REVIEW: “C’mon C’mon” (2021)

December 30, 2021 by Keith Garlington

The ever enigmatic yet insanely talented Joaquin Phoenix follows up his Oscar-winning turn in “Joker” with a dramatically different performance in a much different movie. “C’mon C’mon”, written and directed by Mike Mills, is a surprisingly sweet and heartfelt drama that may look familiar on the surface, but that avoids many of the snares that often accompany films in this vein.

A warm and gentle Phoenix is once again in nomination worthy form in “C’mon C’mon”. He plays a single middle-aged documentarian named Johnny who travels around the country with his tiny production team interviewing kids about their views of the world and their dreams for the future. He asks these questions to a diverse group of children from a variety of backgrounds. Sometimes the answers he gets denotes hope and optimism. But often the responses are rooted in fear, uncertainty, and skepticism.

While working in Detroit he gets a call from his sister Viv (Gaby Hoffmann) in Los Angeles who he hasn’t seen since their mother died a year earlier (Mills comes back to their old baggage at different points in the film, unpacking it delicately and truthfully). Viv tells Johnny her bipolar and estranged husband Paul (Scoot McNairy) is in a bad way in Oakland and needs her help. But she can’t find anyone to watch her eccentric nine-year-old Jesse (Woody Norman).

So Johnny flies out to LA, a little nervous about taking care of an energetic youngster on his own, but its only for a few days. “Are you ready for this?”, Viv asks. It’s a question you could also ask the audience. Because what follows isn’t a sudsy melodrama or a kiddie comedy. Much like the scenes with Johnny interviewing children, this is a movie about listening and connecting. Everything Mills does (the gorgeous black-and-white cinematography, the eclectic score) works towards that purpose. He wants his audience to listen and feel as his characters listen and feel.

Just as essential as Mills’ honest and heartfelt touch are the three wonderfully nuanced central performances. Phoenix brings a quiet and earnest sincerity to Johnny which really comes out in his scenes with young Norman. The two have a sparkling chemistry which only gets stronger as the story takes them from LA to New York. Norman is terrific in a year full of terrific child performances. Meanwhile Hoffmann doesn’t get as many scenes, but she does a great job visualizing Viv’s buried pain and frustration.

“C’mon C’mon” moves at its own subtle harmonious pace, muting any sense of showiness or sentimentality in order to keep us focused on the relationships at the core of its story. There are some good laughs, some genuine emotions, and a depth to its characters that makes us care about them and their efforts to reconnect. The movie does require patience, because (much like in real world) life often happens at its own pace. We feel that during our time with Johnny, Jesse, and Viv. It’s part of the film’s beauty and charm. “C’mon C’mon” is now showing in select theaters.

VERDICT – 4 STARS

REVIEW: “Red Rocket” (2021)

December 29, 2021 by Keith Garlington

In “Red Rocket”, if Sean Baker’s goal was to create the worst person ever to be put on screen, he didn’t miss by much. For the sake of clarity, there’s nothing wrong with telling stories about bad people. I’ve never subscribed to the notion that all the main characters in movies need to be likable. If they were, we would never have Daniel Day Lewis’ heartless oilman Daniel Plainview from 2007’s “There Will Be Blood” – one of the greatest characters and greatest performances in cinema history (yep, I said it).

The problem with Mikey, Simon Rex’s “Red Rocket” lead character, isn’t just that he’s a reprehensible and morally bankrupt human being. He’s also a rambling, unpleasant and insufferable presence, and no amount of good acting from Rex can make him the slightest bit appealing. Perhaps most off-putting is Baker’s approach to Mikey as the character’s behavior grows more and more repugnant.

Sean Baker (who serves as director, co-writer, co-producer, and editor) certainly doesn’t put his stamp of approval on Mikey’s behavior. But he doesn’t exactly wrestle with it either. Instead you can see him working hard to make Mikey come across as charming. It doesn’t work. I’m guessing Baker was trying to strike some kind of balance in our reactions to the character. But I could never muster anything other than utter disdain for the guy, and the longer he stayed on screen the more I wanted the movie to be over.

