NOTE: I forgot to mention the final confrontation between Anakin and Obi-Wan on a river of lava… It looks like a video game level. There, I said it. This review’s already pretty long, so I’ll just say I’ll forgive the film for that flaw.