Author Archives: Keith Garlington

REVIEW: “Hidden Blade” (2023)

by

15

To fully grasp writer, director, editor, and cinematographer Cheng Er’s new period espionage thriller “Hidden Blade” requires at least a working knowledge of the complicated politics of China during World War II (certainly more than I have). His film is built upon a dense and layered story that’s deeply rooted in history and laced with pinches of propaganda. That may sound daunting, but Er’s gifts as a filmmaker and storyteller makes it worth the effort.

Adding to the challenge is Er’s choice to hop back and forth across his timeline. It’s an artistic stretch that can seem frustrating at first, but that ultimately comes together in some pretty clever ways. Er flashes back to 1937 during the bombings of Guangzhou, hops ahead to December 8, 1941 – the day after Japan attacked Pearl Harbor, and spends most of his time in Shanghai in the days leading up to Japan’s surrender to the Allies on September 2, 1945. There’s quite a bit of time-hopping and it can be disorienting, at least until you get a sense for what Er is doing.

Image Courtesy of Well Go USA Entertainment

A strong cast fills out this engrossing story about a select group of Chinese counter espionage agents in Shanghai tasked by the puppet Wang Jingwei regime to root out, interrogate, and terminate fellow countrymen who are secretly working to undermine the Japanese occupation. But covertly working within the group’s ranks were members of the Chinese Communist Party’s underground. These double-agents risked their lives secretly gathering vital intelligence that helped build a stronger and more unified resistance.

A brilliantly understated Tony Leung plays Mr. He (Leung), the director of the counter espionage unit working directly under a Japanese officer (a really good Hiroyuki Mori). Other key members of the group are Mr. Ye (Wang Yibo) and Mr. Tang (Da Peng). Both are stern and business-like agents who do everything from rounding up suspects, to overseeing (often brutal) interrogations, to executing prime targets.

Yet all of the key players remain a puzzle. Knowing that this is a spy thriller, we venture into it with our antennas up, looking for clues as to where each person’s loyalty may lie. But Er does an excellent job keeping allegiances and motivations under wraps, revealing them at just the right time and with just the impact they need.

As we begin to get a clearer picture of who’s who, we’re treated to some riveting confrontations. Some are impeccably written and performed one-on-one conversations where characters seek to prove or disprove their suspicions. Some burst out into full-on violence. Chases, shoot-outs, and one especially exhilarating fight scene are handsomely staged and shot. Just to be clear, “Hidden Blade” is far from an action-heavy movie. But the action we get is first-rate and comes at crucial points in the story.

Image Courtesy of Well Go USA Entertainment

As for the overall look of the film, Er gives us one stunning shot after another. The framing, the blocking, the lighting – it all adds to the immersion and shows off a pretty clear noir influence. And while he shoots action exceptionally well, I also love the way Er shoots his characters. Through his camera he’s able to pull so much from his actors, often without them uttering a word. The visuals turn out to be a crucial part of Er’s storytelling. That may sound obvious since most filmmakers consider it important. But here there’s a special emphasis that really enhances the experience.

Sadly Zhou Xun, Jiang Shuying, and Zhang Jingyi aren’t left with much to do in the film’s three female roles. They each give sublime performances that left me wishing the movie had gone deeper into their characters. And again, putting all the pieces of the story together can be more challenging than it needs to be (truthfully, the nonlinear structure doesn’t seem necessary, and I can see it being a frustration for some). But if you toss those two issues aside, it’s hard to find much wrong with “Hidden Blade”. It’s absorbing cinema. And even with its not-so-hidden nationalistic bend, its a beguiling spy thriller with a stylishly sumptuous genre veneer.

VERDICT – 4 STARS

REVIEW: “Amigos” (2023)

by

3

Doppelgänger [noun] – an apparition or double of a living person. That’s a fitting and essential definition to keep in mind as you watch “Amigos”, the new Teluga-language thriller written and directed by Rajendra Reddy. It’s a slow-starting two-sided movie that takes some time to gain its footing. But once it does, Reddy and his hard-working star Nandamuri Kalyan Ram put together a tensely entertaining second half that ultimately ends up saving the day.

While the very core of its premise is undeniably silly, that doesn’t mean there isn’t fun to be had. Reddy goes all-in with his doppelgänger idea which (to be fair) is the only way to tell a story like this. There are a lot of things that don’t make sense, and there are just as many questions it’s best not to ask. But as the story uncoils and the reveals stack up, those things become easier to look past.

