REVIEW: “Aquaman”

December 24, 2018 by Keith Garlington

You have to wonder if the Aquaman appearances in the earlier DC Universe films partially served as a taste test for Warner Bros. How would audiences respond to this version of the classic DC Comics character? Could they make a solo film in a way that avoided being as cheesy as a stick of Velveeta? Would Jason Momoa’s beefy, burly charm win over comics fanboys and general DCU skeptics?

Here’s the thing, if you’re already dug in against DC’s refusal to mirror Marvel by doing superhero movies their own way, “Aquaman” probably won’t change your mindset. If you’re a fan of the DCU or if you come at this without a particular bend, then “Aquaman” offers up enough offbeat humor, deep-sea action, and overall craziness to keep you locked in and entertained.

An Aquaman movie has been in various stages of production for nearly 10 years before director James Wan took the helm. Wan’s specialty is horror having made the original “Saw”, two “Insidious” movies, and “The Conjuring” series. But this isn’t the first time he has stepped outside of the genre. In 2015 he directed the seventh “Fast and Furious” installment. “Aquaman” posed a bigger challenge considering the very nature of the character, where’s he’s from, etc. And that’s not counting the $200 million price tag. No pressure.

Wan’s “Aquaman” is incredibly ambitious and he’s juggling a ton of moving parts. Perhaps his best decision was in not making this a traditional superhero origin movie. The backstory of Momoa’s Arthur Curry is told in a few small chunks scattered throughout the film. It’s a sweet and heartfelt tale of a lonely human lighthouse keeper (Temuera Morrison) who rescues and then falls in love with an exiled princess from the underwater city of Atlantis (played by a very good Nicole Kidman). It was a forbidden love resulting in the birth of a child, Arthur, but doomed by Atlantean tradition and intolerance.

Arthur grew up an outcast among the surface people and shunned as a “half-breed” by the Atlanteans. Along the way we learn of other things that has long fueled his disdain for his ocean-dwelling kin. This makes the appearance of Mera (Amber Heard) hard for him swallow. She tells Arthur of his power hungry half-brother Orm (Patrick Wilson) who works to persuade the seven underwater tribes to wage war against the surface. The only way to stop him? For a reluctant Arthur to return to Atlantis and claim the throne from Orm.

From there the enormous scope of the film is mind-blowing. Is it too big? Yes, probably so. Should it have been trimmed down with a tighter focus? I honestly don’t know. That’s because part of what I liked about “Aquaman” is the sheer audacity of the whole thing. Wan’s story spans the coasts of Maine, the Sicilian seaside (where we get a thrilling and wonderfully shot action sequence – the film’s best), and even the Sahara desert.

And of course there is Atlantis itself, a pulsating world of the ancient and modern; filled with underwater societies, mythical creatures, saddled sea horses and armored sharks, talking crustaceans, and even Dolph Lundgren as a tribal King. It’s so preposterous yet bizarrely remarkable. Wan goes for it full throttle with an unrestrained imagination and a fantastical point of view. He ends up giving us a trademark of good fantasy – a fresh movie landscape, rich with its own history and filled with locations for (potential) future films to explore.

And of course there is the intensely committed cast starting with Momoa. There couldn’t be a better fit for the surly beefcake Arthur – a pain in the butt yet an infectiously enjoyable one. Momoa shines both in personality and physicality. He’s clearly having a good time whether twirling a trident or winking at his sex appeal. Heard, Wilson, and Kidman all manage their characters well. We even get a fun Willem Dafoe as Arthur’s secret Atlantean mentor. Also Yahya Abdul-Mateen II is intriguing as Black Manta, a character I wanted to see more of.

“Aquaman” walks the delicate line between poking fun at itself and treating its story seriously. It’s not an easy thing to do, but when done well it makes for a fun and satisfying genre piece. It’s still very much a superhero movie. You’ll see it hitting several familiar story beats and it doesn’t deviate far from the general structure these films use. But it’s Wan’s attention to his characters and imaginative world-building that makes it work. But those who by nature dismiss or rebel against ‘too much’ CGI, I can see them pushing back against “Aquaman” as well.

