Final Destination (2000)

20 Mar

Final Destination2

Smith’s Verdict: ***

Reviewed by Tanner Smith

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Thing (1982)

20 Mar

images

Smith’s Verdict: ***

Reviewed by Tanner Smith

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

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

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

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

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

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

Lethal Weapon (1987)

19 Mar

images

Smith’s Verdict: ***1/2

Reviewed by Tanner Smith

I suppose the “buddy-cop picture” is a genre. You know the story—two mismatched cops who work together to solve a case and form a bonding friendship along the way. There have been many of this type of movie, but “Lethal Weapon” is the best. “Lethal Weapon” is an action-packed thriller that does feature a pair of mismatched cops working together to solve a case, but also features character development and wry humor. But of course, it does have its dose of adrenaline within itself so that the film has a share of characters, comedy, and action.

Danny Glover stars as police sergeant Roger Murtaugh, an uptight family man with just a few weeks left until retirement. He’s “over the hill” now and constantly says he’s getting “too old for this sh—.“ Mel Gibson co-stars as Sergeant Martin Riggs, a loose cannon who lost his wife in a tragic accident. He blames himself for her death and even considers killing himself. Because he doesn’t think he has much to live for, he’s suicidal in the way that he doesn’t fear anything.

Murtaugh and Riggs are paired up and assigned to investigate the seemingly apparent suicide of the daughter of an ex-Vietnam War compatriot (Tom Atkins). But soon, it seems like that this death was an element of a drug smuggling plot. The leader of it is mercenary General Peter McAllister (Mitchell Ryan) and his right-hand man is the menacing, torturous Joshua (Gary Busey). Murtaugh and Riggs get into more than they expected.

But it’s not just about that, even though this plot detail is crucial (not to mention easy to follow). It’s also about the characters. We know and see clearly how Murtaugh feels about getting closer to retirement, and we also see the pain in Riggs’ eyes when he’s not making people believe he’s crazy. Then, we have the scenes in which Riggs interacts with Murtaugh’s family. They have dinner together and Riggs has a playful flirtation with Murtaugh’s teenage daughter (Traci Wolfe). But we also see how he envies Murtaugh’s home life.

A word about Riggs’ attitude—he loves to make people think he’s crazy by throwing himself in every dangerous situation he can get into as a police officer. When we first see him, he’s walking through the line of fire during a madman’s gunfire attack onto a school playground and standing dead center in the playground, opening fire at the madman. That’s when we know that he may be crazy until we see him at his home—a trailer near the beach—and realize that he thinks that he has nothing to live for due to blaming himself for the tragic death of his wife. So he does anything that no one else would do—this leads to a scene midway through the film in which he deals with a man threatening to jump from a building. This scene is played for comedy, and the payoff at the end of the scene is just fabulous.

The bad guys are genuinely threatening. Even if McAllister is a standard villain, Joshua is a real creep. This guy is so frightening that if he was in charge of the whole operation, there’d be a higher body count for this film. He proves himself to be a worthy antagonist for Riggs to encounter in the end, which is what they do, but that’s all I’m going to say about that, except this—the final action climax is the least interesting part of “Lethal Weapon” when compared to the character development and wry humor that came before it, even though other action scenes were also featured within the previous acts as well.

The action scenes are brought to life by director Richard Donner, director of “Superman.” His choreography and cinematography is outstanding in the scenes involving a shootout and an armed helicopter. When the lengthy climax comes into place, the action is exciting for a while but comes close to wearing out its welcome. But because we care about the characters and have an interesting bad guy, it’s not totally worthless.

Mel Gibson and Danny Glover are perfectly cast as the two heroes. They have great onscreen chemistry and become characters rather than caricatures. Mel Gibson is no stranger to action films (remember, he is Mad Max), so the real surprise is Danny Glover who previously acted in dramas like “The Color Purple.” He’s up to it.

“Lethal Weapon” has just what an audience wants in an action picture—action and comedy. First you can laugh, then something big happens, then you can relax again after that. It’s an action-thriller with a sense of humor and a sense of pace. That’s what makes the film special and different from most buddy-cop pictures.

