The 5 Worst Movies of 2019

January 9, 2020 by Keith Garlington

This is the time of year where we celebrate the best films and best performances from the year that was. This post is not that. Instead today I’m taking time to give 2019’s biggest stinkers their moment to…..shine. While it ended up being a good year for movies it wasn’t without its blemishes. Here are the five worst films *I SAW* in 2018.

#5 – “Isn’t it Romantic”

Tell me if you’ve heard this before: a character bumps their noggin, wakes up to some wacky side effects, has a life-changing epiphany, and then all is right in the world. Well, “Isn’t it Romantic” is another one of those. It’s main comedy conceit is that Rebel Wilson is caught in a romcom. But in the process of satirizing the genre, it becomes the very thing it’s spoofing (and not a very good one).

#4 – “The Fanatic”

To say it has been a rocky time for John Travolta’s career may be the understatement of the century. This 2019 disaster is an uncomfortably ugly and seemingly pointless look at celebrity obsession. Along the way the film dabbles in some toothless black humor (I think), fails to generate an ounce of tension, and features a cringe-worthy portrayal of autism/mental health. Not sure how this movie got off the ground but it sure landed with a thud.

#3 – “Booksmart”

After hearing so much buzz I went into this film with high hopes. I left feeling I had sat through yet another galling, unoriginal raunchy teen comedy dependent on the same tired cliches and full of recycled stock characters, many of them dialed up to 10. There are a couple of emotionally strong moments, but they’re lost within a mire of teen movie tropes, rehashed raunch, and boring caricatures. I know, I know, “Booksmart” is loved by many. I saw it as a sloppy Superbad 2.0 wannabe, and a poor one at that.

#2 – “Polar”

This movie had all the pieces in place to be something really, really cool (no pun intended). But as its presence on this list indicates, “Polar” wasn’t cool. It wasn’t fun. In fact it was barely watchable. How can you get the terrific Mads Mikkelsen onboard playing a patch-wearing ex-assassin yet still botch this movie so badly. Far too much time was wasted on mindless, gratuitous, and trashy nonsense and in the end no amount of stylized action or slick camera work could make up for it.

#1 – “The Haunting of Sharon Tate”

Nothing sounded right about this movie from the very start. Taking the horrific real-life murder of Sharon Tate and four others by the Manson family and infusing it with fictional nonsense about premonitions and supernatural mumbo-jumbo seemed to be in bad taste. It turned out to be even worse – exploitative, soulless, and without an ounce a shame. And even if you could look past its offense, the shoddy performances, vapid dialogue, and complete lack of tension would be enough to earn it a spot on this list.

First Glance: “The New Mutants”

January 8, 2020 by Keith Garlington

In case someone was under the impression that comic book movies were on the decline (and who on earth would actually think that) the 20th Century Fox division of Disney’s Marvel movies has a new one right around the corner. “The New Mutants” was first pitched back in 2014 but has had a pretty drastic change of direction since. That said, it was never a movie on my radar.

“The New Mutants” moved from being a simple X-Men spin-off picture to a superhero horror movie, something that makes its potentially dull concept at least a little interesting. A new batch of young mutants are discovering their powers but instead of finding the compassionate Charles Xavier and his school for the gifted they find themselves being held in a secret test facility ran by people who (obviously) don’t have their best intentions in mind.

The new trailer is now out in the wild and shows a mix of teen horror and mutant discovery. We’ve seen them both before but never together like this. I can’t say I’m all that excited but let’s see where it goes. The film hits theaters April 3rd. Check out the trailer below and let me know if you’ll be seeing it or taking a pass.

REVIEW: “Ana” (2020)

January 8, 2020 by Keith Garlington

Hurricane Maria was a massive Category 5 storm that made landfall in September 2017 and was responsible for catastrophic damage and loss of life. In Puerto Rico alone at least 3,000 people died, there was an estimated $95 billion in damage, 80% of its agriculture was destroyed and much of the commonwealth’s economy was left mostly in ruin.

In director Charles McDougall’s “Ana”, post-Maria Puerto Rico offers a compelling setting and is a key player throughout the film. Its residents struggle to get by any way they can while corrupt congressmen exploit the crisis for political gain. To add an even uglier layer, American mainland con-artists swoop in to swindle gullible locals desperate for some semblance of hope. The movie was shot entirely in Puerto Rico by a Puerto Rican crew who capture not just the island’s hardships but also its immense and diverse beauty. Shot after shot is brimming with local character and flavor.

Slightly subverting the rich visual portrayal of Puerto Rico is the story itself, a tender little drama with a very measured comedic sensibility. Andy Garcia plays Rafa, a struggling used car salesman in San Juan who discovers 11-year-old Ana sleeping in one of the vehicles on his lot. She’s played by Dafne Keen, the mutant youngster from 2017’s “Logan”. Ana had slipped away as her mother was being arrested and now has no place to go.