Ram plays Siddharth, a regular Joe who lives with his tight-knit family in Hyderabad. He’s smitten with a local DJ named Ishika (played by Ashika Ranganath). The problem is she’ll only marry a man who can pass her very specific (and seemingly impossible) test. Reddy devotes much of the first half of his movie to Siddharth’s playful (and sometimes downright silly) pursuit of the girl of his dreams.

Siddharth gets wind of a popular new social website (doppel.com of course) that connects people with their doppelgängers from around the world. Siddharth is immediately matched with Manjunath, a meek and kind-hearted computer programmer from Bengaluru. Just as the two are planning to meet, the website finds another match – the quieter, more stoic Michael from Kolkata. The three have a meet-up in Goa and hit it off. Soon Manjunath and Michael are helping Siddharth win the heart of Ishika.

The story’s big twist kicks off a second half that gives the proceedings a welcomed burst of energy. Without spoiling too much, let’s just say Michael isn’t quite who he claims to be. His real name is Bipin Roy and he’s a notorious gun runner and arms dealer who’s wanted by the NIA (National Investigation Agency). And he didn’t come to Hyderabad just to meet his two lookalikes. His motivations are much more sinister, and Reddy reveals them while steadily ratcheting up the tension.

The shift from the light and playful first half of the movie to the grittier and more violent second isn’t seamless, and it takes some adjusting. And not just in terms of tone, but also with the characters (most notably Michael). But Reddy does a good job building up to his big finish, to the point that we don’t have a lot of time to think about the sometimes corny first half antics. The bursts of stylish yet fittingly brutal action help too, although some of the style choices (like the occasional dizzying frame rate stutter or the vehicles zipping around at 1.5X speed) can be more distracting than exciting.

As for Ram and his wild three-headed performance, he certainly seems to be having a good time playing the everyday guy Siddharth, the nerdy bespectacled Manjunath, and the moodier Michael. Of the three, he really sinks his teeth into Michael who is by far the most fun and interesting. “An Indian Pablo Escobar,” he’s called and the film is at its best when we’re watching him live up to that title. It helps us to get past some of the shakier moments. “Amigos” is now showing in select theaters.

VERDICT – 3 STARS

REVIEW: “Marlowe” (2023)

by

14

When it comes to genre films (and in this case I use the term “genre” lightly), I’m a real sucker for classic noir. The ones with the cynical antihero protagonists (often hard-boiled private detectives), the simmering femme fatales, the seedy settings and even seedier side characters, the intricate crime-centered plots, the cool straight-shooting dialogue. It’s a “genre” that has mostly faded into the sunset, but that (thankfully) still pops up every now and then. Case in point: Liam Neeson’s new film “Marlowe”

Considering the trajectory of his career, it’s hard to imagine Neeson leading an old-school film noir. He certainly has the world-weary look and gravelly grumble. But seeing him in a rumpled three-piece suit and fedora, driving around 1939 Los Angeles in a Ford Coupe is an adjustment. Yet here he is alongside an intriguing cast that includes Diane Kruger, Jessica Lange, Alan Cumming, Danny Huston, and Adewale Akinnuoye-Agbaje.

Directed by Neil Jordan (“The Crying Game”) and written by William Monahan (“The Departed”), “Marlowe” is an adaptation of John Banville’s 2014 novel The Black-Eyed Blonde. As its title gives away, the film’s lead character is none other than Philip Marlowe, the tough-minded wise-cracking private eye created in the 1930s by novelist and screenwriter Raymond Chandler. He’s appeared in several films throughout the years and has been played by such stars as Humphrey Bogart, James Garner, Elliott Could, and Robert Mitchum. Now Neeson gives him a whirl in what is the 100th film of the actor’s career.

Image Courtesy of Open Road Films

Set in Bay City, Los Angeles (inspired by Santa Monica in Chandler’s world), Philip Marlowe once enjoyed working as an investigator for the district attorney’s office. But that went south, and now he gets by as a self-employed private detective, often taking cases from the area’s wealthy and unscrupulous. Neeson turns out to be a pretty good Marlowe, blending in nicely with the terrific period production design and nailing the character’s look, demeanor, and pessimism.

One morning, Marlowe is visited by Mrs. Clare Cavendish (Kruger), a wealthy heiress who hires him to find her lover, a prop guy for Pacific Film Studios named Nico Peterson (François Arnaud). Mrs. Cavendish informs Marlowe that she’s married, and despite having an “understanding” with her husband (Patrick Muldoon), she prefers discretion. And just like that we have our femme fatale, a role that Kruger has a blast with.

Marlowe takes the case and immediately starts poking around. It doesn’t take him long to discover that Nico Peterson is dead – the victim of a hit-and-run outside the front gate of the Corbata Club, an exclusive members-only establishment managed by a suit named Floyd Hanson (a delightfully shady Huston). So with Nico dead, that means the case is closed, right? Not so fast. After Marlowe fills in Clare, she tells him she knows Nico has been pronounced dead by the authorities. But she claims to have recently saw him very much alive on the streets of Tijuana.