The Incredible Hulk (2008)

19 Mar

images

Smith’s Verdict: ***

Reviewed by Tanner Smith

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

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

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

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

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

Little Miss Sunshine (2006)

19 Mar

26suns.2.600

Smith’s Verdict: ****

Reviewed by Tanner Smith

“Little Miss Sunshine” answers the question, “Is it possible to create something great with elements of a formula road movie?” The answer for this movie is yes. “Little Miss Sunshine” could be described as a road movie because a dysfunctional family is forced to travel halfway across the country, but what makes it very original, compelling, and funny is that this movie is also a character study. These characters within this family are well-developed and are unique individuals. They give “Little Miss Sunshine” its strength.

These people are the Hoovers. To call them dysfunctional is an understatement. The man of the house is Richard (Greg Kinnear), an overconfident, winning-obsessed life-lessons coach who can be unbearable to live with. His wife is Sheryl (Toni Collette), a completely honest housewife who tries to keep her family from falling apart. Sheryl’s brother is Frank (Steve Carell), a suicidal, gay Proust graduate. Richard and Sheryl’s children are seven-year-old Olive (Abigail Breslin), a glasses-wearing girl a little on the plump side who is determined to win a beauty contest someday, and teenager Dwayne (Paul Dano), an oddball who reads Nietzsche and has taken a vow of silence. That leaves Grandpa (Alan Arkin), a heroin-snorting wise guy.

These people are so original and so much fun to watch. They deliver the strengths to this story, which is interesting and funny because of the more appropriate reason—its script is funny. The writing here is Oscar-worthy. It’s rich, alive, funny, and touching. All of these elements of the writing are put to the screen to perfection by directors Valerie Davis and Jonathan Dayton, and by the actors, who know these characters by heart and don’t seem like they’re reading lines at all. I loved watching these people act and listening to them speak.

For example, there’s a dinner scene in the beginning of the film, in which all six family members are eating chicken at the dinner table. Here we get to know who these characters are, without annoying exposition. Too many introductions to characters just read lines that describe to the audience who they are at random. But in this dinner scene, they made cute, little Olive the questioning little girl who causes Frank to explain his reason for committing suicide. He explains it as calmly as possible.

But soon, it’s time to hit the road. Olive is in a top spot in a little girls’ beauty pageant and has a chance to compete in Little Miss Sunshine. They drive an old, yellow VW bus to California, where the contest is being held. But it doesn’t seem like the bus will survive this trip. Its clutch is shot so they have to run out and push it to start it. That’s one of many road trip problems this family goes through—there is also comedy, tragedy, and revelations, all of which written very well. But nothing could prepare them for when they finally make it to Little Miss Sunshine. I will not give away the outcome except to say that it comes totally unexpected and will cause discomfort for some people but big laughs for most.

And let’s be honest–these types of pageants are disturbing, disturbing, disturbing! And “Little Miss Sunshine” thankfully knows that enough to make audience members cringe at certain moments. But at least the movie delivers a solid punchline.

The story is somewhat similar to a lesser family road movie released earlier in the same year (2006), “R.V.” This one—“Little Miss Sunshine”—has more heart and more humor, as well as a lack of cliché. In “R.V.,” you knew the R.V. was going to be dumped in a lake. In “Little Miss Sunshine,” you may think you know what will happen when Richard confronts a man who ripped him off and they have an argument near a swimming pool. If you’ve seen as many movies as I have, you would think that Richard would throw the man in the pool…but he didn’t! Another great bit is when Dwayne writes in his notepad to explain to Frank that he hates everyone. Frank asks about his family, and that forces Dwayne to underline the word “Everyone.” There are many other great bits in this movie and a few great scenes as well, like the dinner scene. I love the scene in which Grandpa gives some vulgar advice to young Dwayne, every scene in which the family has to get out and start the bus, an encounter with a highway patrolman, and other scenes as well-written and acted as those.

The acting is top-notch. Greg Kinnear is well-cast in a role that basically requires him to be a pompous, winning-obsessed man. Toni Collette is great as the pro-honest mother. Paul Dano does everything he can with a performance that requires hardly any dialogue—his facial expressions say everything about the character. Abigail Breslin is an absolute delight as Olive. She’s very talented and understands her part very well. And she doesn’t go for the deadly cuteness that many child stars fall into. Alan Arkin steals all of his scenes as Grandpa. But the biggest surprise here is Steve Carell, who plays it straight in this role. Carell is wonderful as this strange person. His line-delivery and facial expressions are unique—sometimes they’re funny and other times, they make us care for him. This is a career highlight for Steve Carell.

