Author Archives: Keith Garlington

REVIEW: “Vikram Vedha” (2022)

by

8

It goes without saying that a quality screenplay is vital to any good movie. And it’s especially true in the crowded sphere of crime thrillers. Just look at some of the genre’s very best films. They’re all marked by truly great screenplays. I wouldn’t dare put “Vikram Vedha” up there with the likes of “Chinatown”, “Mean Streets”, or “No Country for Old Men”. But it’s a prime example of a movie elevated and driven by an exceptional screenplay.

“Vikram Vedha” is written and directed by the husband and wife filmmaking duo Pushkar–Gayathri. The movie is a Hindi-language remake of the couple’s own 2017 Tamil feature of the same name. Fans of the genre will have no trouble recognizing the many marks of a classic crime thriller: shady cops, mob bosses, dirty-dealings, and double-crosses. It’s part mystery, part action flick, part neo-noir, even a bit of a police procedural.

Clearly those are a lot of different ingredients. But Pushkar–Gayathri’s screenplay wrangles and weaves them together in a twisty, intelligent, and thoroughly compelling feature. I haven’t seen the 2017 original so there was no temptation to compare. Instead, it was a treat to go in blind and have a fresh experience with the story. Sure I was excited by the handful of exhilarating action scenes, the pulsating Sam C.S. score, and cinematographer P. S. Vinod’s dynamic camera. But it always came back to the screenplay, and its clever story structure, crisp pacing, and rich dialogue. It all makes the nearly 160-minute running time fly by.

On screen, the story is led by two remarkably strong performances. Saif Ali Khan brings a steely grit to Vikram, a dedicated cop and member of a special task force aimed at taking down organized crime. Hrithik Roshan, oozing charisma, plays Vedha, a notorious gangster who Vikram’s team has made their priority. The problem is Vedha has vanished, forced underground and completely off their radar.

We learn early on that Vikram’s hands aren’t entirely clean. During a raid on one of Vedha’s hideouts, he guns down an unarmed henchman. But rather than reporting it, Vikram plants a gun and makes up a story to avoid an inquiry. “To clean filth, someone has to get their hands dirty,” he reasons to his boss and best friend Abbas (Satyadeep Mishra).

Then things take a turn. When intelligence reports a siting of Vedha, Vikram and his team begin setting up a plan to apprehend him. But they’re stunned when their most wanted target nonchalantly strolls into the police station and surrenders. Why would he come out of hiding? Why would he turn himself in? He won’t say a word until Vikram comes to interrogate him. Suddenly Vedha is ready to talk. “Shall I tell you a story sir?” he asks with a devious grin.

This begins a brilliantly written and well-acted chess match between Vikram and Vedha that plays out for the rest of film. Chunks of the story are told through flashbacks which Pushkar–Gayathri nicely utilize to fill in key details. We learn that Vedha has had a hand in sixteen murders and worked for a powerful heroin smuggler named Parshuram Pandey (Govind Pandey). But we also see another side of Vedha – one that shows his love for his little brother, Shatak (Rohit Saraf) and his efforts to keep Shatak out of the criminal lifestyle. This interesting complexity makes Vedha as much of a mystery to us as he is the Vikram.

Of course a showdown is all but inevitable, yet Pushkar–Gayathri’s keen plotting ensure the journey there is full of unexpected twists and turns. Several good supporting characters add layers to the narrative, including Vikram’s lawyer wife Priya (a really good Radhika Apte), Vedha’s arch-rival Babloo (Sharib Hashmi), and Shatak’s childhood friend Chanda (Yogita Bihani). And of course there are the bursts of action, full of stylish flourishes and driven by two Bollywood stars with wattage to spare. Put it all together and it’s hard not to be swept away by this rousing combination of savvy storytelling and popcorn spectacle. “Vikram Vedha” is now showing in select theaters.

VERDICT – 4 STARS

First Glance: “Raymond & Ray”

by

8

Ethan Hawke and Ewan McGregor. That pairing was all I needed to be excited for the upcoming dramady “Raymond & Ray”. It’s the latest film from writer-director Rodrigo García, and it recently had its world premiere at the Toronto International Film Festival. From the first trailer, the movie looks to be telling a pretty familiar story. But with big names like Hawke and McGregor leading the way, you know that you’re going to get something worth seeing.

The two co-leads play the titular half-brothers, Raymond (McGregor) and Ray (Hawke). They come together to handle the affairs of the estranged and recently deceased dead father. They learn it was their father’s dying wish that his sons attend his funeral. They begrudgingly go and learn it was also their father’s wish that they dig his grave (“What?” Raymond asks as if reading our minds). Along the way, the brothers are brought closer together while learning more about their father and coping with the pain that comes with his memory. I love the look of this.

“Raymond & Ray” streams on Apple TV+ starting October 21st. Check out the trailer below and let me know if you’ll be seeing it or taking a pass.

