REVIEW: “Spider-Man: Far From Home”

July 9, 2019 by Keith Garlington

Remember back when Peter Parker was a ‘friendly neighborhood Spider-Man’? His stories were intimate, personal and tied to his New York City roots. Despite their faults, the two previous series captured that element of the character very well. The MCU has taken Spidey in a different direction. They are much more interested in Spider-Man the Avenger and connecting him to their sprawling cinematic universe. I kinda miss the old days.

“Spider-Man: Homecoming” saw the MCU rewrite many of Peter Parker’s most defining story arcs in order to both “modernize” the character and firmly tie him into their ever-expanding, multi-billion dollar cash cow. His second solo film “Far From Home” doesn’t exactly change course, but it does do several things that makes it a much better and more satisfying installment.

First, while it certainly doesn’t dramatically change Spidey (played by Tom Holland), the film stresses his desire to be a ‘friendly neighborhood Spider-Man’. In his first MCU movies we saw Peter Parker caught up in the excitement and allure of being an Avenger. The events of “Avengers: Endgame” have clearly changed his perspective and he struggles with his desire to be a kid again versus the responsibilities of being an Avenger.

Another welcomed change comes in the handling of some of the side characters. Tops on the list is MJ played by Zendaya. In “Homecoming” every second of her screen time was spent selling her as a rebellious, eccentric loner with few discernible human qualities. “Far From Home” strikes a much-needed balance with the character. MJ still stands out among her classmates, but she’s given more layers and is finally allowed to emote. The same with Peter’s best friend Ned (Jacob Batalon). He’s still there to add humor, but this film makes him feel like more than simply comic relief.

I credit many of these changes (rightly or wrongly) to a more compact and focused writing team. “Homecoming” had six writing credits while this film sticks with two – Chris McKenna and Erik Sommers. Along with returning director John Watts, they are tasked with wrapping up one MCU phase and kicking off another while also expanding Peter Parker’s story. The results are pretty impressive.

The story sees Peter trying to put the events of “Endgame” behind him by going on a class trip to Europe. No Spider-Man, no Avengers. Just a getaway to spend time with his friends and finally tell MJ how he feels about her. Easier said than done. While in Venice, Italy a huge water monster attacks the city but is fought off by the mysterious, super-powered Quentin Beck (Jake Gyllenhaal).

To complicate matters Nick Fury (Samuel L. Jackson) shows up. He and Beck (aka Mysterio) tell Peter that the water monster was one of four Elementals. The most dangerous (Fire) is projected to attack Prague and they need Spider-Man to help defeat it. Peter declines but Fury has a knack for getting his way. This obviously puts a damper on Peter’s desire for a life of normalcy especially when he finds out there is more to the Elementals than meets the eye.

Just as before Tom Holland proves to be the ideal choice to play Peter Parker/Spider-Man. His look, demeanor, earnestness, and naïveté all fit well with the character. It has always been the writing that has either helped or hurt him. Here (aside from a few small residual gripes) the writing and Holland click from the very start.

Back to the supporting side, Gyllenhaal is very good in what is a much different spin on Mysterio’s story. Jackson can do Nick Fury in his sleep. Jon Favreau returns as Happy Hogan and gets several fun scenes. The one remaining sour note for me is Marisa Tomei. Again, it’s no fault of the performance but the writing. Give me Aunt May over Sexy May any day.

“Far From Home” was a nice surprise and a welcomed step up from the previous Spider-Man film. It’s a breezy, light-hearted and fun MCU installment that adds depth to Peter Parker’s world while setting things up for an interesting third film (whatever you do, stay for both end-credits scenes). It may not completely cure all of my ills with the MCU’s changes to Spider-Man’s story, it certainly excites me for where things are at and where they are heading.