“Little Miss Sunshine” is a delightful movie—funny, charming, and alive. With its clever script and truly original characters who are well-acted by the actors, “Little Miss Sunshine” is the movie that “R.V.” wanted to be.

Prince of Darkness (1987)

19 Mar

POD Catherine

Smith’s Verdict: **

Reviewed by Tanner Smith

“Prince of Darkness” is a thriller by John Carpenter, who clearly knows how to set up a story for such. His eye for relativity and terror in the more ordinary settings and situations is what made the thriller “Halloween” so special. And “Prince of Darkness” does have an intriguing idea and a promising setup—using scientific experiments that result in bringing the Devil back to life. You can play a lot to that. But unfortunately, the movie results in predictable jump-scares, too much mumbo-jumbo, and a climax in which a possessed person bangs a person’s head against a wall when he should be tearing it off. It doesn’t become exciting or suspenseful. Heck, it doesn’t even become cheesy. It just becomes boring.

It’s about a priest (Donald Pleasance, from “Halloween”) who enlists the help of a physics professor (Victor Wong) and his students to work on something peculiar in the basement of his church. Pleasance believes that the Devil’s return is near and it must be prevented. Wong (in on the theory) arranges for experiments that could stop the Prince of Darkness from appearing, without telling his students what they’re really doing. But who can ignore the big green thing in the giant glass tube that seems to be growing? Oh…may it be a life form?

So here we have a potential battle between certain science and the chaotic supernatural. But unfortunately, that’s not what we get. What we get is a horror movie, in which the evil force possesses each of the good guys and the ones that are left are forced to fight for their lives. When we hear about the Prince of Darkness about to rise, we expect something very interesting. But it turns out to be a washout. I don’t want vicious zombies taking over here. I want a fear of Armageddon. But no such luck. And of course, there’s a violent conclusion, followed by a twist ending that I really don’t follow very well.

Also, the movie’s pacing is poor. Everything moves so slowly, and not even a rock music score can keep it going. In fact, the music, co-composed by Carpenter himself, is quite terrible and hardly ever shuts up.

The setup is promising as the characters are introduced and the theory of the differences between our world and the supernatural is quite intriguing. But “Prince of Darkness” shows itself as pretty thin and lazy very quickly once we get into the story’s “conflict.”

NOTE: The opening credits lasts for nine minutes—that’s got to be some sort of a record, right?

Over the Edge (1979)

19 Mar

images

Smith’s Verdict: ***1/2

Reviewed by Tanner Smith

This had to happen sooner or later. Kids are pushed over the edge by their parents. They feel alienated and condescended by authority. At least, that’s what psychiatrists would conclude about the outrageous behavior the kids pull off in the movie “Over the Edge.” The marketing for the film tells it appropriately: “They were old enough to know better but too young to care.”

“Over the Edge” is a depressing and quite genuine film about the lives of troubled youths who live in a Denver suburb called New Granada, still in development. The kids spend their days at the local recreation center while the adults—parents, cops, and schoolteachers—try to find a way around the “youth problem,” since they feel that the kids are in the way of their paradise. One cop, in particular, practically stalks these kids each day to try and catch something on them. This is Deputy Doberman (Harry Northup), who is not really a bad guy but a deputy who knows more about the law than about human nature.

The kids have their own fun avoiding the adults during the day—going to parties, having a little hash or speed, playing with a gun they stole from someone else’s home, and talking about sex. It should be added that most of these kids aren’t bad. They just feel unwelcome by the adults, especially when they close down the rec center so the Texas investors who visit New Granada won’t think the suburb is invested with youths. That’s really low.

The main character is a good kid named Carl (Michael Kramer). He hangs with tough guy Richie (Matt Dillon) and has other friends who are into dope, hash, and speed. His parents love him and think that he’s hanging with the wrong crowd. (And Carl, like most kids in his situation, can’t fully explain under so much pressure.) He has a crush on a girl named Cory (Pamela Ludwig), who is said to have a sexual reputation which may not be true, and she has feelings for him. Soon, they become very close with one another.

But disaster strikes and Carl winds up in a nasty situation when Doberman shoots one of his best friends. This leads up to the climactic, violent ending, in which the kids are over the edge and ready to strike back at the adults. They don’t perform physical harm to the adults, but they make them suffer by showing them what they can do when pushed over the edge. The ads for this movie apparently found the climax promotable and made the whole movie sound like a youth version of “The Warriors.” I’m serious—this ending is ultimately violent. There are destroyed cars, exploding gas tanks, and more.