We first meet Mikey as he’s hopping off a bus in Texas City. His body is bruised from head to toe and he has nothing with him except the clothes on his back. He walks to a low income neighborhood, stopping at the house of his estranged wife Lexi (Bree Elrod) who lives with her mother Lil (Brenda Deiss). Mikey desperately needs a place to crash for a couple of days, but neither Lexi or her mother want anything to do with him (lots of old baggage comes to light later). But we quickly see his snake oil salesman side and soon he’s convinced his ex to let him stay until he’s up on his feet.

The problem with Mikey is that he’ll never be up on his feet. He’s a walking train wreck. We learn he’s back in Texas City after being ran out of Los Angeles where he worked in the porn industry. He wants to go back, but it’ll take some cash. To his credit, he tries to get a legitimate job. But he’s turned down whenever his work history comes up. So he turns to selling weed for a old acquaintance and local drug dealer named Leondria (Judy Hill).

A big chunk of the movie follows this disgraced slug of a man as he cons nearly everyone he meets for his own selfish gain. Whether it’s his wife(ish) and her mother, or an easily impressed neighbor named Lonnie (Ethan Darbone), or 17-year-old Strawberry (Suzanna Son) who works part time at a donut shop. It’s when Mikey meets the latter that the film descends to the deepest depths of the gutter. It would be different if the film had something meaningful to say or to tackle. Instead it burrows deeper into the muck, seemingly enjoying itself, hiding behind the veil of “art”, and giving us nothing of value to chew on.

That may sound like a prickly and abrasive take-down of the movie but don’t worry, “Red Rocket” lives down to that impression. There’s really nothing to take away from Baker’s film. It’s tempting to commend the movie’s representation of Southern poverty, but even that’s handled with a sliver of condescension. So we’re left a movie that’s biggest goal seems to be to push the envelope. And while doing so, it may let us in on the lead character’s repulsive mindset. But it could leave some questioning the filmmaker’s. “Red Rocket” is out in limited release.

VERDICT – 1.5 STARS

REVIEW: “A Journal for Jordan” (2021)

December 28, 2021 by Keith Garlington

Denzel Washington directing? Michael B. Jordan starring? You bet I’m in on the new romantic drama “A Journal for Jordan”. The film is based on the 2008 memoir written by Dana Canedy about her fiancé, United States Army First Sergeant Charles Monroe King. It tells the true story of how the couple met and eventually fell in love. It also tells of Charles’ deployment during the Iraq War, while a pregnant Dana Was back home waiting to deliver their baby boy, Jordan.

Adapted by Oscar-nominated screenwriter Virgil Williams, “A Journal for Jordan” tells a story that you can’t help but admire. Its romantic angle is sweet and sincere while the inescapable sense of tragedy looms over the entire film. On screen, the movie is energized by the chemistry between stars Jordan and Chanté Adams. Behind the camera, Washington’s patient approach is both a blessing and a curse. It gives the movie’s central relationship room to breathe and take root. But it also drags things out longer than they need to go.

In a way “A Journal for Jordan” feels like a movie from another time. Most of today’s franchise-formed preferences have all the patience in the world for the latest big tent-pole blockbuster. But an old-fashioned straight-shooting melodrama (the kind audiences 30 years ago would gobble up no questions asked) is a hard sell these days. That’s one reason I wouldn’t be surprised if the film gets a mixed reception.

Another reason is the overall conventional feel of the story, specifically during the first half. Though sweet and genuine, watching the sprouting relationship between Dana and Charles, complete with its highs and lows, rarely gets out of first gear. Jordan and Adams add a romantic spark and Washington’s unrushed direction allows us time to get to know these characters. But outside of the lingering hand of fate waiting to be dealt, the story never generates much buzz. Washington seems to know this so he shakes things up a bit by moving back-and-forth across the timeline.