REVIEW: “God’s Creatures” (2022)

by

5

(CLICK HERE to read my full review in the Arkansas Democrat-Gazette)

This year A24 has built upon their well-established hip image with the zany and self-indulgent multiverse bop “Everything Everywhere All at Once” and a string of attention-getting horror films that includes “X”, “Men”, “Bodies Bodies Bodies”, and “Pearl”. But easily one of the best movies from A24’s 2022 catalog is “God’s Creatures”, a searing psychological drama from co-directors Saela Davis and Anna Rose Holmer.

“God’s Creatures” is a tough-minded social study wrapped in a warped Prodigal Son story. Along the way it takes a scalpel to familial bonds, family loyalties, and small town justice, all while looking hard at sexual assault amid the slanted social dynamics of a tight-knit Irish fishing village. That’s meaty subject matter on its own, but it’s Davis, Holmer, and first-time feature screenwriter Shane Crowley’s honest and unvarnished perspective that makes it resonate.

Image Courtesy of A24

The film features a terrific cast, none better than Emily Watson, an actress who can convey more through a simply stare than most actresses can with pages of dialogue. Her awards worthy performance offers a fascinating spin on the mother archetype, one minute embodying it to the fullest and later offering a full-blown deconstruction as her character is faced with choices and their potentially damning consequences.

Firmly rooted in the everyday monotony of her rural coastal village, middle-aged matriarch Aileen O’Hara (Watson) spends her days sorting fish and oysters with other women at the town’s seaside distribution plant. At home, her family is jolted by the unannounced return of her favorite son, Brian (Paul Mescal) who has spent the last several years in Australia. There’s never a reason given for his sudden reappearance, but there’s plenty to glean from the film’s second half for us to reach our own conclusions.

While the ecstatic Aileen instantly reverts to the doting mother, the other members of the family seem leery of Brian’s return. His cold taciturn father, Con (a stern and earnest Declan Conlon) speaks volumes with his silence. But his clear-eyed straight-shooting sister, Erin (a wonderful Toni O’Rourke) doesn’t hide her suspicions. The family tension is palpable, and Crowley’s screenplay manages it without the need for melodramatic flashbacks or heavy exposition. He simply trusts us to follow the breadcrumbs and figure things out for ourselves.

Aileen’s maternal joy in having her son back comes with its own set of form-fitting blinders. Not only does she tune out the growing concerns of her family, she also blindly brushes off some clear red flags (anything for her little boy). But the tide shifts after Brian is accused of sexually assaulting Aileen’s younger co-worker and longtime family friend, Sarah (Aisling Franciosi, full of quiet fortitude). When asked by the police about her son’s whereabouts on the night in question, Aileen lies to corroborate Brian’s story. The repercussions of that choice reverberates through the remainder of the film’s running time.

Image Courtesy of A24

While its story unfolds into a gripping character-driven slow burn, “God’s Creatures” is full of modest yet extremely effective touches. Cinematographer Chayse Irvin’s beautiful yet somber gaze shrewdly feeds the film’s tragic mood and atmosphere. The sound design leans heavy on local ambience (the caws of seagulls, the clacking of oyster shells, the many different sounds of water) which provides a strong sense of place. Then there’s the disconcerting score from Danny Bensi and Saunder Jurriaans – a brilliantly strange blend of wailing strings and higher pitched thumps.

But “God’s Creatures” always comes back to the characters and the exceptional ensemble behind them. Emily Watson should immediately be put into the Oscar conversation for her raw and unflinching performance. Mescal’s uncanny ability to mix sinister with charm plays with our perception of his character by making Brian both endearing and unnerving. And then there’s Franciosi who gets several great scenes, none better than a single sustained profile shot that comes at the film’s most crucial moment. It’s a scene that encapsulates what makes the movie so good – it’s concise, affecting, and it has faith in its audience to figure things out. “God’s Creatures” is out now in select theaters.

VERDICT – 4 STARS

REVIEW: “Smile” (2022)

by

15

2022 has been a weird year for horror movies. Per usual, studios have pumped out a steady stream of them; some good and others not so much. But what’s been strange is seeing fair-to-middling horror flicks (à la “Barbarian”, “X”, “Bodies Bodies Bodies”, “Scream”, etc.) being granted ‘instant classic’ status by some truly passionate fan bases. Now don’t get me wrong, these films aren’t in the same abysmal vein as the “Firestarter” or “Texas Chainsaw Massacre” reboots from earlier this year. Not even close. But it’s strange to see this level of enthusiasm over such unremarkable genre entries.