The ending may be a bit unconvincing but what leads up to it is exceptionally brilliant. We get to know these kids, we feel for them even when we shouldn’t, and we care about what happens to the kid who is doomed to be shot and killed (not saying who it is). “Over the Edge” gives a great portrait of teenage life. The kids are portrayed in a convincing way—they have adolescent values and real emotions. This is helped by great performances by the young actors. Michael Kramer is convincing as the trouble teenaged lead. Matt Dillon is convincingly tough as Richie and he has the best line: “I only got one law: a kid who tells on another kid is a dead kid.” Pamela Ludwig shares some terrific scenes with Kramer. Their scenes together seem so wonderfully crafted; everything they say and do make them right for each other. There’s another kid, played by blond-haired, wide-eyed Tom Fergus, who steals every scene he’s in.

Actually, if you think about it, maybe these adults have gone too far. Maybe they deserve to see what they’ve stooped their kids into doing. Maybe. But the scary thing is that there are kids in the real world who are like the kids in “Over the Edge.” They’re old enough to know better but too young to care.

Jagged Edge (1985)

18 Mar

jagged-edge-1985--02-650-75

Smith’s Verdict: ***1/2

Reviewed by Tanner Smith

Maybe it’s because I’ve seen too many movies, but whenever I hear the setup for a thriller and I hear from other people (or most critics who are almost like people) that it has a “twist ending,” I always believe I can guess exactly what the twist is. And some of the time, I am correct. Twist endings just don’t surprise me anymore because when there are so many thrillers with these alleged turns, they’re just easier for me to guess.

I bring this up because the 1985 murder thriller “Jagged Edge,” written by Joe Eszterhas and directed by Richard Marguand, is notable for its particular twist ending. And even though I didn’t know the twist, I knew there was one. And so, being the investigative reviewer that I am, I kept track of all the clues as the story continued. What surprised me, however, was just how much was being pitched into the story. In this particular “whodunit” mystery, we have clue upon clue upon clue, as they’re all introduced sneakily and smoothly. So by the time that particular twist came along, I must confess I did not guess correctly what the resolution was going to be.

“Jagged Edge” is a thriller that recalls the Hitchcock direction in that it likes to “play the audience like a piano.” In this case, with everything being thrown at us (and if we’re all caught up in the mystery), we can’t help but decide whodunit ourselves. It’s an efficiently made, well-put-together thriller that kept me on edge until the very last shot.

The mystery is this—Jack Forrester (Jeff Bridges), a San Francisco publisher, is accused of brutally murdering his wife. As the assistant Defense Attorney Krasny (Peter Coyote) points out, Jack has the motive, which is he may have murdered his wife so that he could inherit her entire fortune. Jack’s defense attorney is Teddy Barnes (Glenn Close), who used to work for Krasny and hasn’t worked in criminal law for four years since. She chooses to take the case because as she spends time with Jack, she’s convinced that he’s innocent…but also convinced that they’re in love, which only makes things a little more complicated.

Aside from the tricky storytelling, what really makes “Jagged Edge” stand out is the character of Teddy Barnes, played by Glenn Close with a great mix of vulnerability and intelligence. This is mainly her story that is centered upon in this film. We find that she hasn’t taken courtroom cases because of a certain case four years ago in which an innocent man still went to prison and later hanged himself. Seeing this new case, and believing her client truly is innocent, she sees this as a way of redemption. Even though some people believe Jack is guilty, Teddy is determined to prove otherwise and get him off the hook—she states right at the start, “If he didn’t do it, I’ll get him off.” And then she starts to fall for Jack the more time she spends with him. But then there’s the court case itself—it turns out there is a lot of evidence on both sides, and this is where Teddy (and as a result, ourselves included) asks herself a lot of questions. Is she defending Jack out of bias because she loves him? Did Jack really kill his wife? Did he not, like she thinks? Is she defending a brutal killer who may just as well murder her soon enough? The most unnerving aspect of “Jagged Edge” is that both sides of the case state plausible reasons to be true, leaving us to keep guessing what is true and what’s not. What can we truly believe?