You know pretty quickly how things are going to go: Ana will take a liking to Rafa, he will push back but eventually warm up, and the two will develop a heart-warming relationship. That’s essentially what happens here. But McDougall and writer Chris Cole make it all about the journey these two take, both individually and as friends. Much like the island itself, Ana and Rafa’s lives are troubled yet they navigate their circumstances the best they can.

The two embark on a road trip of sorts to find someone to take care of Ana but also to drum up $5000 after Rafa runs up a gambling debt with a shady local shark (Ramon Franco). As the odd couple drives Rafa’s beat-up Lincoln TownCar across the island we get some pretty good laughs in large part thanks to Garcia and Keen’s sweet chemistry. But again what sets the film apart is Puerto Rico itself, always in the background slyly expressing some level of social and economic commentary through the camera’s lens.

The movie does hit a speed bump in the second half when a popular local church is introduced into the story. It’s led by the charismatic Pastor Helen (Jeanne Tripplehorn), a Miami-based prosperity preacher who peddles false hope for profit. While this does take the story into some interesting directions, it also causes it to lose a touch of its intimacy and parts of it gets a little far-fetched. But the movie does get back on track on its way to a warm and pleasing conclusion.

Releasing your film’s first trailer and then one week later dropping the movie straight to streaming doesn’t do much for expectations. But “Ana” turns out to be a surprisingly sweet and heartfelt movie. It’s full of warmth and its humor operates at just the right temperature. Best of all, the steady visual portrayal of Puerto Rico is full of character and beauty while also having some thoughtful and important things to say. That’s the piece that separates “Ana” from other movies like it.

VERDICT – 3.5 STARS

REVIEW: “The Grudge” (2020)

January 7, 2020 by Keith Garlington

I originally had no intention of watching “The Grudge”. I wasn’t really interested in a reboot of the 2004 Sarah Michelle Gellar remake of the 2002 original Japanese horror film from Takashi Shimizu. Still with me? But then I saw it was produced by Sam Raimi and its cast included John Cho, Andrea Riseborough, Demián Bichir, and Jackie Weaver. Those were enough names to sell me on giving it a shot.

This darker, grittier vision of the franchise comes from writer-director Nicolas Pesce who blends the obvious supernatural horror with a surprisingly engaging police procedural. It’s an endlessly bleak movie that takes an unexpected dive into grief and human suffering, not from ambivalent spirits (although we certainly get some of that) but from life itself.

Everyone we meet in the film is bearing some kind of painful, emotional burden. A widow is faced with raising her young son alone after her husband dies of cancer. A loving elderly couple struggles as one of them faces late-stage dementia. A young couple gets devastating news about their unborn child. A police detective is still haunted by an unsolved case that caused him to lose his partner. Each of these troubles are well realized by the script and through some rock-solid performances. The problem is I’m still not sure what the movie is trying to say about any of it.

As far as story, Detective Muldoon (Riseborough) and her young son arrive in Cross River, Pennsylvania hoping to make a new start. She joins the local police force and is partnered with the chain-smoking Detective Goodman (Bichir). The two are called to a patch of forest where a decomposed body is discovered in a car. Goodman believes it may be linked to a series of unsolved deaths at 44 Reyburn Drive and wants no part of the investigation. The feds take over but an inquisitive Muldoon begins digging deeper into the history of the house on Reyburn where the deaths took place.

On one hand, I quite liked the investigative aspect of the movie. Through nonlinear storytelling and numerous timeline skips we learn the stories of the people connected to 44 Reyburn Drive. It’s all framed as a part of Muldoon’s fact-finding efforts. But of course we already know the real cause of gruesome horrors. In the prologue an American businesswoman encounters a terrifying entity in Japan which she unknowingly brings back to the States. You can probably guess her home address.

I would be lying if I said I fully understood the rules behind the whole Grudge concept. Supposedly a curse is born in the place where someone is murdered out of extreme rage. Okay, many murders are committed out of rage, right? So shouldn’t these curses be in almost every city on the planet? I’m sure it’s not that simple and I’m probably missing some obvious detail, but it’s a question this movie certainly isn’t all that interested in. But I digress…

The film features some pretty freaky imagery and Pesce certainly knows how to create and manage atmosphere. But as a whole the horror element falls short thanks to a reliance on a few too many jump scares – “BOO” moments that you see coming from a mile away. Also, time is wasted on what I can only call franchise obligations. The bathtub stuff, the creepy wet-haired girl, the clacking death rattle. In nearly every instance these things feel like they are servicing the franchise instead of servicing the story.

In the end this wasn’t a wasted trip to the theater. I enjoyed the unsettling atmosphere and had fun with much of the storytelling. But here’s the thing, much of what I like about “The Grudge” is not what most people are going to that movie hoping to see. And its handful of strengths can’t quite cover its variety of flaws. It ends up being an aggressively middle of the road movie and the kind we’ve come to expect in early January.