Thankfully 2022 has had a few good horror movies, including several originals (“Fresh”, “The Black Phone”, “Hatching”), a killer prequel (“Pearl”), and an unexpectedly satisfying sequel (“Orphan: First Kill”). Now we have another one to add to the list of bangers. “Smile” is a genuinely creepy chiller with all the ingredients genre lovers will be looking for. But it’s also surprisingly clever in how it deals with depression, trauma, and even suicide. The film peers beyond the cheery facial expression of its title to show that many things can be hidden behind a simple smile.

Image Courtesy of Paramount Pictures

A really good Sosie Bacon plays Dr. Rose Cotter, a therapist at a New Jersey hospital’s emergency psychiatric unit. The film opens with Rose meeting a new patient – a traumatized young woman named Laura (Caitlin Stasey) who recently witnessed the suicide of her college professor. Laura begins telling Rose about her horrific visions. “I’m seeing something,” she says, visibly rattled but unable to put who or what she sees into words. All she can describe is the sinister, blood-chilling smile carved into its face.

Much of Rose’s job is spent trying to convince disturbed people that what they’re seeing is in their minds. But Laura is convinced that her visions are real. Then their session takes a horrifying turn. Laura suddenly calms, an eerie smile spreads across her face, then she slits her own throat right in front of Rose. Cut to title card!

That brilliantly orchestrated opening helps set the tone for the entirety of “Smile”. And it maintains that same unsettling mood for its duration. It’s not often that a horror movie can keep an audience in its clutches quite like this. But first-time feature director Parker Finn (who also wrote the script) deserves a ton of credit for creating and keeping a disquieting atmosphere. He also tells a story that’s simple on the surface, but with harrowing layers, often rooted in truth, that keep us on edge. The film’s biggest weakness comes when Finn loses faith in what he’s crafted and resorts to annoying over-used jump scares.

Reasonably so, Rose is shaken by the events of the opening and after the stress starts affecting her work, she’s asked by her boss (Kal Penn) to take a paid week off to clear her head. But when Rose starts having terrifying visions similar to those described by Laura, suddenly she’s the one who must convince those closest to her that she’s not crazy. It starts with her paper-thin fiancé, Trevor (Jessie T. Usher), by far the weakest of the movie’s characters. Then it’s her self-centered sister, Holly (Gillian Zinser), her former therapist, Madeline (Robin Weigert), and even her ex-boyfriend, Joel (Kyle Gallner).

Image Courtesy of Paramount Pictures

Of course rather than believing Rose is being tortured by a malevolent spirit who smiles a lot, those close to her think she’s having a mental breakdown. And that gets to part of the genius of “Smile” – the indescribable nature of the entity itself. It makes the victims sound delusional despite describing the evil to the best of their abilities. As she’s constantly doubted, Rose’s growing feelings of isolation and despair only intensifies and opens the door for her own personal traumas to resurface. Soon she’s fighting two wars – one with a devilish supernatural evil and the other within her own head.

With the subtle (and some not-so-subtle) metaphors for mental health and its rich theme of processing past trauma, Parker Finn thrusts us into a world that pulsates with real-life resonance despite its outlandish (yet undeniably fun) premise. Not all of the dot-connecting works particularly well, and the above-mentioned jump scares cheapen things a bit. But Finn creates and sustains a gnawing tension, leaning on some gruesome visual effects, DP Charlie Sarroff’s disorienting camera, and the droning and wailing of Cristobal Tapia de Veer’s mood-setting score. It all makes for a gnarly cocktail; one packed with as many surprises as frights. “Smile” is out now in theaters.

VERDICT – 4 STARS

First Glance: “Bones and All”

by

10

I’m curious to see how many people will be turned off by this description alone – a cannibal love story. Yes, that sounds utterly ridiculous, but I guess human flesh-eaters need love too. “Bones and All” is the latest film from Luca Guadagnino, and it stars Taylor Russell and Timothée Chalamet. If I’m honest, the two leads don’t really excite me. Russell wasn’t great in the two “Escape Room” movies (but how much of that was horrible material?). And while I know this is considered sacrilege, I like Chalamet’s work more than I love it. But I’ll give the pair this, they’re really going for it here.

“Bones and All” follows two lovers with a shared fondness for eating people as they make a road-trip across America during the 1980s. The new trailer shows the film to be a queasy mix of romance and horror all with Leonard Cohen’s “You Want It Darker” bopping in the background. Most attractive is the interesting supporting cast that includes Mark Rylance, Michael Stuhlbarg, André Holland, Chloë Sevigny, David Gordon Green, and Jessica Harper among others. This looks like a movie with a lot of potential to go either way.

“Bones and All” hits theaters November 23rd. Check out the trailer below and let me know if you’ll be seeing it or taking a pass.

