Working Girl (1988)

22 Mar

images

Smith’s Verdict: ***1/2

Reviewed by Tanner Smith

“Working Girl” is an entertaining spin on the traditional story of a plucky young woman making it big in business, but only by bending the rules. The story is updated to 1988, when the movie was made, and made into a very funny, engaging comedy.

Melanie Griffith stars as Tess McGill, a secretary working on Wall Street at a mergers and acquisitions department. She’s a bright woman—smart and aggressive with some good ideas about how to make money in this business…if only she was in a position to state them. And even if she did, it’s unlikely that anyone would listen to her, since she has the verbal wit of a precocious little girl.

Tess gets a new job and a new boss—a woman her age named Katharine Parker (Sigourney Weaver). They get along fine and Tess even shares some of her ideas with Katharine, who seems interested in what she’s saying. However, when Katharine breaks her leg (in one hilarious short scene featuring an unexpected scream) and is to be in traction for weeks, Tess is in possession of her computer files and comes across one of Tess’ own ideas, which Katharine was stealing to claim as her own.

Angered by her boss’ deception, she decides to create a little deception of her own. She is going to pose as a firm executive and meet up with another executive named Jack Trainer (Harrison Ford) to bring new ideas to life. They meet at a bar, without saying each other’s names (Tess says who she’s waiting for, and Jack decides to have some fun with this), and they get drunk and wind up in the same bed the next morning. Only at work does she realize who this guy is. However, despite Tess’ silly behavior that night, it turns out to be OK, since Jack likes Tess and he will take her ideas seriously.

So, you know the drill. Tess is continuing with the masquerade, keeping it a secret to Jack, despite their growing relationship. It’s only a matter of time before Katharine is able to come back to work and become a risk to Tess’ breakout, revealing the lie. And yes, we do get that obligatory “liar revealed” scene, in a boardroom with a lot of people, no less. It ends with shocking discoveries, a villain’s smirk, and walkouts, leading of course to scenes in which the heroine must question what to do now and…of course find a solution that will bring her back on top. The story is traditional, but updated with a quick-witted screenplay. However, a weakness with the film is that that “liar revealed” cliché is still played out just as idiotic as it almost always is in movies. But the movie saves itself with a line from Harrison Ford’s character that should have been used minutes ago, and leads to a climax that’s both suspenseful and satisfying.

While Melanie Griffith has received third billing in the credits (with Harrison Ford first and Sigourney Weaver second), this is really Tess’ story being told here. We see from her point of view and it’s really her journey that’s being shown here—her pluckiness, her mistakes, her ideas, her victories, etc. Griffith is an effective casting choice—fresh, likable, and funny. Meanwhile, Harrison Ford does fine work and shares good chemistry with Griffith, and Sigourney Weaver is great as the kind of villain (or villainess) you love to hate. Of the supporting cast, Joan Cusack, as Tess’ best friend Cyn, has some of the funniest lines in the movie, particularly in the scene when she poses as Tess’ secretary—“Anything I can get for you? Coffee, tea, me?”

If I’ve made “Working Girl” out to be a well-acted update on this standard story, I should also point out that this movie is really funny. There are hilarious one-liners delivered greatly, a lot of which centered around Tess’ naivety—for example, when she first meets Jack (without knowing who he really is), she states, “I have a head for business and a body for sin.” How can you not love that?

Take Shelter (2011)

22 Mar

TAKE-SHELTER-Jeff-Nichols

Smith’s Verdict: ****

Reviewed by Tanner Smith

“Take Shelter” brings about a subject that is one of the main envelopments of mankind—fear. Everyone is afraid of something, and how we deal with that fear is up to us. “Take Shelter,” written and directed by Jeff Nichols, is essentially about a man who deals with his fears while not completely understanding them.