Adams gives an eye-opening performance playing Dana who we first meet as an ambitious and hard-working reporter for the New York Times. While visiting her parents for the weekend, she meets Charles for the first time. He’s a noble and gentlemanly soldier who has been in the army for 11 years. The two opposites attract and begin a long distance relationship that (eventually) blooms into a full-blown love story.

But as the world changes post 9/11, Charles is sent to Iraq adding an extra obstacle to their relationship. But Dana is convinced she’s ready to start a family so the two decide to have a baby. She gives Charles a journal to write to his on-the-way son Jordan while overseas. The journal becomes a key piece of the story once Charles is killed by an IED during a mission.

That may sound like a spoiler, but it’s a plot point the movie doesn’t try to hide. In fact, Washington uses it as the film’s emotional center as he traverses his timeline. It adds a tragic layer to the romance we see in the flashback sequences, and it’s the catalyst for how the later-set scenes play out.

When you put it all together it’s hard to knock what “A Journal for Jordan” is going for. The characters feel authentic and true. The true story of their relationship is both inspiring and heartbreaking. And Washington’s deliberate and unvarnished direction is the kind we rarely get these days.

Yet there’s something missing that I can’t quite put my finger on. It’s a little too long and the story doesn’t feel particularly balanced. But there’s something else – something that doesn’t quite give the movie the gut-punch it needs. It tries to compensate with a really effective final scene. But it seems like there was so much more the movie could have done with this deeply moving story. “A Journal for Jordan” is now showing in theaters.

VERDICT – 2.5 STARS

First Glance: “The Batman” Trailer 2

December 27, 2021 by Keith Garlington

The first full trailer for Matt Reeves’ “The Batman” was an exhilarating stunner. Now Warner Brothers has dropped yet another killer trailer to wet our appetites for the upcoming superhero adventure. Set to release in 2021 but postponed due to the pandemic, “The Batman” gives us a new iteration of the Caped Crusader, one that may be the darkest take on the character to date.

The new trailer gives a deeper look at the tension between the brooding Robert Pattinson and the mysterious Riddler (Paul Dano). We also get to see more of Zoe Kravitz’s Selina Kyle (aka Catwoman). There are some cool lines from Andy Serkis who plays Alfred as well as another glimpse of that intense car chase between Batman and the unrecognizable Colin Farrell who plays a new version of the Penguin. I love everything Reeves has shown us so far and I can’t wait for this to hit theaters.

“The Batman” opens in theaters March 4th. Check out the trailer below and let me know if you’ll be seeing it or taking a pass.

REVIEW: “The Matrix Resurrections” (2021)

December 27, 2021 by Keith Garlington

Toss me into the camp with the few who never really got into the “Matrix” movies. The first film of the series, 1999’s “The Matrix”, was entertaining and built itself around a pretty cool premise. The second film, “The Matrix Reloaded”, features three spectacular action scenes but little else worth revisiting. The third movie, “The Matrix Revolutions”, was a forgettable slog that mercifully brought the series to an end (or so we thought).

While the idea behind “The Matrix” is interesting and its video game-ish action can be fun, it’s the series creators, the Wachowskis, that I’ve often struggled with. Their movies tend to be built around big ideas but too often feel cold and empty. Movies like “Cloud Atlas” and “Jupiter Ascending” are shining examples of how high ambition mixed with overindulgence can overpower good storytelling.

Now some 18 years since the last movie, one-half of the Wachowskis, Lana, steps back into the Matrix with “Resurrections”, a movie that seems to have been made with die-hard fans in mind. There’s nothing inherently wrong with that and maybe there’s enough of that fan base to make this movie worthwhile. But for lukewarm viewers like me, or for those who have moved on from the near 20-year-old trilogy, there’s not much here to latch onto. Even worse, “Resurrections” is a slog, overburdened by endless exposition and lacking anything that feels remotely fresh.