REVIEW: “Dead For A Dollar” (2022)

by

8

(CLICK HERE for my full review in the Arkansas Democrat-Gazette)

Walter Hill making a new Western excited me. A cast that includes Christoph Waltz, Willem Dafoe, Rachel Brosnahan, and Benjamin Bratt was icing on the cake. That’s a lot of talent for “Dead For A Dollar”, a modestly budgeted embrace of a once thriving movie genre. As with the 80-year-old Hill’s past hits and misfires alike, “Dead For A Dollar” is effortlessly watchable. It’s straightforwardness and casual pace might be a hurdle for some. But there’s something about its easy-going style and intoxicating milieu.

One of the film’s most noticeable distinctions is how it often looks, sounds, and plays like an old Western serial. The sharp digital look, the framing of specific shots, the scene-to-scene transitions, even some of the dialogue seem like callbacks to classic television. It’s a cool style choice that actually fits well with Hill’s leisurely storytelling. For example, a big chunk of the movie has characters simply hanging out, waiting for the story’s inevitable climax, almost like filler episodes in a TV series.

But unlike filler episodes which are known for their lack of story progression and character development, Hill gives us plenty to soak up in these stretches of supposed downtime. It’s where his potpourri of players and the world where they exist begins to take form. It’s where grievances can be started or settled over a good card game. It’s also where everyone (and I mean everyone) packs a six-shooter, and they love talking about them just as much as using them.

Image Courtesy of Quiver Distribution

As for the story (conceived by Hill and Matt Harris), you’ll need more than ten fingers to count all the tropes you’ll come across. But this is no copy-and-paste effort. Hill is too savvy of a filmmaker for that. And while the story is soaked in nostalgia, Hill isn’t beholden to it. Instead “Dead For A Dollar” is a movie you absorb as you watch a filmmaker honor yet subtly subvert a genre he clearly loves. Equally fun is recognizing Hill’s many influences, whether it’s the simple nuts-and-bolts ethos of Budd Boetticher (to whom the movie is dedicated) or the violent jolts of Sam Peckinpah. Yet Hill still adds plenty of his own flavor, especially in the extended action-fueled finale that has his fingerprints all over it.

Set in 1897, renowned bounty hunter Max Borlund (Waltz) is called on by a prominent businessman named Martin Kidd (Hamish Linklater). According to Kidd, a buffalo soldier named Elijah Jones (Brandon Scott) abducted his wife Rachel (Brosnahan) and crossed the border into Mexico. He says Jones has demanded $10,000 which he refuses to pay. So he wants Max to go to Mexico and bring his wife back. The job may not fully pass the smell test, but it seems pretty cut-and-dry so Max accepts.

Since Elijah is also wanted for desertion, the army sends the chatty sharpshooter Alonzo Poe (Warren Burke) to accompany Max. The two cross the border, eventually catching up to Elijah and Rachel, and then escort them to a one-horse Mexican town where Max sends word to Martin that he’s found his wife and apprehended her abductor. As they wait for Martin to arrive, another side of Rachel and Elijah’s story emerges. Soon Max, a bounty hunter of principle with an affection for honesty, begins to question everything he’s been told.

Also in town is Joe Cribbens (Dafoe), a shady type from Texas who was just released from an Albuquerque prison. He’s come south to lay low a bit and play cards. But it just so happens that Max Borlund was the man who put him in prison, and Joe is the kind who holds a grudge. Add to the mix Tiberio Vargas (Bratt), a ruthless outlaw who (along with his gang of faceless final-act fodder) runs the territory and takes a special interest in the gringos new to town.

Image Courtesy of Quiver Distribution

It all makes for a combustible formula that (in true Western fashion) moves from a simmer to a boil. While we wait for the inevitable showdown (a beautifully staged extended flourish of gunfire and retribution) Hill and his cast have a good time unpacking this eclectic batch of characters. Waltz’s well-measured restraint is a solid foil for Dafoe’s gravelly scene-munching. Both are pitch-perfect. Brosnahan is a fearless straight-shooter and a strangely fascinating antithesis to the usual Western femme. And the steely Bratt, gets some fun mileage out of a fairly cookie-cutter heavy.

With “Dead For A Dollar”, Hill treats us to a buffet of gorgeous imagery, sweeping us away with his stunning widescreen vistas and sucking us in with his artfully blocked interiors. Nearly every scene radiates an alluring sepia-tinted glow reminiscent of an vintage photograph but with startling clarity. There’s never a shortage of pretty things to see.

“Dead For A Dollar” may not satisfy those hungry for a fresh spin on the classic Western. But there’s beauty in the way it tips its Stetson to its influences. And it’s not like Hill doesn’t have a few ideas of his own. Take the well-meaning revisionism that doesn’t play out as well as it could, yet adds a spirited contemporary twist. And then you have Hill himself. Just the richness of his style and his sheer filmmaking know-how makes this worth watching. Add in all its other strengths and you have a movie sure to be dismissed by some but cherished by others. Count me in latter camp. “Dead For a Dollar” opens today in select theaters.

VERDICT – 4 STARS