VERDICT – 3.5 STARS

REVIEW: “Midsommar”

July 8, 2019 by Keith Garlington

Ari Aster earned a lot of well-deserved attention with his 2018 feature film debut “Hereditary”. It was a dark and unsettling bit of psychological horror that he wrote and directed. The film was greeted with high praise from critics, a little more mixed reactions from audiences, yet most were anxious to see what he would do next.

Well now we know. Aster’s follow-up film “Midsommar” sees him staying within the psychological horror sphere. But here he adds a ton more weirdness and clearly aims to push the envelope by being more shocking and disturbing than with his previous film (and that’s saying something). Unfortunately these ambitions push things too far, and “Midsommar” becomes a classic case of creative overkill.

The movie gets off to an incredibly strong start. Much like “Hereditary”, this film is built upon the fractured psyche of its lead character. An extremely well done prologue lays the foundation for us. Florence Pugh plays Dani, a young woman broadsided by a horrific family tragedy. Devastated and emotionally frail, she looks to her not-so-comforting boyfriend Christian (Jack Reynor) for support. But his hollow sympathy can’t hide that he would rather be spending time with his three equally self-absorbed buddies (played by William Jackson Harper, Vilhelm Blomgren, and Will Poulter).

These early scenes are fabulous mainly due to Pugh’s powerful performance. Her projections of grief, anxiety, and vulnerability are both natural and thoroughly convincing. And through these scenes Aster gives us a vivid understanding of Dani’s relationship with Christian. The dialogue subtly yet shrewdly captures a form of psychological abuse we rarely see on screen.

All of that sets the audience up for the acid-trip remainder of the film. Christian and his pals plan a trip to Sweden, to a remote country commune where one of the friends was raised. They reluctantly allow Dani to tag along. Once there they will get to witness a special 9-day festival which takes place every 90 years.

It doesn’t take long to notice something is a little off. At first things appear innocent enough as the white frocked commune members go about their peculiar daily rituals. But what looked like a group of harmless flower children turns out to be a macabre pagan cult with deeply sinister motivations and a special need for “outsiders” at their festival.

Aster begins this leg of his journey with a great grasp on mystery and setting. Early on, the slow drips of information and ever so subtle reveals work well to keep us in a constant state of suspicion and wonder. Aster completely sells us on the perpetually sun-soaked delirium, the off-kilter tone, and the increasingly eerie atmosphere. It’s truly phenomenal filmmaking right up to the point where Aster loses himself to an obsession to be bizarre and make us squirm in our seats.

The final third of the film whole-heartedly commits to progressively getting weirder by the moment. And while always visually impressive, the main characters (most notably Dani) get lost among the madness. During this time you could argue that the commune becomes the centerpiece yet we still learn practically nothing about them. Instead Aster seems more focused on scarring us with imagery than challenging us with thought-provoking themes.

This is probably best seen in an absurdly graphic sex ritual that desperately screams out for attention. Reynor told Indiewire “I wanted as much as we could go for” and there lies the problem. You can see and recognize them REALLY going for it – seeing how far they can push the limits. It badly wants to be shocking and unsettling. I found it to be excessive, off-putting and void of any discernible meaning whatsoever. For me it was a frustrating sign that Aster had completely lost his focus.

Sadly a few other things bring “Midsommar” down. With the exception of Christian, the other supporting characters are barely more than thinly conceived filler. And even Reynor’s performance lacks energy or charisma. That leaves Pugh, a fantastic actress giving a fantastic performance, but who is buried in a final act that’s more interested in visual nuttiness.

There are several questions you could ask that would show cracks in the story’s foundation. But still, movies like this usually beg to be dissected and discussed. “Midsommar” is a bit maddening in its reluctance to provide that kind of food for thought. Is it a movie about grief, emasculation, mental health, spiritual awakening? The movie seems to inadvertently ask “Who cares? Just watch another unnerving scene where the creepy Swedish cult does something else bizarre.” Pugh and the film’s incredible first half deserves better.