The man’s name is Curtis (Michael Shannon). He’s a working-class man in his mid-30s with a loving wife named Samantha (Jessica Chastain) and an adorable little daughter named Hannah (Tova Stewart), who is deaf. Curtis has a nightmare about a strange thunderstorm that oddly rains what looks like motor oil. He dismisses it as just a strange dream, but the next night, it’s even stranger when he dreams of the same storm and the family dog attacks him. But while the dog only bites him in the dream, Curtis can still feel the pain when he wakes up.

The nightmares get worse and more vivid. Curtis dreams of the same storm with the strange rain that apparently causes people to act crazily and violently. But during his day job as a sand miner, he has hallucinations of a similar theme—he’s the only one who notices that the birds in town are acting strangely. He soon starts to believe (and fear) that the dreams are not only dreams, but also visions of an impending disaster. So he gets the idea of rebuilding the old tornado shelter in his backyard and reconstructing it into a safe haven for him and his family if the visions are indeed accurate.

But there’s a problem here—Curtis is dealing with his fear in this way while also fearing something that runs even deeper. You see, his family has a history of mental illness—his mother (Kathy Baker) has been confined to a home since Curtis was ten years old. Is Curtis slowly but surely going crazy? Are these visions signs of possible schizophrenia? It’s unclear, but while Curtis goes to see several doctors and counselors about his dreams, he’s still working on that shelter to be ready in case he isn’t crazy. How’s everyone else with his “home improvement project?” Samantha is concerned, but will stick with him through thick and thin like the loving wife she is. Curtis’ work buddy Dewart (Shea Wiggum) helps him a couple times, though it means borrowing a few things from work.

What’s really happening here? Curtis doesn’t know, and a great thing about “Take Shelter” is that I didn’t know either. I’m watching this man as he deals with his fears in these ways. Is he going mad? Is there something dangerous headed our way? Is Curtis protecting his family from an impending storm or himself?

“Take Shelter” is a piece of masterful filmmaking. Jeff Nichols, whose previous outing as a writer/director was the excellent indie film “Shotgun Stories” (which also starred Michael Shannon), creates this story with a real intelligence for its audience. For example, the dream sequences—anyone in the audience can tell that a certain scene is one of Curtis’ nightmares. And I hate those old, cheap payoffs in which the dreamer wakes up in a cold sweat. But the thing is, there’s always a small feeling that these aren’t just dreams. With the way the story is developing, it’s hard to tell whether or not what we just saw will relate to anything else in a later scene or not. That’s another great thing about “Take Shelter”—its lack of predictability. The story is told in a way that any of the two possibilities could be real, and it keeps us guessing. And then when the film hit the climactic moment in the final moment, I had chills. I couldn’t tell what was going to happen. I won’t dare give away what will happen, but either way you’d expect it go down, it’d be hard to deny that the final product has a great sense of dramatic tension.

Also, there’s the excellent cinematography (by Adam Stone) from the open skies to Curtis and Samantha’s bedroom to inside the shelter, while the special effects blend in credibly. There’s a sense of atmosphere here.

Michael Shannon and Jessica Chastain deserved Oscar nominations for their work (and unfortunately, the whole film was snubbed). Shannon—one of the perhaps odd but most reliable character actors working today—delivers a powerhouse performance, showing emotional fragmentation, and Chastain is excellent as the reactor to Curtis’ problems and deeds.

To be honest, I’m not sure if I’m making “Take Shelter” sound like the great movie that I sincerely think it is. Let me put it this way—I wrote in an above paragraph that I thought Nichols’ earlier film “Shotgun Stories” was excellent, and I think that his follow-up “Take Shelter” is even better. If that’s not enough, let me put it this way—I think this is the best film I’ve seen in 2011. It’s inspired, unpredictable, chilling, wonderfully-acted, well-executed, and intriguing.

Where the Wild Things Are (2009)

21 Mar

where-the-wild-things-are-061

Smith’s Verdict: ****

Reviewed by Tanner Smith

How did I feel about “Where the Wild Things Are” immediately after I saw it? I imagine it was the same reaction that open-minded audiences had when they saw it in on the big screen—stunned silence, followed by a stating “Huh,” and then walking out trying to think about what they just saw. That happened to me as well. This is one of those late-reaction movies, where you have absorbed everything that the movie has thrown at you, and once it’s over, you slowly but surely realize how much of an impact it left with you.