VERDICT – 2.5 STARS

Random Thoughts: The 2020 Golden Globes Awards

January 6, 2020 by Keith Garlington

Last night saw the Hollywood Foreign Press rev up the awards season intrigue with the 77th Golden Globes. It was a show that did something I certainly wasn’t expecting – It got almost all of its movie categories right! I found myself actually cheering throughout and now I’m even more excited than usual for next month’s Academy Awards. Of course there were a few surprises, some…peculiar speeches, and (once again) Ricky Gervais. Here are a few Random Thoughts.

Let’s get the big surprise out of the way first – NOTHING for Martin Scorsese’s “The Irishman”. I have to admit I was pretty surprised and I’m not sure anyone saw that coming.
Nothing for Pesci. Nothing for Pacino. Nothing for Steven Zaillian’s incredible screenplay. NOTHING.
I pretty much zoned out during the television stuff. Turns out this is yet another year where I haven’t seen a single nominated TV series. I know, it really is pathetic. That’s why I’m sticking to the movies.
Ricky Gervais was in full “look at what a bad boy of comedy I am” mode. The opening monologue was scathing, but he was stuck in his schtick all night and it got old by the end. That said there were a few real zingers in there and this morning’s headlines show that a few egos were bruised.
“1917” had one heck of a night. The film won one of the night’s biggest prize, Best Picture – Drama. That’s really exciting because the movie looks tremendous. Sadly the majority of us haven’t been able to see it. But that changes Thursday night!
The other big prize went to “Once Upon a Time in Hollywood” which thrilled me. I really like “Jojo Rabbit” and “Knives Out”. But let’s be honest, Tarantino’s latest was the film to beat.
Sam Mendes took home Best Director for “1917” in a category that was absolutely stacked. Every single nominated director deserves their spot on the list. Scorsese, Tarantino, Mendes, Phillips, Bong. What a group!
I actually felt Mendes and Phillips were long shots to win. Scorsese and Tarantino eat up a lot of the conversation. But it was great seeing Phillips and Bong nominated. Again, they deserved it.
Jason Momoa being Jason Momoa and I love it. I mean who needs a tux?

While I loved the majority of the winners, I stand by my position that “Little Women” should have had a bigger presence. Hopefully Oscar will get that right.
Renée Zellweger wins Best Actress – Drama. While she wasn’t my first choice, I have no problems with her win. She was extraordinary.
Best Actress – Musical or Comedy went to Awkwafina for her incredible dramatic turn in “The Farewell”. Her performance was truly eye-opening and seeing her win was delightful.
Speaking of Awkwafina, her acceptance speech was one of my favorites of the night. How could not root for someone so genuinely surprised and grateful. Those are the speeches I love.
Then you have the other type of speech such as the one Michelle Williams gave. It’s 100% their right to spend their time saying whatever they want. But I often tune out the overtly rehearsed attention-grabbing political stuff. And there were several instances of it last night.
Man I loved seeing Hildur Guðnadóttir win Best Original Score for “Joker”. Her brilliant arrangements were essential to that film’s menacing and unsettling tone and atmosphere.
Did everyone else notice there was no Lupita N’yongo? Yes, I know she wasn’t nominated. This is just my gratuitous reminder that she should have been for her stellar work in “Us”.
“Missing Link” wins Best Animated Feature Film? I’m not well versed in this year’s batch of of animated movies but even I know “Missing Link” was one of those head-scratching moments.
It still makes me grumpy to think about “A Hidden Life” and “Ad Astra” both completely shutout of the show. No nominations, mentions, nothing. Such a shame.
Two of the best moments of the night literally made me shout for joy. Brad Pitt winning Best Supporting Actor for “Once Upon a Time in Hollywood” was fantastic. He was absolutely the right choice and his speech was great as well.

The second moment was when Joaquin Phoenix was announced the Best Actor – Drama winner. I would have been fine with Adam Driver, but Phoenix delivers a real stand-out performance unlike anything I’ve seen this year. Bravo.
But then we get his speech, eccentric and disjointed, kinda what you would expect from Phoenix. But there was also a striking bit of humanity to it. That didn’t make it any easier to follow, but it did make for a truly authentic moment. Too bad we couldn’t hear half of it because of his needless potty mouth.
Laura Dern winning for “Marriage Story” was great. She was terrific not just in that film but also “Little Women”. Go ahead and give her the Oscar.
Speaking of “Marriage Story”, despite leading the way with six nominations Dern’s win was the only statute Noah Baumbach’s movie would take home. That’s both surprising and disappointing.
Think about this, the four Netflix movies combined for 17 total nominations but only took home one lone win. I’m no conspiracy theorist, but could this have anything to do with the industry’s reluctance to embrace Netflix? Asking for a friend.
“Parasite” wins Best Foreign Language Film to no one’s surprise. I loved “The Farewell” and enjoyed “Les Miserables”. But let’s be honest, no one was ever going to beat “Parasite”, right?
In accepting the award for “Parasite”, writer-director Bong Joon-Ho gave one of my favorite lines of the night. “Once you overcome the one-inch-tall barrier of subtitles, you will be introduced to so many more amazing films.” Amen!
What the heck was Gwyneth Paltrow wearing? It looked like it was cut from a set of curtains out of a 1970’s hippie’s home. Wasn’t a fan.
For me the only real misfire was Taron Egerton winning Best Actor – Musical or Comedy for “Rocketman”. Egerton was fine but literally my last choice from that list. And him winning says more about the fascination with these music biopic roles come awards time.