VERDICT – 2.5 STARS

REVIEW: “Booksmart”

July 5, 2019 by Keith Garlington

I’ve steadily grown more and more convinced that most of Hollywood is only interested in one particular depiction of the teenaged experience. You know, the one featuring a collection of dense, potty-mouthed teens marked by obsessions with sex, booze, and and endless supply of dumb decision-making. We get these movies all of the time. Some are more dramatic; some are straight comedies. But they all paint teens with a broad and rather boring brush.

Thankfully there have been a few anomalies – movies like “Eighth Grade” and “Lady Bird” that are both authentic and insightful. I was hoping “Booksmart” was one such welcomed aberration. Sadly it’s not and a couple of really good scenes can’t shift the balance from the overload of tired and rehashed teen movie clichés this film revels in.

“Booksmart” is a left coast teen comedy that is sure to play well within a couple of specific groups. Many who are deeply invested in progressive ideology will love it despite it having nothing particularly profound to say (its politics are mostly found in weird name drops and shallow lip service to a handful of popular social issues). And fans of raunchy comedies will get plenty of what they like, much to the detriment of the film as a whole.

The story revolves around two smart but pretentious high school seniors. Molly (Beanie Feldstein) and Amy (Kaitlyn Dever) are life-long best friends who have spent their school days with their noses buried in textbooks and looking down on fellow students. But on the eve of graduation they’re hit with with a shocking revelation – you can have fun and make good grades at the same time.

So the two set out to cram years of missed social opportunities into one night of partying and rule breaking (so much for book-smarts nurturing any kind of discernment and good judgement). What follows is a relentless series of eye-rolling antics ranging from low-brow raunch to all-out absurdity. There are a couple of emotionally strong moments but unfortunately they’re stuck within a mire of teen movie tropes and stereotypes.

It’s made more frustrating because the performances are generally good. Dever is the standout and while her character doesn’t always make sense she gives a believable and at times affecting performance. Feldstein is fine but too often she seems stuck in high gear. And then you have the sizable supporting cast playing an assortment of run-of-the-mill teen character types, many of them dialed up to 10. Some are fairly entertaining but none are especially compelling.

Most of the issues can be tracked to the writing and direction. The screenplay was put together by a team of four writers whose apparent aspirations to be “Superbad 2.0” overtakes the meaningful story at the film’s core. And first-time director Olivia Wilde never seems to know when to pull back the reins to allow her characters room to breathe. And when we do get a deeper character moment, it’s often over in a snap and we’re quickly ushered back into the film’s manic comedy whirlwind.

“Booksmart” frames itself as a fresh take on the coming-of-age story, but I couldn’t shake the feeling I had seen these stories and certainly these characters before (or at least variations of them). Dever shines and there are a few lines of witty dialogue, but nothing here is particularly eye-opening or original. It’s your standard raunchy teen comedy full of stock characters and caricatures. It tosses out some good ideas but rarely explores them. It also portrays a linear portrait of teenaged life in America that will certainly resonate with some yet be utterly otherworldly for others. Yet another instance of “Booksmart” being unable to strike a much needed balance.

VERDICT – 1.5 STARS

First Glance: “Midway”

July 4, 2019 by Keith Garlington

I’ll always remember the star-studded 1976 film “Midway” as my father’s all-time favorite war movie. It looks like Hollywood is heading back to the Pacific Theater with a new take on the most decisive naval battle of World War II. The new trailer offers plenty of reasons to believe a new “Midway” could work. It also gives us reasons for concern.

On the positive side, I love some of the names attached: Patrick Wilson, Luke Evans, Dennis Quaid, Woody Harrelson, and Aaron Eckhart. Plus the trailer shows off some pretty thrilling visuals which could add a lot to this subject. But why be concerned? In two words – Roland Emmerich, a director with a history of numerous high-profile misfires. Look no further than his last film, the atrocious “Independence Day: Resurgence”.

