REVIEW: “Uncharted” (2022)

February 21, 2022 by Keith Garlington

There’s really no need to rehash the long and painful history of video game movies. For various reasons, video games just haven’t translated well to the big screen. At first, there wasn’t enough to the games to warrant a film version (movies like “Super Mario Bros” and “Street Fighter” are prime examples). These days video games offer more than enough content to fill a movie yet filmmakers still struggle to get them right. Now there’s a stigma attached and many critics are quick to dismiss any movie that carries the ‘video game adaptation’ tag.

Yet these adaptations still keep coming. One reason is because video game developers have become incredible storytellers. Countless video games thrust their players into immersive narrative-driven experiences on par with all other story-based entertainment. These worlds, characters, relationships, and adventures offer plenty of big screen inspiration. It’s the execution part that trips filmmakers up.

The latest game-to-movie adaptation is “Uncharted”, a sprawling action-adventure based on the Sony PlayStation franchise of the same name from game developer Naughty Dog. It’s helmed by Ruben Fleischer (“Zombieland”, “Venom”) who was handed a whopping $120 million budget from Sony Pictures to finally make a movie that’s been in various stages of development for 15 years.

The game and now the movie’s chief protagonist is Nathan Drake, an ambitious treasure hunter and descendant of famed 16th century explorer Sir Francis Drake. Here, Nathan is played by Tom Holland who gives us a noticeably younger version of the character. He fits the story (penned by Rafe Lee Judkins, Art Marcum, and Matt Holloway) even if not everything about his character makes sense. That’s because the movie rushes through his backstory, confining it to a brief prologue and a couple of exposition drops. That helps get right to the action, but it also leaves Nathan feeling a bit shallow.

Getting by as a part-time bartender and a part-time pickpocket, Nathan’s true love is history. He learned it from his older brother Sam who took off 15 years earlier. Sam swore to come back and get Nathan but never did. I believe that’s meant to be a point of conflict within Nathan, but (as with so much of the movie) there’s very little time given to the emotions of the characters. I think Holland gets to shed a tear in one scene, but otherwise none of the characters ever get to convey any deeper feelings.

One evening Nathan is approached by seasoned treasure hunter, Victor “Sully” Sullivan (Mark Wahlberg) who tells him about the lost gold of explorer Ferdinand Magellan. Sully thinks he has found the key to discovering the gold’s location, but he needs Nathan’s help. Despite his love for history and his dreams of adventure, Nathan is reluctant to sign on. But when Sully mentions his past connections with Sam (who was also after Magellan’s loot) Nathan agrees to come, thinking if he finds the gold he may find his brother.

Of course with such noteworthy treasure still undiscovered there are sure to be other parties on the hunt. Enter Santiago Moncada, a wealthy and quite ruthless Spaniard who has long had his sights on Magellan’s gold. He’s played by the always good but (here) woefully underutilized Antonio Banderas, who gets to do a little mustache twirling but never gets to fully extend himself as the antagonist. And there are other people in the mix including Moncada’s hired mercenary Braddock (Tati Gabrielle) and Sully’s untrusting colleague Chloe (Sophia Ali).

As the movie hops from New York to Barcelona to the Philippines, we get a couple of big set pieces, a few fight scenes, and lots of parkour. We get questions of loyalty as the old ‘honor among thieves’ mantra pops up again and again. And of course there are a handful of Easter eggs that people who haven’t played the game will never get – a naughty dog decal stuck on a trunk, Nolan North (the voice actor who plays Nathan in the games) lounging on the beach, etc.

“Uncharted” really leans on its star power, especially Holland who plays a very Holland-like character – charismatic, boyishly charming, a bit daffy, and with an unshakable innocence (even when he tries to talk tough). Wahlberg is a sturdy fit for an otherwise one-dimensional role and Gabrielle has quite the screen presence. Unfortunately the story keeps them all tightly confined in their genre roles as the movie checks off the typical boxes. No one is allowed to really dig deeper into these characters. Still there’s enough entertainment packaged into this otherwise conventional action flick to offer a nice two-hour escape.

Sadly, many critics will automatically lump “Uncharted” in with all the other video game movies. And they’ll examine it first and foremost through that particularly sour and jaded lens. So right out of the gate the movie is forced to tote baggage it shouldn’t have to. In reality, there’s nothing about “Uncharted” that screams “video game adaptation”. It’s an action-adventure movie that borrows more from Bond and “Raiders of the Lost Ark” than some video game movie formula.