From there it’s all about putting together the many pieces of the puzzle as Jordan shuffles us from one person to the next, each with information to share. Some are reliable; just as many aren’t. They’re an interesting batch and everyone Marlowe meets gives him (and us) reasons to be suspicious. In addition to Huston’s Floyd Hanson, there’s Clare’s acerbic mother Dorothy Quincannon (Lange who’s great), a former movie star living off her former glory. There’s a gangster named Lou Hendricks (Cumming) and his loyal driver Cedric (Akinnuoye-Agbaje). And there’s Lynn (Daniela Melchior), Nico’s sister who’s caught between a rock and a hard place. They all speak in riddles and keep their cards close to the vest.

Image Courtesy of Open Road Films

And of course you have Clare herself who like all femme fatales has her secrets and is always holding something back. I enjoyed Kruger’s performance, but her relationship with Marlowe needs more sizzle. It’s mostly due to how Marlowe is written. Jordan and Monahan’s version is older, tired, and is feeling his age. “I’m getting too old for this,” he sighs after disposing of a couple of goons “Taken” style. It’s a profile that fits Neeson, but it inevitably tempers the sexual tension. Yet it’s kinda nice that we’re not force-fed some obligatory romance.

As for the look of the film, Barcelona and Dublin do a surprisingly satisfactory job filling in for Southern California. They may not capture the authenticity of something like “L.A. Confidential” or “Chinatown”, but they get the job done in large part thanks to DP Xavi Gimenez whose sun-baked vision of the Golden State is at times exquisite. Then there are his visual touches that are catnip for classic noir fans like me – the way the sun casts strips of shadow through window blinds. Or the bright glow of a neon sign reflecting off the rain-puddled pavement.

Those looking for a reimagining of Chandler’s world could very well leave disappointed. “Marlowe” isn’t meant to be some revisionist exercise in the mold of Altman’s “The Long Goodbye”. It’s more of an celebratory ode; a proudly unashamed pastiche rooted more in an obvious love for classic noir than some impulse to update it. Sadly, for that reason it’ll take some hits. But it turns out to be exactly what this sucker was hoping for.

VERDICT – 4 STARS

FIRST GLANCE: “The Flash”

by

9

The much-delayed Flash movie and its troubled star have been the subject of a lot of chatter. But now it’s finally getting released and the first full trailer dropped just before the Super Bowl. To say they needed to make a splash is an understatement. Well, they most certainly did. The new trailer for “The Flash” had a little something for everyone – Flash fans, Snyder fans, new fans, and even some super excited ‘old fans’ which I’m happy to be a part of.

You could make the claim that the trailer shows off a little too much. But at the same time, the movie definitely needed a spark of excitement. The new trailer absolutely provides that. Not only do we get the setup for their spin on “Flashpoint”, but we also get the much-anticipated reveal of Michael Keaton back as Batman! I won’t spoil all the other appearances and surprises, but the trailer is packed with cheer-worthy moments. They wanted to get people excited? Well it certainly worked for me.

“The Flash” speeds into theaters on June 16th. Check out the trailer below and let me know if you’ll be seeing it or taking a pass.

K&M Commentary: Sight & Sound 2022 and the Futility of List-Making

by

13

Compiling lists. It’s something we film critics rush to do at the end of every movie year. Like a sacred rite, we needlessly toil and labor over what ten or so films we should christen as the very best of the year. Admittedly, it’s more fun for some of us than it is for others. And we’re often tempted to attach an undue importance to these things. Yet like good creatures of habit we still perform our ‘duty’, despite how meaningless it is when it comes to something as arbitrary as picking out movies.

Perhaps the mother of all futile lists comes from the British Film Institute’s Sight and Sound magazine. In 1952, the 90-year-old publication conducted their first Sight and Sound poll to determine the “Greatest Films of All Time”. Every decade since, S&S has invited a handpicked group of film critics and filmmakers to participate. To their credit, the decennial S&S list has been held in pretty high regard, in large part due to the exclusive nature of their voting body.

But criticism of that very exclusivity has led to big changes, and calls for diversity has culminated in the recently announced 2022 poll results which have shaken things up and sparked quite the conversation about the credibility of the list and the BFI’s approach. In 2012 the BFI expanded its international voter base from 145 to 846 “critics, programmers, academics, distributors, writers and other cinephiles”. But the only notable change came at the top where “Citizen Kane” was dethroned by “Vertigo”after a five-decade reign. So for 2022 the BFI went further, boosting its roll to a whopping 1,639 participants. A big shift was all but guaranteed.