What can I really say about “Where the Wild Things Are?” It’s adapted from a short children’s book and directed by Spike Jonze of “Being John Malkovich” and “Adaptation.” It has a fairly simple family-movie idea to start with—a little boy goes to a mystical island to have fun with gigantic, playful beasts. But it goes way beyond the silliness of that idea, and manages to give a pleasurable mix of concepts, imagination, director’s vision, and complexity that goes deeper into the original source material. It is also, in my opinion, just one of those absolutely perfect movies. Everything about it works, from beginning to end. I can’t seem to find a single thing wrong with it.

The fact that it’s a family-oriented picture makes it even better because there’s something here for everybody. Although, some parents may complain it may be a little “too dark” for their kids to see, but the movie earns its dark moments by playing it straight. It’s not dark; it’s deep, and not in a ridiculous way either. And the kids are probably going to see a bit of themselves reflected in this film—the emotions that the young protagonist goes through are relatable to, I believe, every kid.

A little boy named Max (Max Records) is a wild little boy. Sometimes, he can be sweet and loving, while other times, he’s moody, lonely, reckless, and even violent in some cases (he tries to bite his mother at one point). One day, he feels lonely and left out when a snowball fight with his older sister (Pepita Emmerichs) and her friends ends gloomily, and his mother (Catherine Keener) ignores him because she has a date (Mark Ruffalo). Angry, Max escapes into his deep imagination and appears on an island where the natives are gigantic, furry creatures known as the “Wild Things.” There are about seven of them, each of which represent a part of Max’s being. They make Max their king, and they all have fun together—running, playing games, being wild. But soon, Max learns that these Wild Things do actually have conflicts the same as he does back home. There are issues with a certain group (or “clique,” if you will), games can get a little too rough, and feelings that can be hurt as easily as Max’s was. These are all issues that Max has to deal with back home, and he learns that things aren’t as different here as they were there.

“Where the Wild Things Are” has a low-key approach—it’s more soft and bitter in its key sequences while using pure emotion to tell most elements of the story. This could have been handled with more of a blockbuster feel with a lot of machinery and cuteness to try and appeal to a mainstream audience (see the deplorable Dr. Seuss film adaptations, for example). It’s amazing how director Spike Jonze and co-writer Dave Eggers somehow managed to take a simple story and create a soft, deep family movie that is not like many others in recent memory.

The idea of Max running off to the fantasy island of Wild Ones is Max’s way of escaping into his own imagination, which is why these beasts resemble parts of Max’s psyche. Max develops a strong bond with a few of them, particularly Carol (voiced by James Gandolfini) who represents Max’s soul—someone who seeks friendship and love while feeling destructive when internally pushed. There’s also a kindly Wild One named KW (voiced by Lauren Ambrose), who represents Max’s unconditional love for his family.

This couldn’t have been as clear (or as effective) without the fifteen-minute-long prologue that shows Max’s recklessness, imagination, the way he sees the world around him, and of course his relationships with his mother and his sister. Everything comes back around for Max on this island. Things start to fall apart on the island, as Max’s fantasy world starts to turn against him. It’s then that he learns certain things about his own life, including how hard it is to negotiate with family and friends. When Carol is suddenly destructive, and Max has to reason with him, it’s really Max’s way of understanding himself more.

As for those Wild Things themselves, they’re not only imaginative in their creature designs (live-action but not cartoony, looking like they stepped right off the pages of the original book); but they have distinct emotions and personalities. The effects team gets the look of each of these creatures exactly right, and the voice actors (which also include Chris Cooper, Catherine O’Hara, Paul Dano, and Forest Whitaker) do successful jobs of helping make them three-dimensional.