So with that said, how does “Uncharted” play as a MOVIE – no qualifiers or categories. In a nutshell, it does what it sets out to do. It’s entertaining enough with a couple of set pieces that really pop on the big screen. The banter between Holland and Wahlberg is fun although it does run its course. It’s all far-fetched and silly and relies on a lot of conveniences to propel its story forward. But whatever, “Uncharted” gets by and is worth a watch for genre fans and fans of the characters. It’s not a movie you’ll revisit over and over again, but it’s also not the train wreck some will be quick to label it as. “Uncharted” is now showing in theaters.

VERDICT – 3 STARS

First Glance: “The Contractor”

February 18, 2022 by Keith Garlington

Chris Pine leads a new action film called “The Contractor”. The film comes from television producer, graffiti artist, journalist, and film director Tarik Saleh. It was actually shot way back in 2019 where it went by the name “Violence of Action” (changing it was a good move). Now it’s set for an official release via Paramount Pictures and yesterday the first trailer dropped. In addition to Pine several other familiar faces appear including Ben Foster, Kiefer Sutherland, Gillian Jacobs, Nina Hoss, and Eddie Marsan.

Pine plays James Harper, a soldier who (by no choice of his own) is given his honorable discharge from the U.S. Special Forces. Now struggling to support his family, he joins his best friend (Foster) in taking a job with a private contracting firm ran by a fellow military veteran (Sutherland). But once he learns his employer is running crooked jobs for the U.S. government it puts him at odds with his boss. Soon he’s fighting for his life (as action stars tend to do in situations like this). While there are several familiar strokes to the story, it looks entertaining enough.

“The Contractor” opens in theaters on April 1st. Check out the trailer below and let me know if you’ll be seeing it or taking a pass.

REVIEW: “Texas Chainsaw Massacre” (2022)

February 18, 2022 by Keith Garlington

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

None of the countless attempts at remaking, rebooting, or following the original “The Texas Chainsaw Massacre” have been able to hold a candle to the original. I say that because I hold Hooper’s ‘74 film in such high regard. It’s a horror movie that I still vividly remember seeing for the first time. It would have been in the mid-1980s on a VHS tape rented from one of my hometown video rental shops. I remember being unnerved from the very start as a young John Laroquette, with the tension-soaked seriousness of an investigative reporter, warns us about the events we are about to see. I remember the queasy whine of a photographer’s flashbulbs as he or she shoots a gruesome crime scene. Within seconds Hooper had me in his clutches and kept me there all the way through. I can’t say the same for the other “Chainsaw” movies.

Directed by David Blue Garcia and written for the screen by Chris Thomas Devlin, this new “Texas Chainsaw Massacre” caught my attention by framing itself as a direct sequel to Hooper’s original. The problem is it doesn’t resemble the original in any way – not in style, not in tone, and certainly not in story. In fact there’s practically no connecting tissue whatsoever other than a madman with a chainsaw who wears a mask of human flesh and the pointless inclusion of Sally Hardesty, the lone survivor of the first film (she was originally played by the late Marilyn Burns but here by Olwen Fouéré).

Set nearly 50 years after the events of the first film, “Chainsaw” 2022 follows a group of four twentysomethings who we’re supposed to believe are fledgling entrepreneurs. A wacky business venture takes them to the dried-up Texas town of Harlow (which looks more like a studio lot than an actual place). If I understand it correctly (because the movie isn’t much for details), the bank reclaimed all of Harlow’s properties. Melody (Sarah Yarkin) and Dante (Jacob Latimore) acquired the properties and are scheduled to host a group of investors to come tour the place. They’ll then auction off parts of the town to the highest bidders who will then bring in businesses and rebuild Harlow in their own idealistic image.

While waiting on the tour bus full of investors to arrive, Melody, her troubled sister Lila (Elsie Fisher), Dante, and his girlfriend Ruth (Nell Hudson) begin exploring the deserted town. While checking out an old orphanage, they’re surprised to learn that not all of the townsfolk have left. More specifically, a sickly old lady and her hulking son who for some reason wears a butcher’s apron and always has his face conveniently obscured by shadows.