Immediately after the results were announced knee-jerk reactions poured in. Some were complaints rooted in a near pharisaical interpretation of movie canon, coming from those who treat the S&S list as some sacred entity – a holy place where the sanctity of the old canon is to be preserved and protected. Others quickly rose to the list’s defense, vehemently branding and dismissing any possible reservation or hint of skepticism.

Naturally when you’re selective in nearly doubling your number of voters, chances are there will be some significant changes. But that doesn’t automatically imply some clandestine, behind-the-scenes conspiracy. At the same time, it’s certainly fair to ask questions, especially when such dramatic changes have taken place. When all-timers like “The Godfather Part II”, “Raging Bull”, “Rio Bravo”, “Chinatown”, and “Touch of Evil” get booted out of the Top 100.

Perhaps the biggest case for curiosity is found in the S&S poll’s new number one film, Chantal Akerman’s “Jeanne Dielman, 23 quai du Commerce, 1080 Bruxelles”. For the record, I like “Jeanne Dielman” and admire Akerman’s avant-garde boldness. And seeing a female directed film in the top spot for the first time is exciting.

But “Jeanne Dielman” is a movie I’m guessing few outside the inner sphere of film cinephilia have heard of, and it’s probably the least accessible film on the entire 2022 list. It’s a movie I’d only recommend to a small handful of people I know; where for well over three hours we watch the titular character carry out such everyday tasks as washing dishes, taking a bath, peeling potatoes, and polishing shoes.

But maybe that’s the point. Perhaps S&S is simply meant to be a tool to introduce new movies to potential new audiences. Of course that begs the question, why call your list “The Greatest Films of All Time” if it’s merely meant to be a conversation starter. Deep down I suspect there’s a smorgasbord of motivations behind what movies get chosen, especially in such a polarized climate and where sentiment is so often shaped and molded by what’s trending on Twitter.

Still, not everyone is sold on the organization’s intent and even less enthused by the results. Paul Schrader (a terrific filmmaker who has never been shy about sharing his thoughts) called “Jeanne Dielman” a favorite of his but questioned its relatively speedy ascent to the top spot. “It feels off” he wrote, “as if someone had put their thumb on the scale.” Of course Schrader was quickly crucified and his comments written-off rather than considered. I’m not onboard with everything he said, but some points make sense. After all, the BFI wanted some much-needed diversity, and they got their intended results.

Which gets back to “Jeanne Dielman”, a fascinating movie that’s sure to be an eye-opener for some and like watching paint dry for others. Is it the “greatest film of all time” as the Sight and Sound poll proclaims? Honestly, I doubt it would crack my personal Top 100. And seeing it catapult to #1 is almost as surprising as seeing Jordan Peele’s “Get Out” on a list missing the likes of Hawks, Altman, Buñuel, Lubitsch, Cassavetes, Malick, Farhadi, and the Coen brothers.

But all of that speaks to my own choices. And ultimately that’s all these lists are – personal expressions of preference and passion. And the Sight and Sound poll shouldn’t be looked at as anything more than a collection of such expressions. Sure, there may be some agendas at work and some old guard gatekeeping. Yes, it has broadened its scope while calling into question its validity. But who cares. Have fun discussing, debating, and (hopefully) discovering new movies. Just don’t take any of it too seriously. In the end, none of it really matters much. As for where the S&S poll goes from here…I guess we’ll see in ten years.

First Glance: “Fast X”

by

13

What a ride it’s been. When “The Fast and the Furious” came out in 2001, I’m not sure anyone expected it to be a popular franchise. And not just a popular franchise, but one of the most successful box office franchises, raking in over $6.6 billion so far. I say “so far” because the ride’s not over yet. The much anticipated “Fast X” is on its way, sporting a whopping $340 million budget, easily the highest of the franchise. Today Universal dropped the long awaited trailer and once again Vin Diesel and his onscreen family are going all out.

Back with Diesel are long-time favorites Michelle Rodriguez, Tyrese Gibson, Chris “Ludacris” Bridges, Jordana Brewster, and Sung Kang. Also returning is John Cena, Jason Statham, and Charlize Theron. And new to franchise is Brie Larson and none other than Jason Momoa who gets a juicy role as the film’s main antagonist. The trailer features everything fans are looking for – familiar faces, fast cars, and wild over-the-top set pieces. It definitely looks to have the high-octane action. Hopefully it has a good story to go along with it.

“Fast X” speeds into theaters May 19th. Check out the trailer below and let me know if you’ll be seeing it or taking a pass.