REVIEW: “Night Hunter” (2019)

October 8, 2019 by Keith Garlington

From the very start of writer-director David Raymond’s psychological crime thriller “Night Hunter” you feel like you’re in familiar territory. From the opening scene until the end of its cookie-cutter mystery, there’s nothing about the movie that comes across as original. Yet still this by-the-book thriller manages to be moderately entertaining and disappointing at the same time.

Henry Cavill leads a cast plump with recognizable names. He plays the growling, scowling Walter Marshall, a detective with the Minneapolis police force. After the body of a young women is discovered Marshall deduces she was in fact fleeing a captor. The case goes cold until the police cross paths with a vigilante former judge named Michael Cooper (Ben Kingsley) and his potty-mouthed teenage partner Lara (Eliana Jones). These two lure in sexual predators and then quite literally…fix them. I’m not making this up.

The lone slice of uniqueness comes when the girl’s killer is apprehended early into the movie. He turns out to be a schizophrenic serial rapist who goes by the name of Simon (played by scene-munching Brendan Fletcher). There’s an internal tension about how they should approach Simon. A rookie psychological profiler (Alexandra Daddario) believes they need to be patient and get into his head. Walter believes Simon is faking and stringing them along as part of his game. There’s enough there for an interesting internal storyline but unfortunately it doesn’t go very far.

Needless to say we do get a big twist/reveal which is as ridiculous as it is predictable. It steers the movie in a weird direction where we watch it borrow from even more serial killer thrillers that came before it. Still, there would have been enough within the story’s concept to be entertaining if the characters were the slightest bit interesting.

Cavill leads the way and all he is asked to do is brood and be as dour as possible. Daddario is given one lone scene to show some independent thought (and it’s really bizarre). Otherwise she’s stuck as a tag-along character void of any real agency. Oh, we also get Stanley Tucci and Nathan Fillion but neither are given anything to do.

The film’s icy setting and intriguing cast work in its favor but that’s about it. It has an interesting idea which it toys with but never explores. Instead “Night Hunter” embraces things other movies have done better making it come across as unoriginal and predictable. It’s such a shame and an unfortunate waste of some pretty good potential.

VERDICT – 2 STARS

REVIEW: “Joker” (2019)

October 6, 2019 by Keith Garlington

The concept of the new “Joker” movie should have been enough to excite me from the start. A dark, psychological, and unflinching dig into the mentally fractured life of the most iconic DC Comics villain? Right up my alley. And then you top it off by casting the insanely intense and always committed Joaquin Phoenix. All the ingredients are there yet since the very first trailer I found myself more cautious than enthusiastic.

Three concerns kept my expectations in check. 1) The film is from Todd Phillips whose movies I generally struggle with and who has never done anything quite like this. Could he pull it off? 2) Phillips came out early saying “people are gonna be mad“. Did that mean he was straying completely away from the source material and simply milking the Joker name for attention and publicity? 3) Lastly, much of what makes Joker so unsettling comes from the mysteries of who he is and where he comes from. Would lifting that veil strip the character of his signature menace?

The quick answers to those questions: Yes, No, and No. More pointedly, what Phillips has made is pretty spectacular – a relentlessly grim character study of a madman on the edge and a stinging rebuke of the morally bankrupt society that pushes him over it. Furthermore, no one can say “Joker” is politically agnostic, but its societal critique is far from one-sided and the film features more narrative and critical depth than I ever expected. Oh, and it’s also one cracking setup for one of pop culture’s most sinister villains.

“Joker” is a comic book movie similar to “Logan” in that it was let off the studio leash and allowed to make its own rules. It isn’t bound by any genre convention or expectation and it has no direct tie to any previous DC movie. This gave Phillips and company a ton of freedom and obviously they ran with it. Most surprising to me (a long-time fan of the Clown Prince) is how Phillips impressively balances having an original vision with capturing the essence of such an established character.