Every kid likes to pretend they’re somewhere else when they’re all alone with no friends or family members to interact with. While doing so, they make up people or creatures or all sorts of characters to interact with, and the kid can further figure out certain things this way. That is really what this fantasy land is all about with “Where the Wild Things Are”—it’s Max’s way of figuring out what’s happening around him in reality. The film is more fascinating in this sense. “Where the Wild Things Are” is truly an excellent film. It’s insightful, indefinable, and enchanting, to say the absolute least.

Birdy (1984)

21 Mar

MV5BMjA3NzIzMzk2MF5BMl5BanBnXkFtZTcwOTM3NDQyNA@@._V1._SX640_SY433_

Smith’s Verdict: ***

Reviewed by Tanner Smith

There’s a beautiful movie surrounding Alan Parker’s fantasy-drama “Birdy,” and it just needs to be found. But as it is, it’s still intriguing, strange, and surprisingly moving, given its subject matter. It’s about two friends from South Philadelphia who have served in the Vietnam War—one of them, Al (Nicolas Cage), is called to a mental institution to try and reach his best friend, nicknamed “Birdy” (Matthew Modine), who is trapped inside of his own mind. If Birdy is proven mentally unstable, he will be taken away.

There’s nothing new to be said about the Vietnam War here, but that isn’t important. What is important is the friendship between these two friends who wind up serving in it. They both arrive back, scarred—one physically (Al has disfigured his face, so he keeps bandages covering most of it), the other mentally. Most of their story is told in flashback sequences as we see what led to this. The boys grew up in South Philadelphia. Al is a smooth guy with self-confidence and a natural ability to pick up women. Birdy is a different story—he’s an oddball who is weirdly fascinated with birds and dreams of flying himself. He has a pet canary, he has a pigeon suit to try and capture pigeons (while hanging upside down from elevated tracks), creates an ornithopter (a small flying device), and even some homemade wings to try out in hopes of flying.

Al and Birdy become great friends, as we see in the flashbacks. Although, they become somewhat separated by their pursuits for different things—for Al, it’s more women; for Birdy, it’s a further obsession with flying. But they’re still good friends with each other and share some unique adventures together.

In the present time, however, Birdy has apparently been pushed over the edge, presumably because of his experience in the war. He’s at the point where he actually thinks he’s a caged bird, with his cell as his cage. He looks sideways, looks longingly at the window to see birds fly free, has his head cocked to the side, and doesn’t even say a word. Al is trying to reach him by making him remember the good times they had together and make sure he’s not crazy, but he is not sure what he’s thinking, or even if he’s thinking.

“Birdy” is successful in its storytelling, as it doesn’t tell the story in chronological order, rather than let us figure out for ourselves in what order these events—past and present—happened so we can understand a certain thing about the other. It’s fascinating that way. We also get some deeply effective moments that go deep into Birdy’s perception. We can understand how much he wants to fly, and notice his “transformation” as it continues to develop. We realize his love for birds, as well as his hopes of being free to fly out of this miserable world he lives in, what with a difficult mother and other people (including a girl Al pushes him into dating) calling him weird. This Birdy is quite a terrific character, and played so well by Matthew Modine. I’m surprised his performance wasn’t nominated for an Oscar—I really think it’s an Oscar-caliber performance.

I get the feeling there was a lot more to “Birdy” than what was ultimately released to cinemas and home media. There are many parts of the movie that either feel rushed or not developed at all. For example, in an early flashback scene showing when the two boys first meet, it’s a misunderstanding and then a bit of confusion. Then, we get a montage of the two boys hanging out together, as if all of a sudden, they’re just best friends now. We never saw what made them really connect with each other in the first place. So in that way it is somewhat hard to believe that Al would hang out with Birdy all this time, despite his odd obsession with birds and flying. I also could have used more of Al teaching Birdy to be more sociable in high school. And I also would have loved to see how these two reacted to serving in Vietnam—we only get just a few brief scenes, and that’s not particularly good enough. And the ending is just too ambiguous—it was as if I was reliving my thoughts on the anticlimactic ending for “An American Werewolf in London.” What I’m saying is I could have used a lot more of this material, and that’s saying something, especially considering that this movie is two hours long. I would have watched an extra half-hour if they had something to deliver.