So what do you think of the potential of “Midway”? It hits theaters November 8th. Check out the trailer below and let me know if you will be seeing it or taking a pass.

REVIEW: “Annabelle Comes Home”

July 3, 2019 by Keith Garlington

The very idea that a Conjuring universe exists makes me smile. Not because it’s some groundbreaking cinematic accomplishment. But because it’s a tightly focused, modestly budgeted, interconnected horror franchise built around two fantastic central movies. The spin-off films have been hit-or-miss but at least they have offered some interesting layers to the franchise as a whole.

“Annabelle Comes Home” is the third film in the Conjuring prequel series about the ugliest, creepiest porcelain doll ever put on screen. This installment begins on a high note with the franchise’s greatest assets, Patrick Wilson and Vera Farmiga reprising their roles as paranormal investigators Ed and Lorraine Warren. They don’t have big roles in the film but I absolutely love the chemistry between them.

It’s 1971 and the Warrens have taken possession of the Annabelle doll after identifying it as a conduit for malevolent spirits. Following a blessing ritual Annabelle is put in a glass case within their eerie room of evil artifacts. And surely a door with five locks and a big sign reading “DANGER!” is enough to keep the evil contained, right? Well, in a word…no.

Jump ahead one year as the Warrens prepare to head out for an overnight investigation into a new case. They leave their daughter Judy (Mckenna Grace) and the keys to their split-level home with their dependable babysitter Mary Ellen (Madison Iseman) who is keenly aware of the house rules.

The same can’t be said for Mary Ellen’s pushy best friend Daniela (Katie Sarife) who shows up to the Warren’s house uninvited and instantly begins snooping around where she shouldn’t. This provides the movie with its opening to introduce its horror elements. Horror movies have a track record of having really bad things happen thanks to really stupid actions. There is a bit of that with Daniela. But writer-director Gary Dauberman tosses in a story thread to give a meatier reason for what she is doing. It kinda works.

Motivations aside, Daniela finds a way into the Warrens’ no-no room and unleashes all sorts of terrifying apparitions. Most of the story unfolds over the course of that one night as the young ladies try to survive the usual stuff – convenient power outages, appliances mysteriously turning on, ghoulish spirits suddenly standing in the background, and an overactive fog machine.

Dauberman does a good job creating a spooky atmosphere which he leans on a bit too heavily. Most of the movie features all of the above mentioned horror gadgetry on repeat with practically nothing in the form of story progression. In many ways it reminds me of “The Nun” (which Dauberman also wrote). It was a movie rich with atmosphere but shallow when it comes to storytelling.

Much like “The Nun” this ends up being a spin-off film that never reaches the fullness of its potential. “Annabelle Comes Home” is a slight step up thanks to its better realized place within the franchise and closer connection to the two main Conjuring films. There is also some really good chemistry between the three young actresses which gives us good reasons to care for their characters. Unfortunately, despite offering moments of fun, the film doesn’t do much to push the franchise forward which leaves it feeling like a missed opportunity.

VERDICT – 3 STARS

First Glance: “Charlie’s Angels”

July 2, 2019 by Keith Garlington

Add this one to the ever-growing list of Hollywood reboots/remakes that no one asked for. I certainly never expected to see “Charlie’s Angels” back on the big screen following the two ridiculously bad movies from the early 2000s. Yet here we are with a new cast, new director, but (judging from the first trailer) much of the same cringy silliness as before.

The cast is a bit surprising but does seem to fit with the film’s obvious desire for diversity. Kristen Stewart, Naomi Scott, and Ella Balinska play the ‘Angels”. The biggest surprise is Elizabeth Banks. She directs, writes, co-produces, and co-stars so this truly is her project. It’s a surprising series for her to try and revive and our first look doesn’t leave the best impression.

“Charlie’s Angels” hits theaters November 15th. Check out the trailer below and let me know if you’ll be seeing it or taking a pass.