As you can probably guess, the woman’s son is indeed the brutally terrifying Leatherface and things quickly turn nasty. But don’t expect anything in terms of backstory. Garcia and Devlin don’t tell us anything about who this woman is, how she and Leatherface came together, or what they’re doing in Harlow. They’re just there. This wouldn’t be much of an issue if this was just another tired reboot. But when you tout your movie as a direct sequel, questions like this are inevitable. Yet they’re all but ignored by a film that’s far more interested in showering its audience in blood and guts.

Full disclosure: I’m not a crusader against gore, especially in slasher movies where it’s more of a celebrated trope rather than something taken seriously. This new “Chainsaw” goes full-on slasher and is loaded with enough grisly carnage to make gorehounds giddy. And if I were to praise one element of the movie as a legitimate strength, it would be the wickedly creative ways they devise for Leatherface to kill his faceless rabble of victims.

Here’s the problem, Hooper’s original was raw and harrowing, but it wasn’t a slasher film. Yes, it thrusts the viewer into a macabre world marked by its unsettling indifference to human suffering. But it relied on building discomfort and a persistent sense of dread rather than graphic bloodshed. It’s a much different story with this “sequel”. Creative carnage is all it has which is yet another way it feels at odds with the 1974 film it claims to follow.

Other than a handful of cool Easter eggs, there’s not much else worth mentioning. I can’t praise the story which is too shallow to be a standalone horror movie much less a sequel to a revered classic. I certainly can’t praise the bland and flavorless characters, none worse than Sally Hardesty who’s shamelessly thrown into a couple of scenes just so they can call this a sequel. But in reality this iteration is nothing more than a hollow forgettable disappointment. One that borrows the name “Texas Chainsaw Massacre”, but has no real resemblance to the movie that made that title famous. “Texas Chainsaw Massacre” is now streaming on Netflix.

VERDICT – 2 STARS

First Glance: “Elvis”

February 17, 2022 by Keith Garlington

Baz Luhrmann is a filmmaker with a style all his own. Over the years it’s a style that has earned him as much criticism as praise. Personally, Luhrmann’s handful of films have been a struggle for me which is why I wasn’t sure about him doing a movie on Elvis Presley. Yet here we are with the trailer for a film first announced in 2014, officially green-lit in 2019, started shooting in 2020, and wrapped up in 2021. This first detailed look gives us a lot to chew on. And I have to admit, it has me more interested in this movie than I was before.

Austin Butler gets the duty of playing Elvis Presley. And while there are moments of resemblance, there are also times where he looks more like John Travolta, Val Kilmer, or Ray Liotta. We get a glimpse of Presley’s childhood, but the film mostly chronicles his monumental rise from struggling act to a rock-and-roll legend. Tom Hanks gets a meaty role playing Elvis’ manager Colonel Tom Parker and Olivia DeJonge plays Priscilla Presley. The film also features Luke Bracey, Yola Quartey, Kelvin Harrison Jr., Dacre Montgomery, Richard Roxburgh, David Wenham, and Kodi Smit-McPhee, among others. I have no idea how this will turn out. But if Luhrmann’s style can be present but in-check, this could be pretty good.

“Elvis” opens in theaters June 24th. Check out the trailer below and let me know if you’ll be seeing it or taking a pass.

REVIEW: “Munich – The Edge of War” (2022)

February 17, 2022 by Keith Garlington

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

Jeremy Irons plays Neville Chamberlain in Netflix’s new wartime feature “Munich – The Edge of War”. The film offers up a reappraisal of the often maligned British Prime Minister, a man that quickly became synonymous with humiliation, weakness, and appeasement. This film (an adaptation of the Robert Harris bestseller) dares to question the long-held perception of the complicated leader. Not to absolve him of naïveté or poor judgement. But to make a case that Chamberlain’s motivations were rooted in strategic foresight rather than incompetence.

Chamberlain was a firm believer in peace through diplomacy. In September 1938, with Germany preparing to invade Czechoslovakia and with his military in no shape to mount a defensive, Chamberlain arranged a meeting with Adolf Hitler, French Minister Edouard Daladier, and Italian dictator Benito Mussolini in Munich. The short-term goal of the conference was to discourage the Führer from invading Czechoslovakia. Long-term it was to avoid the growing possibility of a Second World War.