Shiloh 2: Shiloh Season (1999)

21 Mar

Zachary-Browne-Shiloh-2-Shiloh-Season-shiloh-2-shiloh-season-1999-30555098-608-336

Smith’s Verdict: **1/2

Reviewed by Tanner Smith

I hate to knock a feel-good family movie that has good intentions and positive messages to convey. But the main problem with “Shiloh 2: Shiloh Season,” sequel to the terrific 1997 family drama “Shiloh” and based upon the novel “Shiloh Season” by Phyllis Reynolds Naylor, is that it felt the way you couldn’t label about the first film (or at least, most people couldn’t say about it), and that is “preachy.” This just felt to me like generic, wholesome fluff with nothing too memorable to gain from it.

The original film, “Shiloh” (which I loved), had its morals and messages too. But they were in a film that was written more intelligently and with more subtlety than what the filmmakers of this sequel were going for. I don’t mind that messages from the original film are carried over a little further if it’s done right. But throughout the movie, I felt as if I was being had—as if I was being hammered with the ultimate lesson this movie had to deliver. And I never felt that way about the original film. And I know what you might be thinking—“It’s a kid’s movie! They’re supposed to hammer the message down hard on the kids watching it!” A) It’s supposed to be a family movie, not a “kid’s movie.” B) I don’t think kids like to be manipulated by what they watch as much as their parents like to imagine.

Maybe I’m being a little too harsh. After all, at least these issues are addressed in this movie, and they are ethics that kids can identify with. (I give credit to the original “Shiloh” novels for that.) The “Shiloh” stories are about protectiveness, determination, and helpfulness in the tale of a boy protecting a dog from its cruel owner (the original film) and seeing if the owner can change his cruel ways (this film).

“Shiloh 2: Shiloh Season” brings back the characters from the original film, including young Marty Preston (Zachary Browne, taking over for Blake Heron) who is still learning life lessons while protecting his dog, the cute, adorable beagle Shiloh, which Marty earned from its mean owner, Judd Travers (Scott Wilson, reprising his role from the earlier film). Judd is so unpleasant that even the local women are secretly talking about boycotting him away from town. He gets drunk constantly, he shoots what he doesn’t care is in season or not, and has a resentful attitude toward Marty for now having his dog.

Someone is pulling pranks on Judd—letting loose his hunting dogs, scratching his pickup truck, and knocking over his mailbox. Judd thinks Marty’s to blame, and this leads to many confrontations between Judd and Marty, and Judd and Marty’s dad, Ray (Michael Moriarty, also reprising his role from the earlier film).

Also back is the character of Marty’s mother (Ann Dowd), who does what she’s required to do, same as in the original film. There’s also Doc Wallace from the original film (again played by Rod Steiger) who is still around to give helpful advice, and while the character does seem like more of a fortune cookie this time around, he does manage a couple convincing helpful scenes with Marty. New characters include Marty’s rapscallion school chum David (Joe Pichler) and his new middle school teacher, Miss Talbot (Dawn McMillan), who knows how to teach the right ethical lessons to her class.

Of the acting, Scott Wilson is the most interesting performer in the cast, but that’s probably because his Judd Travers has always been the most interesting character in these stories. He has the role of a pathetic man—mean and lowly only as a way of not showing how he really feels. He was kicked around as a child, and now he kicks his dogs around and he’s a lonely man who feels better when he’s drinking or hunting. That doesn’t leave much for society to bear with him; he’s seen as a mean SOB. But can he change? Is anybody truly cruel forever? Can a troubled past keep a man troubled for the rest of his life? For all the machinery that this movie is composed of, Wilson manages to give a solid performance here.

Mainly, what it comes down to with the teachings of the morals & ethics for “Shiloh 2: Shiloh Season” is whether or not you buy it. I guess I didn’t for the most part. It does have its moments, when it’s mainly focused on the Judd Travers character, and the ending kind of works. But it’s too wholesome and generic, and not convincing enough to accept what we’re supposed to take from it.