The publicity tour for “Aquaman” has been a hoot and no one can say Momoa isn’t comfortable in his own skin. His interviews and appearances have all been fun and lively. The same can be said for his movie. “Aquaman” is an oddly satisfying blast. It’s nothing groundbreaking or highly original, but it is a movie that embraces its weirdness in a way I really appreciated. And while it’s stuffed to gills with action (including what may be my favorite action sequence of the year), it has a little more to say than some will give it credit for. Ultimately “Aquaman” is a sea-worthy DCU installment; the most unlikely superhero to pull off, yet James Wan does just that.

VERDICT – 4 STARS

REVIEW: “Roma”

December 19, 2018 by Keith Garlington

From the very first frame of “Roma” you know you are seeing something unique to modern filmmaking. Not necessarily unique to cinema as a whole. As I watched, flashes of Fellini and Tati constantly came to mind. But seeing this level of visual and narrative craftsmanship is a rarity these days.

Alfonso Cuarón’s intensely personal “Roma” is a semi-autobiographical reflection on growing up in early 1970s Mexico City. The film’s title is a reference to the West-Central neighborhood Colonia Roma and Cuarón puts a ton of effort in capturing its energy and vibrancy. It truly is a movie of detail with each gorgeous black-and-white shot framed like a richly detailed memory begging to be examined. It’s a tapestry of individual compositions skillfully woven together by a narrative that has far more heart than it may first appear.

The film focuses on Cleo (Yalitza Aparicio), a maid and nanny for a bustling upper-middle class family. Cuarón isn’t as much interested in narrative as he is conveying Cleo’s personal story – her life, her nature, her routines. Much like Xavier Beauvois’ “The Guardians” from earlier this year, Cuarón puts a visual emphasis on her work, capturing every chore and the effort she puts into each of them. It may sound mundane but Cuarón is deftly building her character despite the absence of a traditional narrative.

This family is a significant part of Cleo’s life. In fact there are only a handful of scenes where she is apart from them. Whether taking the kids to school, making an unexpected hospital visit, spending New Year’s at a countryside hacienda, or (in one of the film’s very best scenes) buying furniture in 1971 as the bloody clash between protesting students and Los Halcones erupted. Through Cuarón’s eyes and unknowingly to her, Cleo is a stabilizing force for this family especially when they threaten to unravel after a family crisis. And on a smaller scale the turmoil that festers within their home is an interesting mirror image of the societal unrest outside. It’s a striking metaphor that doesn’t go unnoticed.

The Cleo character is inspired by Cuarón’s childhood nanny Liboria “Libo” Rodríguez. She worked for his family for decades and they maintain a close relationship to this day. She has even made cameos in his other Mexican-made films. One of the many things Cuarón’s camera does is accentuate the very essence of her character – her humility, her compassion, her insecurities. But just as important is the way he captures her experience. In many ways Cleo is defined by her experiences and she is much more than simply an avatar for Cuarón’s memories.

Cuarón also uses his cinematic canvas to paint an energetic portrait of the political and social landscape of the time. The film bursts with vibrant street sounds of kids playing, the shouts of vendors, and honking car horns. He uses the canvas to illuminate different areas in and around the city – the family’s cozy residential area, the lively downtown, the muddy slums on the outskirts of the city. And none of these arresting images wastes an inch of the screen.

It’s hard to find a beef with “Roma”. It’s such a stunning and intimate work from a filmmaker invested in every facet of the production (Cuarón served as director, writer, cinematographer, co-editor, and co-producer). A couple of scenes did clash for me and felt yanked from another film (the man in a ghillie suit singing in front of a forest fire and a character practicing martial arts with a shower curtain rod while fully nude instantly come to mind). I searched but still haven’t found satisfying answers to those creative flairs.

Mild quibbles aside, you can’t watch “Roma” without seeing the heart of the man behind it. A big deal has been made about Netflix distributing it through their streaming service and limiting its theater run. I would much rather see “Roma” on the big screen, but as with so many films of this type, smaller markets are often left out in the cold. Netflix offers a chance for anyone to see it, and I see that as a good thing.

VERDICT – 4.5 STARS

REVIEW: “Wildlife” (2018)

December 17, 2018 by Keith Garlington

Paul Dano the actor has always been a puzzle to me. While many love his body of work I’ve often felt he requires a very specific type of role. Without it he can seem overwhelmed by the material or lack the range to pull it off. But if the role is just right he can knock your socks off. After seeing his first work behind the camera I can honestly say I have no such reservations about Paul Dano the director.