Overall I thought the Hollywood Foreign Press picked some great winners which is something I haven’t been able to say in recent years. Now we march towards to the Oscars. What were your thoughts on last night’s big show?

REVIEW: “Judy” (2019)

January 3, 2020 by Keith Garlington

Sadly the well-documented story of Judy Garland is more tragic than beautiful. The incredibly talented but perpetually troubled star of stage and screen was beloved internationally. An amazingly versatile entertainer, Garland would go on to win an Oscar, a Grammy, a Tony, a Golden Globe, and even nominated for an Emmy.

But behind the scenes Garland’s life was marked by mental and physical health struggles, addiction, and financial woes. Director Rupert Goold’s “Judy” takes place on the downside of Garland’s career, from December 1968 and into early 1969, a mere six months before Garland would die from an accidental overdose. It’s an unpretentious and sugar-free account of a falling star’s life as a performer and a mother.

Renée Zellweger commits every ounce of herself to capturing Judy Garland’s many physical and emotional complexities. Essentially homeless and with her two stability-starved children in tow, adult Judy is on the ropes from the start. Her frustrated ex-husband and the children’s father Sid Lift (Rufus Sewell) agrees to take the kids while Judy accepts a five-week engagement at the snazzy London night club Talk of the Town. Her plan is to make enough money to come back to Los Angeles, buy a home, and raise her children. No more performing, no more touring.

Judy arrives in London and is immediately given a stacked schedule by her assigned handler Rosalyn (a very good Jessie Buckley). Her first show goes great, bringing a rousing ovation from the crowd and rave reviews from local critics. But despite her consummate professionalism and personal drive (she knows what’s at stake), Judy’s fragility and insecurity makes every appearance brim with uncertainty. So she pops more pills, gets less sleep, and crumbles before our very eyes.

The story is occasionally interrupted by a series of effective vignettes which look back to Judy’s teen years at MGM (she’s earnestly portrayed in these scenes by Darci Shaw). It paints a sobering picture of a young girl from Grand Rapids, Minnesota caught in the gears of the greedy, abusive studio-era Hollywood machine. Judy is treated as property – overworked and constantly reminded by studio head Louis B. Mayer (Richard Cordery) that there are plenty of prettier girls out there. And aside from shattering her self-esteem, Judy is fed pills that curb her appetite and lay the groundwork for her crippling future addictions.

While these flashbacks do feel very biopic-ish, they do bring to light a thoughtful cause-and-effect dynamic. The film doesn’t fully exonerate Garland from her self-destructive behavior and poor choices, but it does offer some meaningful context and earns her sympathy from those who may not be familiar with her tempestuous life story.

Back to Zellweger, she truly is the driving force of the movie and her performance is more than a imitation, it’s an immersion. Zellweger disappears, replaced by a meticulously performed and fully realized likeness to Judy Garland. We see the many distinct mannerisms: the nervous twitches, forced smiles, squinty stares. And there is a genuine awkwardness to her movements befitting someone walking precariously along a psychological ledge.

And Zellweger sings all of her own tunes. While she may not especially sound like Garland, the emotional resonance from her mixture of song and performance makes it an easy sell. And I’ve read that at this stage in her career Garland’s hard living had taken a toll on her voice. It brought a level of uncertainty to every stage appearance and only added to the singer’s many insecurities. Zellweger channels it through a passionate and wholehearted effort.

“I want what everybody wants,” Judy tells a prying talk-show host. “I just have a harder time getting it.” These are the moments when “Judy” is at its best – when it is digging into the wounded psyche of one of entertainment’s biggest icons. The film does chase a few rabbits (there is an encounter with a fictitious middle-aged gay couple that comes across as overly scripted and manipulative), her marriage to her fifth and final husband Mickey Deans (Finn Wittrock) feels shortchanged, and there are moments where the film is too dependent on Zellweger’s performance to carry it. Still, as an unvarnished look at Judy Garland’s last stand against her demons, the movie works better than expected.