Like Mike (2002)

21 Mar

1

Smith’s Verdict: ***

Reviewed by Tanner Smith

“Like Mike” is an entertaining movie that brings a kid’s fantasy to life. A lot of kids dream to be like Michael Jordan—though I think I can omit the word “like” and just say they want to be Michael Jordan. Kids even wore Air Jordans because they thought these sneakers contained a special super power that made them like Mike. “Like Mike” is a movie in which that actually happens, and more.

“Like Mike” is about a thirteen-year-old kid living in an orphanage and hoping to be adopted by a loving family some day. His name is Calvin Cambridge (rapper Lil Bow Wow), who has an undying optimism and a real love for basketball. The problem is, he’s not very good at it—he’s small and not very coordinated. In the film’s opening scene, he’s humiliated on the group home’s back court by his enemy Ox (Jesse Plemons).

Calvin comes into possession of Michael Jordan’s old sneakers he wore when he was a kid (that would explain why they fit Calvin perfectly…or not). How does he know it’s Michael Jordan? He’s told the shoes belonged to the “tall, bald basketball player,” and the initials “M.J.” are written inside the tongue. Who else could it be? But Ox throws the sneakers so they hang by their laces over a power line. That night, Calviin goes to retrieve them during a thunderstorm. Lightning strikes and somehow Calvin and the sneakers are magically linked together so that when Calvin puts them on, he’s “like Mike.”

When Calvin and his friends Murph (Jonathan Lipnicki) and Reg (Brenda Song) receive tickets to an L.A. Knights basketball game, Calvin wins a contest at a halftime show and is called down to the court to play a game of one-on-one with Knights player Tracey Reynolds (Morris Chestnut). Because of the sneakers, Calvin is unbeatable. He scores twice (one of those shots from forty feet away) and then on the final shot, stuns everyone watching by actually dunking the ball after flying up to the hoop! This gets the attention of the Knights owner’s representative (played by Eugene Levy, who scores a few laughs) who convinces the coach (Robert Forster) to sign him onto the team. At first, it’s for public appearance to sell a lot more tickets. But Calvin does end up on the court and becomes the youngest NBA superstar. (Actually, because of his amazing skills in flying and dunking, he makes Michael Jordan look bad compared to him.)

The story, of course, leads to many, many games in which Calvin helps the Knights win and leads them to the finals. And of course, once someone very unreliable finds out about Calvin’s magic sneakers, this becomes a major complication. It’s the orphanage’s sleazy caretaker Bittleman (Crispin Glover) who signs to be Calvin’s legal guardian and get about half of Calvin’s investments.

However, this does bring the question, why would he later bet on the Knights to lose the Big Game, when he has enough money already? Why bother stealing Calvin’s sneakers so they’ll be sure to lose? And who appointed this man as the caretaker of an orphanage? He’s so evil that he even nearly burns Murph’s only picture of his late mother while interrogating him to find the sneakers in the first place. What a slimeball.

Another complaint I have is that among the cameos by real-life NBA players, such as Jason Kidd and Allen Iverson, Michael Jordan isn’t among them. OK, I guess the one-line joke about “losing to the Bulls” is supposed compensate for that. But I kind of missed him. I wonder what the movie would have been like if suddenly he realized Calvin’s secret and recognized his sneakers. Wouldn’t that be very interesting?

For what it is, however, “Like Mike” is an entertaining movie. A lot of credit must go to Lil Bow Wow, whose energetic charisma brings a lot of charm to the screen. He’s able to carry a movie. He’s confident, relaxed, funny, and convincing, as well—he plays this fantasy as if it were real.

I also enjoyed the kid’s relationship with Morris Chestnut’s Tracey Reynolds. At first, Tracey is annoyed by this kid after being beaten by him, and even more irritated by having to room with him. But they do form a nice friendship together that eventually turns into a father/son type relationship, which is obligatory but still nicely handled and well played by the two actors.