The movie’s bleakness begins with its introduction to Arthur Fleck (Phoenix) who lives with his sickly mother (Frances Conroy) on the impoverished outskirts of Gotham City. Arthur is an ambitious but unstable man who works for a rag-tag clown-for-hire agency but dreams of one day being a stand-up comedian. From the very beginning we know the deck is stacked against him and that’s a big part of Phillips’ message.

You could say Arthur represents society’s fringe, the dismissed and disenfranchised. They are vividly contrasted with the powerful upper-class elites embodied in billionaire Thomas Wayne (Brett Cullen). The concept of the ‘haves’ vs. ‘have-nots’ is a central premise and it’s often quite potent. Other times it can be glaringly on-the-nose. But it does feed the idea that Gotham is a powder keg where crime and poverty grows in one community while the other seems oblivious to it.

But it’s not as though Arthur finds compassion among the hardened lower-class. Even there he is considered an outcast. The lone exception is a sweet single mom (Zazie Beetz) who lives in the apartment down the hall. But even she can’t keep Arthur from cracking. Soon his fragile optimism gives way to angst and bitterness revealing something much darker curdling within him. In a way he begins to mirror Gotham City – a ticking time-bomb inevitably bound to explode. This leads the story deeper into the depths of human depravity as Arthur inadvertently triggers an equally vile side of humanity masquerading as an uprising.

All of those story beats are important but the real genius of “Joker” is in how it puts us in Arthur’s head. The entire story is told from his point of view. It’s a critical use of perspective that drives the movie and infuses it with some unexpected psychological layers. Arthur is our narrator, our guide through a madman’s mind as his derangement festers. But how reliable is he and how much of what we see can we believe? This fact vs. fiction dynamic is key.

There lies the wickedly effective trick Phillips and his co-screenwriter Scott Silver pull off smashingly. And it’s one that has provoked a bevy of different interpretations. Take the controversies that have sprung up since the film’s enthusiastic debut at the Venice Film Festival. Accusations that it incites and/or condones violence comes from very strict and literal readings of a few provocative scenes. But nothing about the story or its structure encourages a strict, literal reading.

I don’t want to completely dismiss the criticisms simply because I can’t speak to how it may effect someone in a troubled head-space. And while the film doesn’t aim to be a comprehensive examination of mental illness, some could find it’s tough-minded and unwavering portrayal of its subject matter to be problematic. Despite that, neither the movie’s message nor its intent is the promotion or acceptance of violence. In fact, its convictions are far more judgmental and damning.

Perhaps most important is how the script allows plenty of room for Joaquin Phoenix to let loose. His performance is raw, intense and hypnotic. You simply can’t take your eyes off of him. Whether it’s his jarring physical transformation (rumor has it he lost over 50 lbs for the role) or the chilling gaze of his cold, empty eyes. Phoenix brings an astonishing amount of ‘new’ to a character that’s been done many times before. I can’t see a scenario where he doesn’t get his fourth Oscar nomination.

Other standout reasons for the film’s success: Icelandic composer Hildur Guðnadóttir creates what is easily one of my favorite scores of the year. Her music is haunting and unsettling yet never intrusive. And so often it’s pivotal in developing and managing the film’s edgy tone. Cinematographer Lawrence Sher shoots both Arthur and Gotham with the same gritty, arresting visual aesthetic and several of his images are still etched in my mind. And I haven’t even mentioned Robert De Niro. He plays Gotham City’s Johnny Carson, a late night talk show host named Murray Franklin. Think Rupert Pupkin if he had made it big. He is who Arthur dreams of one day becoming.

As “Joker” slow-walks us towards its eventual maelstrom of iniquity it never spells out how we should feel about its titular character. It burrows under our skin and plays with our perceptions, but ultimately it’s up to us to sort it all out and reach our own conclusions. Considering the controversies maybe that has backfired a bit. But a more thoughtful evaluation reveals an audacious film that isn’t cavalier towards its violence nor numb to its effects. I saw it as a terrifying warning and an indictment of a society that not only creates monsters but often lifts them up. Then again, maybe that’s all in my head.