His new movie “Wildlife” is a mesmerizing bit of filmmaking, so deeply sincere and profoundly human at every turn. What grabbed me early on was how devoted Dano is to his characters – getting them right and never allowing us a moment to doubt their authenticity. His entire focus is on them and the agonizing journeys each of them take. We the audience are simply along for the ride, in the hands of a first-time director telling his story like a seasoned pro.

Set in 1960, Carey Mulligan (shamefully overlooked this awards season) and Jake Gyllenhaal play Jeanette and Jerry Brinson. They’re a working-class couple who recently moved to Great Falls, Montana with their bright 14 year-old son Joe (newcomer Ed Oxenbould). Jerry is employed as a greenskeeper at a local country club while Jeanette works to meet the era’s image of a stay-at-home mom. It’s a seemingly idyllic domestic portrait but it doesn’t take long for the cracks to show.

After losing his job Jerry sinks into a mire of depression. He’s battered by self-induced feelings of failure and his ‘man of the house’ pride. It leads him to make a rash decision that leaves Jeanette and Joe to run things until he returns. A bitter Jeanette quickly begins to unravel. Maybe she wishes she could take off like Jerry. Perhaps the weight of being the model housewife and mother has taken its toll. She begins to come apart and her son can only watch.

All of this is told from the perspective of Joe, our moral center for the duration. Through quiet observations he is yanked out of what Dano has called the “Eden of childhood”. His idealized images of his parents are shattered and replaced with the realization that they are real, flawed people. It’s pretty crushing and the slow evolution of Joe’s expressions speaks volumes. Dano doesn’t direct Oxenbould to go big. In fact rarely does the young actor express anything outwardly. It’s through his eyes that we sense his internal struggle to understand what’s happening to his family.

The script was co-written by Dano and his partner Zoe Kazan and is based on a 1990 novel by Richard Ford which Dano instantly fell in love with. The two haggled a bit before landing on where they wanted the story to go. For them it was essential that young Joe be our lens while also evoking some level of empathy for Jean and Jerry . At times I struggled with sympathy for the parents but that’s part of what I love about this film. Dano and Kazan allow plenty of room for us to wrestle with how we feel about these characters and I can see them being read in a myriad of ways.

The performances are a critical part of this. From the outset Dano reveals a deep trust in his actors allowing them plenty of room to flesh out their characters. So many shots are framed with this in mind. The camera will sit back, often from Joe’s point of view, and watch Gyllenhaal and most notably Mulligan take charge of the scene. As I’ve said before, there is something intoxicating about watching great actors act. Here Gyllenhaal is somber and restrained, exactly what the role needs. Mulligan steals the show with a performance full of layers and emotional conflict. It could be her best work to date.

“Wildlife” is an impressive first feature from Paul Dano the director. He shows off some good filmmaking impulses and there is a delicate rhythm to his storytelling that I wasn’t expecting. “Wildlife” has such a strong emotional core and even as a fiery metaphor burns on the horizon (I’ll let you discover it for yourselves) the film never loses its heart. It’s tragic and heartbreaking yet through a small sense of hope Dano gives us something to cling to. And as I think on his movie I appreciate that more and more.

VERDICT – 4.5 STARS

REVIEW: “Hereditary”

December 13, 2018 by Keith Garlington

It’s probably a good indicator that you aren’t in for a happy two hours when the film you’re watching opens with a newspaper obituary. In “Hereditary” it turns out the obit is for 78-year-old Ellen Taper Leigh. It’s the launching point for this stunning and genuinely creepy filmmaking debut.

Writer-director Ari Aster’s fiendishly disturbing film gets under your skin through slow-boiling horror beats while patiently maneuvering its characters through scenes/stages of grief, mental and emotional instability, and finally full-blown terror. It’s one part a heart-wrenching family story, but as Aster begins carefully peeling away the surface layers of his tale, a dark and deeply unsettling heart is revealed.

Toni Collette is extraordinary in the film’s lead role. She plays Annie, an artist who specializes in miniatures many of which are based on her own life experiences. She lives in the mountains with her soft-spoken husband Steve (Gabriel Byrne), their 16-year-son Peter (Alex Wolff) and 13-year-old daughter Charlie (Milly Shapiro). She happens to be the daughter of Ellen Taper Leigh. You remember, the woman from the above mentioned obituary?