“Like Mike” isn’t terribly original with its standard scenes involving the bully, the relationship with an adult mentor, the orphanage situations (potential parents only want to adopt the smaller children), and the Big Game. But it does have a few things going for it, like a winning performance by the right young actor, a nice attempt at playing to a kid’s fantasy, and a sharp wit to the script as well.

The Five-Year Engagement (2012)

21 Mar

the-five-year-engagement

Smith’s Verdict: ***

Reviewed by Tanner Smith

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Sinister (2012)

20 Mar

Sinister-2012-movie-4

Smith’s Verdict: ***1/2

Reviewed by Tanner Smith

We have seen many movies with “found-footage” scenarios—“The Blair Witch Project,” “Cloverfield,” “Diary of the Dead,” “District 9,” the “Paranormal Activity” movies, “The Last Exorcism,” “Chronicle,” and “Project X.” It should be its own genre, if it isn’t already. We know what to think of them because when all is said and done, they are movies. But you have to wonder if someone did view these odd scenarios as if they really were found footage. In other words, what if these types of scenarios really were found footage, and not something staged for a production? What would be going through the head of the person who found it? What would he feel? How would he react? Would watching it have any effects on him?

“Sinister” uses that idea to tell a story about a character that grows obsessed and consumed by a mystery. Much like Alfred Hitchcock’s “Rear Window” or Michael Mann’s “Manhunter,” “Sinister” is mainly about the rules and clues within the mystery, and how it affects the person investigating it as well as how it affects those around him.

But “Sinister” is a horror movie. It has all the aspects of such—darkness, loud noises, a house with a troubled past and a mysterious attic, moaning and groaning, and murders to be investigated. Oh, and there’s also a few odd supernatural symbols and a scary demon-face that appears out of nowhere at appropriate times.

“Sinister” opens in an effectively disturbing way—a Super-8 film that shows the hanging deaths of a family of four, hanging from a tree limb. Soon, we notice that the same tree is in the backyard of the new family moving into this same house. Ellison Oswalt (Ethan Hawke) is an author of crime novels, and he knows that something grisly happened at this location, though he’s forbidden from his supportive wife Tracy (Juliet Rylance) to tell her or their two young children anything about it. Ellison is in need of a bestseller, so he decides to look more into what happened here. While searching through the attic, Ellison comes across a box of Super-8 movies. It seems quite harmless, as they’re all labeled as family home-movies, until Ellison decides to watch them.

Ellison discovers that they are snuff films that show families being murdered in various ways—throats slit in bed, multiple drowning in a swimming pool, being run over by a lawn mower, and also that hanging that was seen earlier. Ellison suspects these are all the pattern of a serial killer and decides to investigate further. But then baffling things start to happen—footsteps in the attic, the film projector starting on its own, and then there’s that ghoulish face that appears in one of the films, and also seems to move on a saved still-photograph. And it turns out there’s more than some human serial killer that Ellison is considering.

You know how the characters of horror films seem to make stupid mistakes when it builds up a climactic act? Ellison is no exception, but at least he has a reason for doing what he winds up doing as the film continues. He’s obsessed, intrigued, and even somewhat fascinated by all of this. The more clues he comes across with this, the more captivated he is by this whole situation. But of course, he also gets his family in danger as well with such knowledge. His son is having night terrors, and his daughter is possibly influenced by some sort of supernatural presence related to this.

(However, you do have to wonder where Ellison’s wife draws the line and decides to pack up the kids and leave this man before he digs deeper into this.)

“Sinister” has fun with the horror genre and also tells its story in an intriguing way so that we are learning with the character more and more as the story continues, like how most good thrillers/horror films work. And it also knows how powerful a film image, such as in these Super-8 films, can be. But what makes it more fascinating was that it was co-written, with director Scott Derrickson, by film critic C. Robert Cargill (spill.com). The fact that a film critic wrote this allows for more to be analyzed through repeated viewings. Watching the film a second time on DVD (I saw it on the big screen the first time), there are a few little things I didn’t notice before, but are starting to become clearer now. You can also tell where he got some of his influences as a writer because there is that Hitchcockian element of voyeurism, as we are watching Ellison watching these Super-8 movies that should never have been watched.