Glenn Close does a wonderful job playing the protagonist, and you really do feel for her when she’s trying to figure things out and when her life is in peril. Jeff Bridges is great as the alleged killer whose personality constantly keeps you guessing—did he do it, or did he not? Peter Coyote is instantly (yet intentionally, mind you) unlikeable as the unethical DA who always thinks he’s right, and also holds a grudge against the defendant (for publishing some unfair stories about him) and defense attorney. Also terrific is Robert Loggia as Sam Ransom, Teddy’s investigative friend who does some digging into the case, but not without frank skepticism.

“Jagged Edge” has so many twists and turns, and it succeeded as a courtroom drama and as a genuinely scary thriller. Admittedly, I didn’t correctly guess the ending, and I was unnerved by what I going to discover. If there’s one thing about the film that kind of disappointed me, it’s that maybe I didn’t need the final shot of the film, because it already has you guessing at each part and where it was going to head; I just thought maybe they could’ve ended it ambiguously and kept us guessing as to whether Jack was innocent or guilty. But to be honest…it still shocked me.

St. Elmo’s Fire (1985)

18 Mar

st_elmos_fire_tv_show

Smith’s Verdict: *

Reviewed by Tanner Smith

“St. Elmo’s Fire” is a great piece of ‘80s cheese—catchy, energetic, and fun to listen to.

Oh wait, I’m sorry—that’s the great 1985 John Parr single that serves as the theme song to the movie “St. Elmo’s Fire”…a movie which I do not consider a great piece of ‘80s cheese. Actually, I think it’s rather terrible.

It is possible to make a powerful, effective film about post-college graduates who go through the traumas of real life and have to deal with new issues. “St. Elmo’s Fire” is just not that film. The reason for that is that the characters—seven (yes, seven) materialistic young Georgetown graduates—are so bratty and so unlikeable that it’s hard to sympathize with any of them. And because there’s so many (yes, seven), that makes it all the more unpleasant to watch these people. We don’t care about their plights.

Where do I begin with the character descriptions? First, there’s Kirbo (Emilio Estevez)—a would-be lawyer (and also a waiter at St. Elmo’s Bar, where the group hangs out from time to time) who falls head-over-heels with an older woman (Andie MacDowell), a hospital intern whom Kirby is obsessed with. How obsessed? Well, later in the film, he’s turned down for a date so she can skiing and he follows her and knocks on her door repeatedly while yelling! Class act, guy.

Then, there’s Kevin (Andrew McCarthy)—a newspaper reporter who is a hopeless romantic. That’s his excuse for not having sex and remaining a virgin. His friends think he’s gay because he’s still a virgin. (Early in the film, one of them tries to set him up with a male neighbor. Ha ha.) He even strikes up a conversation with a prostitute and asks why she never tried to beseech him—she thought he was gay. So rather than ultimately sleep with Rob Lowe’s mother, like McCarthy did in 1983’s “Class,” he does manage to sleep with Leslie (Ally Sheedy), a young yuppie woman who seeks to be an architect…and who happens to be Kevin’s best friend’s girl.

Leslie’s boyfriend is Alec (Judd Nelson), a congressional aide who is easily the most detestable character in the bunch. He confesses to Kevin that he has been having sex with lingerie saleswomen while buying lingerie for Leslie who doesn’t know about his “extracurricular love life.” He presses Leslie to get married even though he’s out every night cheating on her, and yet when she does find out, he uses probably one of the worst defenses a disloyal boyfriend could use. This is after Alec found out that Leslie slept with Kevin after Leslie found out that Alec cheated on her: “You slept with Kevin!” “You slept with many!” “Yeah, many faceless women!” That’s his defense? I can’t write a certain seven-letter word for “jerk,” so…what a jerk!

Then, there’s Jules, a sexy young banker who has an acid tongue, isn’t afraid to speak her mind, and cannot wait ‘til the stepmother she hates dies…She functions for the film’s emotional climax in which I guess we’re supposed to feel sorry because of what she’s going through.

Then, there’s Billy (Rob Lowe), a former frat boy now drunk-driving musician who can’t handle his young marriage and is just too reckless to consider. The opening scene features him being taken away by police because he got in a car accident with his girlfriend Wendy (Mare Winningham), a nice girl who is probably the only decent character in the movie (but her stereotype is too heavily composed). He’s just laughing and pretending everything’s totally fine, even though he totaled Wendy’s car because he drove drunk. This is the first scene in the movie, and it shows why the movie can’t work. These characters are made into heroes—the film glorifies these young people instead of presenting them with a more acute attitude to better acknowledge their problems.