The meeting ended with Britain and France acquiescing to Hitler’s demands, handing over to him the Sudetenland region of Czechoslovakia. Chamberlain hoped it would quell the Führer’s increasing appetite for territory. It didn’t. Chamberlain returned home, telling an enthusiastic and relieved British public that he had secured “peace with honor“. But just as his harshest critic and eventual successor Winston Churchill predicted, it only took Hitler a few short months to prove Chamberlain wrong. Germany seized what remained of Czechoslovakia and shortly after invaded Poland, setting World War II in motion.

Directed by German filmmaker Christian Schwochow and penned by screenwriter Ben Power, “Munich – The Edge of War” factors in all of the above history to tell the story of the Munich Agreement but from a unique point-of-view. While Irons’ Neville Chamberlain is certainly a key player, the historical account mostly unfolds through the fictional friendship of two Oxford graduates – one British and one German.

British diplomat Hugh Legat (George MacKay) and German foreign ministry aide Paul von Hartmann (Jannis Niewöhner) were best of friends until a dictator’s politics tore them apart. But with war looming on the horizon, both young men find themselves fighting for peace yet from two very different positions. Hugh works closely with the Prime Minister as he prepares to meet with Hitler. Paul is part of a secret opposition group within the German government whose plan to oust the Führer is stymied by the Munich conference.

Schwochow and Power pluck several pieces from history, add in their own twists, and graft them into this gripping story which turns out to be equal part political drama and spy thriller. While the disastrous result of the Munich meeting are well known, the movie’s real drama surrounds secret documents that detail Hitler’s real expansionist plans (seemingly inspired by the real-life Hossbach Memorandum). When they fall into the opposition’s hands, Paul is tasked with smuggling them to Munich where he is to secretly use the documents to dissuade Chamberlain from signing a treaty with Hitler. But to get close to the Prime Minister he’ll need the help of his old friend, Hugh.

The movie also puts its own spin on the Oster Conspiracy, a secret plan proposed by high-ranking German officers in 1938 to assassinate Hitler and overthrow the Nazi regime. In the movie, the German opposition consider a backup plan to kill Hitler in case Paul and Hugh are unable to convince Chamberlain in Munich. Adding yet another dramatic layer, August Diehl (so good in 2019’s “A Hidden Life”) plays a German SS officer who begins to suspect that Paul and Hugh are in cahoots.

The movie is energized by Tim Pannen’s stellar production design. One of the keys was the choice to film in the real locations including the actual Führerbau – the very building in Munich where the Czechs were sold-out by their British “ally”. There’s also a tremendous attention to detail from the period-accurate costumes to the vintage cars that fill the streets to the scarlet Nazi banners adorning buildings, cars, and uniforms. Everything here looks exactly right.

And back to the performances, to no surprise Irons is brilliant, portraying Chamberlain as warm and endearing yet blinded by his own optimism. We also get passionate and textured work from MacKay and Niewöhner. Everyone here clicks and so does this movie – a riveting and entertaining blend of history and fiction that may not convince everyone to reconsider Neville Chamberlain, but it certainly gives us plenty to chew on. “Munich – The Edge of War” is now streaming on Netflix.

VERDICT – 4 STARS

First Glance: “Father Stu”

February 16, 2022 by Keith Garlington

Easily one of the strangest trailers I’ve seen in awhile came a couple of days ago. It was for “Father Stu”, a nearly impossible to define drama that sees Mark Wahlberg go from a womanizing boxer to an upright Catholic priest. Yep, you heard me right. The film is written and directed by Rosalind Ross and features a supporting cast that’s anchored by Mel Gibson and Jacki Weaver. Clearly it’s set as a redemption story, but the weirdness of Wahlberg playing a priest is tough to get past.

The film tells the real-life story of the late Fr. Stuart Long. As mentioned, it’s a story of redemption that also seeks to inspire. Long‘s journey from fighter to friar begins when he meets and is instantly smitten with a Sunday school teacher Carmen (Teresa Ruiz). A terrible motorcycle accident leaves him worried that he has lost his second chance at life. But he soon realizes that he can still help and inspire others despite his deteriorating health. Obviously there is some good dramatic material here. Hopefully Wahlberg can pull it off.

“Father Stu” hits theaters April 15th. Check out the trailer below and let me know if you’ll be seeing it or taking a pass.