I have to come back to the first paragraph. That’s still fascinating, how it was decided “Sinister” should be, with the “found-footage” aspect. I’m very pleased that Cargill and Derrickson decided to go this route and add the elements of mystery and nosiness to it.

“Sinister” is quite an affecting horror film—it truly lives up to its name. It’s unsettling, creepy, well-executed, and like the most iconic horror films (though I’m hoping there isn’t a sequel to this), it has images that you will haunt you for quite a while, whether you like it or not.

The Gift (2000)

20 Mar

theGift

Smith’s Verdict: ***

Reviewed by Tanner Smith

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Rage: Carrie 2 (1999)

20 Mar

936full-the-rage-carrie-2-screenshot

Smith’s Verdict: **

Reviewed by Tanner Smith

“The Rage: Carrie 2” is the supposed sequel to the 1976 thriller “Carrie,” but it very clumsily tries to establish a connection to the original film. Maybe if it were a remake, it wouldn’t be too bad. But the film itself still suffers by the weak attempt to “continue the story,” odd choices of camera angles and cinematography, and just a carbon copy of the original film.

The protagonist is Rachel (Emily Bergl) who, like Carrie, is among the “bottom-feeders” in her high school. She’s a loner—her home life is an unhappy one with foster parents (her birth mother is locked away in an institution) and she has one friend, a fellow loser named Lisa (Mena Suvari). But soon, her world is torn apart when Lisa, heartbroken after losing her virginity to a complete jerk, commits suicide by jumping off the roof of the school building. It’s then that Rachel realizes her power to move things with her mind. She mostly does it when she gets angry or nervous.

Rachel has no one, until friendly jock Jesse (Jason London) finds himself attracted to her and asks her on a date, which she accepts. They see each other for quite a time, making his snobby ex-girlfriend jealous. So she, her friends, and a few jocks come up with a plan to mess with her. But with Rachel’s developing (and deadly) telekinetic abilities, they’re in for a real surprise that can only end in bloodshed…

What doesn’t work at all is the forced connection between Carrie and Rachel. Obviously, they’re both telekinetic, but then it turns out that they’re related—Rachel is Carrie’s half-niece. Sue Snell (Amy Irving, reprising her role as one of the survivors of the massacre at the end of the original film) is a school counselor trying to find some answers regarding Rachel’s power and sees her mentally insane mother (nicely played, given the circumstances, by J. Smith Cameron) to ask some important questions. These scenes are weakly written and serve no purpose. Why not try and make this movie a “re-imagining” rather than a sequel?

The camerawork and editing are all over the map. There are insane closeups, move-ins, “funhouse-mirror-type” imagery added to scenes, and also black-and-white shots that serve no purpose other than…being shot in black-and-white. This makes the violent climax hard to watch and really jumbled into a muddled mess, when it should have been either as chilling as or better than the climax in the original film (at least, in that climax, the only gimmickry was a split-screen effect).

There are some things that the movie does do right. In particular, Emily Bergl does a good job at portraying this high school outcast looking to belong. And the relationship between Rachel and Jesse is well-developed and the actors do show good chemistry together. You can see that Jesse genuinely likes Rachel, and is not in on the joke or seeing her because someone asks her to. (That’s an upgrade from the original film, which used the relationship between the girl and boy as a pity date.) I was more interested in this opposites-attract relationship than with any of the telekinesis stuff. And there are some nice touches of foreshadowing, like a song called “Backstabbing Liar” being played just before Rachel is about to be humiliated.

“The Rage: Carrie 2” is just a mess. There’s too many things going on, only very few to care about, and despite winning performances by Emily Bergl and Jason London, there’s nothing really memorable about it. While the original film wasn’t perfect, it knew how to set up the horror aspects of a teenage girl’s powers taking over. “The Rage: Carrie 2” just knows how to set up an unpleasant orgy of carnage.

← Older Entries
Newer Entries →