So we have Emilio Estevez, Andrew McCarthy, Rob Lowe, Judd Nelson, Ally Sheedy, Demi Moore, and Mare Winningham. These were some of the best young actors of the 1980s, and it seems like every young actor in that decade wanted to be in this movie. Too bad they were trapped within smugly-written and obnoxiously-developed characters that makes them all look like idiots pretty much. No wonder young actors in young-adult ‘80s movies were considered the Brat Pack.

There are other problems with the script and how it heavily resembles TV material (and the way director Joel Schumacher frames certain shots in closeup doesn’t help much either), such as the gang all coming back together when something goes wrong, even though half of them are angry at each other. But it really comes down these characters. They’re not fun; they’re not sympathetic, they’re rude and obnoxious; they hang out at the same bar where they think they’re hot stuff (singing loudly and drinking sloppily); and I felt nothing at the end of “St. Elmo’s Fire” when they realize what they need to do in order to set out on a new experience—reality.

The Neverending Story II: The Next Chapter (1990)

18 Mar

MCDNEST EC006

Smith’s Verdict: *

Reviewed by Tanner Smith

Every once in a while, a family-adventure movie will be released and fail miserably because of its showing to “try” and make a family-adventure movie. If you’re confused by that statement, I’ll put it this way. A family-adventure movie should store a moral—the moral in this movie is taken the wrong way. A family-adventure movie should have amazing visuals—there will be no amazement. A family-adventure movie should have a young hero—the young hero is an idiot. What movie shares all of these traits? “The Neverending Story II: The Next Chapter.”

This is the sequel to 1984’s popular fantasy-adventure movie “The Neverending Story,” which I admired for its compelling characters, interesting plot, and surprisingly-legitimate drama, as well as its amazing visual look and neat adventure elements. If you recall, the movie featured an imaginative young boy named Bastian who read a book called The Neverending Story and discovered that he will become the hero that will save a very real fantasy world called Fantasia from being consumed by nothingness. That movie was about ideas and had a subtle way of teaching young children to read.

The message is the same in its sequel, “The Neverending Story II: The Next Chapter,” but it’s all over the map. How so? Because people stopped reading books, the library in town suddenly disappeared. That’s sort of convenient, in the way that the actor playing the mysterious librarian is the only actor returning for this sequel.

This time, the young hero Bastian is played by Jonathan Brandis. And here’s the movie’s first problem—he’s not very good in this movie. It’s a one-note performance that requires him to be cheerfully dim and a poorly-written character who is a terrible role model for kids. This kid is such an idiot. If you think I’m being too harsh, keep reading. Fantasia will thank you for it.

Bastian, while thrust into Fantasia to fight the Emptiness (the human form of lost ideas), has the power of a necklace called Auryn to wish for anything. What he doesn’t know is that the Emptiness has created a machine that will erase one of Bastian’s memories every time he makes a wish. And right there, you see the big character flaw—he doesn’t know that! There are many scenes in which his and his best friend Atreyu’s (Kenny Morrison) life is at stake and he doesn’t even think about making any wishes. And when he finally wishes for a weapon to fight the Emptiness’ silly-looking giant minions, what does he wish for? A spray can!

And why was this kid chosen to save Fantasia? Because the Childlike Empress (even more annoying and dim than Bastian) knows he’s the most imaginative kid in the world and is the one who can save this world that can’t survive without the pure imagination of human beings. Well, that was in the first movie. In this sequel, they picked the wrong kid.

By the way, the Emptiness is annoying too. This time, it’s in the form of a woman who wants to—you guessed it—destroy the world. But then, where would she and her minions go? Earth? What are they going to do there? I don’t know and also, I don’t care because this woman is as over-the-top as any other over-the-top villain or villainess in bad adventure movies.

Other characters are back too—Atreyu, Falkor the Luckdragon, and the Rockbiter (this time, accompanied by an annoying rock-son)—and they make some good company. But the hero is unappealing, the plot is uninteresting, the message is taken too literally, and there’s no wonder here. Fantasia just looks strange this time around. It makes me wonder what the filmmakers were thinking when they made “The Neverending Story II: The Next Chapter.”

← Older Entries
Newer Entries →