Wachowski’s fourth installment sees Keanu Reeves reprising his role of Neo. Following his sacrifice in the previous film, Neo has been brought back and programmed into the Matrix as video game developer Thomas Anderson. He’s the creator of a popular trilogy of games inspired by a series of unexplained dreams that are actually memories from his previous time in and out of the Matrix.

After their offices are attacked by tactical troops who shoot so poorly they make Stormtroopers from Star Wars look like expert marksmen, Thomas/Neo is approached by a duller but sharper dressed Morpheus (Yahya Abdul-Mateen II). He once again gives the whole Red Pill/Blue Pill spiel which offers Neo a chance to have all his questions answered. Meanwhile Trinity (a returning Carrie Anne Moss) has been reinserted into the Matrix as a married mother of three named Tiffany who likes motorcycles and coffee (who doesn’t, right?)

After learning Trinity’s whereabouts, Neo wants to save her. But he’s informed by an old friend Niobe (Jada Pinkett Smith reprising her role from the last two movies) that doing so could jeopardize the new underground human sanctuary called Io. But with the help of an ambitious and awe-struck young captain named Bugs (Jessica Henwick) and her utterly forgettable crew, Neo defies Niobe’s warning and sets out to free Trinity. But a new force at the center of the Matrix has other plans.

Of course that is a very short summary of the story. There’s actually a ton of information crammed in along the way. In fact, for a while it feels as if every other scene includes yet another long and often tedious info dump. Everyone Neo meets seems to have a lot of explaining to do before the film can ever move forward. It’s so noticeable that you can’t help but laugh as you wait for their long-winded conversations wrap up.

Among the other new faces we meet is Neil Patrick Harris who plays Thomas’ therapist who tries to help Neo distinguish his reoccurring dreams from “reality”. We also get a dry and bland Jonathan Groff as a new version of Neo’s arch-nemesis Agent Smith. It’s obvious Groff is trying his best to recreate the villain made famous by Hugo Weaving in the first three films. Unfortunately he can’t muster half the charisma or menace that Weaving brought to the role. As a result, this iteration of Smith falls flat.

There are several other noticeable issues that I couldn’t quite shake. For example, early on there’s this whole weird self-aggrandizing meta angle where Wachowski uses game designers in a brainstorming session to tout how smart, challenging, and subversive the Matrix movies are. The problem is it never feels natural to the story. Instead it feels like a filmmaker trying to be funny or clever (honestly it’s hard to tell which).

There’s also the issue of the movie’s rather generic effects. Like them or not, the Matrix movies have always had a slick and cool look, especially during the stylish action sequences. But here nothing stands out which is surprising considering how far digital effects have come. But even the fight scenes lack energy and come across as uninspired.

As for the performances, everyone is doing the best they can. But the script (co-written by Wachowski, David Mitchell, and Aleksandar Hemon) gives them painfully little to work with. Even the movie’s philosophical ramblings (a staple of the earlier films) aren’t nearly as smart or engaging as the movie thinks they are. Ultimately we’re left with a sequel that may have enough nostalgic callbacks to satisfy hardcore fans. For the rest of us it’s a needless revisit that lacks the originality of the first film and the memorable action sequences of the two earlier sequels. “The Matrix: Resurrections” is now showing in theaters and is streaming on HBO Max.

VERDICT – 2 STARS

Merry Christmas!

December 25, 2021 by Keith Garlington

I just wanted to take a second to wish everyone a very Merry Christmas. I hope everyone who celebrates had a wonderful day full of food, family, and festivities. Thank you all so much for another great year on this silly little site of mine. Your reading, likes, comments, and conversations have helped make this whole movie review gig worthwhile. I can’t wait to see what 2022 gives us to talk about. God’s blessings to each of you, your families, and your new year.