As Annie eulogizes her mother at the funeral service it becomes clear their relationship was strained. We also learn Annie’s childhood was tough. Her father battled psychotic depression, her mom had dementia and her brother was a schizophrenic. All of it feeds into the estranged Annie’s frame of mind, but it also feeds into the wickedly uncomfortable horror element that simmers at the core of Aster’s film.

Plot-wise being intentionally vague is pretty essential. The fewer details you have going in the better the effect. It starts a bit slow as its pieces are put into place, but once the psychological terror begins to uncoil the movie methodically grows more and more discomforting. Aster’s examination of grief and mental illness gets darker and more queasy with every scene.

“Hereditary” is a genuinely terrifying movie, not in the gory gruesome or lazy jump-scare sense. Instead it bores deep down under your skin much in the way Robert Eggers did with his exceptional 2016 film “The Witch”. With fine performances, a strong directorial debut, and soaked in the strategically menacing score by Colin Stetson, “Hereditary” slowly pulls you in before giving your nerves and your senses a good working over. That’s the kind of ‘horror’ that lands with me.

VERDICT – 4 STARS

REVIEW: “BlacKkKlansman”

December 11, 2018 by Keith Garlington

Spike Lee has been called an angry filmmaker and it’s hard to argue otherwise. And that’s not necessarily a bad thing. Throughout his career it’s that anger that has fueled some of his very best scenes. At the same time it’s that very anger that can sometimes drive his movies to be too preachy for their own good. But to his credit I don’t think Lee really cares. He makes the movies he wants and he makes them his way.

“BlacKkKlansman” is his latest hard-nosed socio-political movie and it sports many of the same strengths and frustrations of his past pictures. But what’s most interesting is how “BlacKkKlansman” feels very much its own thing. It’s a bit uneven, yet Lee’s storytelling is thoroughly compelling both in its audacity and its messiness.

“BlacKkKlansman” is loosely based on a hard to believe true story taken from Ron Stallworth’s 2014 memoir. Stallworth was the first African American police officer at the Colorado Springs police department. But his claim to fame was infiltrating a local chapter of the Ku Klux Klan over the phone. Stallworth duped a local KKK recruiter into not only meeting him but offering him Klan membership. He did all his work over the phone posing as a racist white man. A wired white officer stood in for him during any actual meetings.

Lee dolls up this incredible true story with a ton of dramatic dressing which gives him a bigger space to say whatever he wants. His first change was in shifting the time to 1972 (the actual events took place in 1979). This is where we meet Ron Stallworth (played with confidence and gusto by John David Washington, son of Denzel Washington). He is hired to be what one character calls “the Jackie Robinson of the Colorado Springs police force”.

Lee zips through Ron’s early days on the force, quickly elevating him to detective and soon intelligence with barely a hint of struggle or resistance. It feels rushed, even a little sloppy, and leaves behind a lot that could have been explored. One key player we do meet in this segment is Patrice (a very good Laura Harrier), the president of Colorado College’s black student union who Ron meets while undercover. Their playfully combative relationship highlights a great chemistry between Washington and Harrier.

When Ron notices a KKK recruitment ad in the newspaper he calls the number pretending to be white man looking for membership. Chapter prez Walter Breachway (Ryan Eggold) buys the ruse and sets up a meeting. Ron recruits a Jewish narcotics officer Flip Zimmerman (Adam Driver) to join the investigation and build a case against the Klan. Flip stands in as Ron at the in-person meetings burrowing deeper into “The Organization” and eventually meeting the Grand Wizard himself David Duke (a wonderfully calibrated Topher Grace).

The finally act features Lee going full fiction and letting his creative and dramatic imaginations run wild. Most of it (and the movie as a whole) works and offers a bruising indictment of anyone even remotely sympathetic to the disgusting hate-mongering we see. Lee likes stirring the pot and provoking conversation. His piercing portrait of unbridled racism is rightfully uncomfortable and offers up plenty to talk about.

Other parts don’t quite work as well. Finnish actor Jasper Pääkkönen plays the ever suspicious and always maniacal Klansman Felix. He is the movie’s epitome of evil and comes across more as a cartoonish caricature than a thought-out character (perhaps by design?). Also, while the trailer highlights the film’s sense of humor, much of it is lost when slapped against the darker stinging reality which makes up most of the movie. There are a handful of really funny moments, but others don’t land as firmly. You also get a few pretty lazy Trump slams that will resonate with some despite their on-the-nose delivery and some pointlessly crude dialogue which isn’t unusual for a Lee picture.