VERDICT – 5 STARS

First Glance: “Richard Jewell”

October 4, 2019 by Keith Garlington

The story of security guard Richard Jewell is as fascinating as it is troubling. Director Clint Eastwood’s new film simply titled “Richard Jewell” chronicles his life following the Centennial Olympic Park bombing of 1996. Jewell discovered the bomb and quickly began clearing people out of the area saving many lives. But some were quick to brand him the bomber and the media ran with the story, vilifying Jewell despite having unreliable information and sources.

Character actor Paul Walter Hauser plays Richard Jewell and he is surrounded by a wealth of talent including Sam Rockwell, Olivia Wylde, Kathy Bates, and John Hamm. The first trailer seems to indicate that the film will be digging deeper into those surrounding Jewell – the media, the government, his devoted attorney, his loving mother. It’s compelling stuff. Let’s see if Eastwood can bring it all together.

“Richard Jewell” opens December 13th. Check out the trailer below and let me know if you’ll be seeing it or taking a pass.

REVIEW: “Rambo: Last Blood”

October 3, 2019 by Keith Garlington

What a crazy 37 years it has been for Sylvester Stallone’s John J. Rambo. In 1982 he battled PTSD and a backwoods sheriff in upstate Washington. In 1985 he went back to Vietnam at the behest of crooked Washington bureaucrats. In 1988 he traveled to Afghanistan to fight the Soviets and save a friend. In 2008 he led a group of mercenaries into war-torn Burma to rescue a Christian missionaries. He’s done a lot, seen a lot, killed a lot.

And just when you thought Rambo’s cinematic tour of duty was done, the 73-year-old Stallone dusts off the character for one final fight (at least that’s what the title implies). “Rambo: Last Blood” doesn’t send the war-scarred vet too a far from home. This time the story has him bouncing back and forth between his dusty ranch in Arizona and Mexico.

Eleven years after the events of the not-so-great 2008 film Rambo has found a semblance of peace on his family’s old home place. He lives there with his housekeeper (Adriana Barraza) and her granddaughter Gabriela (Yvette Monreal) who he has raised as his own daughter. But Rambo and happiness have never went together so you know his retirement from one-man armying is doomed from the start.

When Gabriela learns the whereabouts of her birth father in Mexico, she goes against Rambo’s wishes and sneaks south of the border to find him. In the most predictable of turns she is snatched up by human traffickers working for a local drug cartel. To no surprise Rambo doesn’t take it sitting down. He heads to Mexico to rescue Gabriela stoking a war with the cartel in the process.

Full disclosure, I’m a big fan of the first three Rambo movies. They were silly, bombastic, and a ton of fun. They were full of energy, big action, and really driven performances from Stallone. The forth film came some twenty years after “Rambo III” and went in a grittier, gorier, and more joyless direction. “Last Blood” falls more in line with the last film instead of the original three. It’s darker, bloodier, and Stallone looks completely worn out.

To be fair, Rambo is supposed to be worn out considering the life he has lived. We see a little of that during an early and brief PTSD sequence that is unfortunately dropped and never revisited. That’s a story thread I wish had been explored. But Sly’s performance itself seems drained of all energy and emotion. He (not just his character) looks tired. Admittedly it’s still good to see him back in the role even if he lacks the zest you expect.

The most noticeable thing about “Last Blood” is how its story really doesn’t resemble anything else from the franchise. It particularly lacks the big action moments the others films are known for. Yes there are a few sudden bursts of graphic violence but nothing that will stick with you. And it’s especially true for the final ten minutes which is this frantic blood-soaked collage of grisly kills that’s over in a snap. Little buildup, extremely rushed, and it ends with this absurdly gruesome moment that’s completely out of sync with the better films of the franchise.

Surprisingly I liked the setup of “Last Blood” more than the payoff. The movie deals with some pretty heavy subject matter and despite not giving it the emotional weight or depth it deserves, it’s still pretty effective table-setting. Yes, the predictable cries of xenophobia are out there which some may find cathartic in today’s politically-charged climate. But a more level-headed look at the film finds its problems lie elsewhere. And unfortunately there are plenty of them.

VERDICT – 2.5 STARS

First Glance: “Birds of Prey”

October 2, 2019 by Keith Garlington

When DC Films released the stink bomb that was “Suicide Squad” there wasn’t much to like. The lone bright spot was Margot Robbie’s Harley Quinn and that’s no exaggeration. It seems DC was paying attention. The new trailer has dropped for “Birds of Prey” and guess who gets the bulk of the attention?

“Birds of Prey” is based on the DC Comics all female superhero team. Interestingly I don’t think the team ever included Harley Quinn. But Judging by the trailer she’s clearly the film’s focus and she even finds her name in the subtitle “and the Fantabulous Emancipation of One Harley Quinn”. Hopefully she doesn’t dominate the entire movie because there are some really great characters in the group and it would be a shame to see them wasted.

“Birds of Prey” is set to release February 7, 2020. Check out the trailer below and let me know if you’ll be seeing it or taking a pass.

Denzel Day #5 : “The Bone Collector” (1999)

October 2, 2019 by Keith Garlington

Over a span of three months each Wednesday will be Denzel Day at Keith & the Movies. This silly little bit of ceremony offers me a chance to celebrate the movies of a truly great modern day actor – Denzel Washington.

“The Bone Collector” is without a doubt one of the oddest films in Denzel Washington’s filmography. Not because of anything it does intentionally. But because of its peculiar mixture of intriguing premise, conventional genre beats, great performances, and certain story angles too preposterous to fully digest.

Based on Jeffery Deaver’s 1997 novel, “The Bone Collector” is a crime thriller that has a lot of things going for it. It starts with the cast, specifically Denzel Washington. He plays Lincoln Rhyme, a brilliant NYPD forensics expert who is left paralyzed after an accident at an active crime scene. Four years pass and a depressed Lincoln is bed-ridden in his New York apartment and dependent upon his loyal around-the-clock nurse Thelma (played by Queen Latifah).

Unhappy with his quality of life, Lincoln tries to convince a doctor friend to help him end his life. But he regains a spark for life after a police colleague (Ed O’Neill) seeks his help in profiling a murder. A beat cop named Amelia Donaghy (Angelina Jolie) was the first officer on the scene and discovered the carefully staged murder. Lincoln is instantly drawn to her instincts and demands she helps on the case if he is to help them find the killer.

Here’s the first instance of things getting a little goofy. The NYPD sets up shop in Lincoln’s Manhattan apartment, complete with high-tech forensic gear, laboratory equipment and an entire task force to man it all. Who knew it was so easy? The only stick-in-the-mud is Michael Rooker’s character. He plays your prototypical contrarian police captain who is either on an ego trip or has an axe to grind. We never really know because his motives are as clear as a glass of muddy water.

Director Phillip Noyce (who also made the highly acclaimed thriller “Dead Calm”) moves things along at an odd pace. It’s so lethargic that I began to wonder if it was some kind of subversive style choice. But you quickly realize it’s just a slow-moving, by-the-books whodunit where a killer comes up with creative and grisly ways of killing his victims while leaving clues for the heroes to piece together. Pretty familiar stuff.

All of that is really a shame because (again) the performances from top to bottom are really good. Both Washington and Jolie really elevate the material and make their characters interesting. But they need more depth, especially Jolie’s Amelia who came across as more of a sketch than fully fleshed out. O’Neill, Queen Latifah, and Luis Guzman each offer good supporting turns.

Ultimately “The Bone Collector” ends up squandering it’s interesting premise and strong casting. It’s never boring and I always enjoy watching great performers do their thing. But the film is lined with too much silliness, too many contrivances, and a lack of originality that keeps it from setting itself apart from the many other thrillers of its kind which were so popular at the time.