Yet despite these shortcomings “BlacKkKlansman” is still strikingly magnetic and a fascinating bit of filmmaking. Never a slacker behind the camera, Lee has a fantastic sense of time and space. Every frame drips with early 70’s style and personality. And it’s fed by a stellar soundtrack and Terence Blanchard’s wonderfully jazzy score. Some of my favorite scenes are when Lee sits us down for more personal moments. Take when Ron and Patrice meet up at a predominantly black nightclub. Their sweet ‘get to know you’ conversation ends with a wonderful dance floor sequence to “Too Late to Turn Back Now” by Cornelius Brothers & Sister Rose. It’s a soulful and joyous moment and for them a brief respite from the turmoil of the era.

“BlacKkKlansman” is a skillfully guised epic, far grander in scale than it may appear on the surface. It’s a film rich with metaphors and juxtapositions which we experience through the two main characters, both of whom are carving out their own identities. The entire cast is top-notch led by Washington and Driver who perfectly sink into their multi-layered roles. Lee knows they’re good and utilizes them to the fullest. Of course it’s preachy and at times too on-the-nose. After all it’s Spike Lee we’re talking about. Yet there are still plenty of gray areas which give us room to think for ourselves and reckon with what we see. For me that’s when “BlacKkKlansman” is at its best. “All Power to All People”

VERDICT – 3.5 STARS

Random Thoughts on the 2018 Golden Globes Nominations

December 6, 2018 by Keith Garlington

And just like that awards season is upon us and the first big announcement (and precursor to the Oscars) comes from the Hollywood Foreign Press. The Golden Globe nominees were announced this morning and to call it a headscratcher would be an understatement. These awards are whatever you make of them. Sure they are flattering but this year more than any shows why I take them with a grain of salt. Here are a few random thoughts…

First and foremost where the heck is Ethan Hawke? He gives what is probably his most acclaimed performance in “First Reformed”. It’s easily one of the year’s best performances and its glaring omission is just nuts.
Speaking of “First Reformed” apparently the entire movie failed to leave a mark on the HFPA. And considering some of the other nominations that’s pretty sad. But more on them later.
“Black Panther” gets a Best Picture nomination, something that was pretty much carved in stone back in February. I’m all for superhero movies getting a seat at the table. But as time has passed “Black Panther”, while still really good, hasn’t stuck with me like a Best Picture nominee should.
“A Star is Born” is one of the biggest non-surprises of the announcements. It grabbed big nominations in the drama categories – Best Picture, Best Actor, Best Actress, Best Director and of course Best Song. That’ll surely give the film’s strong fan base a movie to root for.
But arguably the best performance of “A Star is Born” came from Sam Elliott yet no nomination for him.
Alfonso Cuaron’s “Roma” is considered an Oscar front-runner but due to a rather dopey rule it is deemed inelligible for the Best Picture category. Still it managed to nab a Best Picture – Foreign Language, Best Director, and Best Screenplay. Can’t wait to see it on December 14th.
It looks like “Vice” led the way with six nominations. It kinda makes sense. David McKay’s hyper-political Dick Cheney biopic is sure to tickle the fancy of many of those casting the votes.
Spike Lee’s “BlacKkKlansman” had a big morning getting getting nominations in the Best Picture, Best Actor, Supporting Actor, and Director category. It’s a pretty good movie but I’m on the fence with it. Not sure if it’s awards worthy.
And while John David Washington is very good, beating out Hawke for a nomination leaves me scratching my head. But why put it on Washington who I really enjoyed? Instead, I would toss Hedges who was fine but nothing particularly mind-blowing.
While not a perfect movie “The Hate U Give” is a piercing drama with a more grounded perspective than Spike Lee’s joint. I felt it was an underseen movie and it could be that the Globes verifies that. It was left high and dry.
“The Hate U Give” also features a brilliant supporting turn from Russell Hornsby – a performance that certainly deserved a nomination.
Not much love for Damian Chazelle’s “First Man”. Claire Foy earned a Supporting Actress nomination but that’s about it. Such a shame.
Speaking of “First Man”, nothing for Ryan Gosling for his portrayal of Neil Armstrong. I still believe it to be one of the most misunderstood performances of the year. Quiet for sure, but hardly without an emotional drive.
There is actually a tough competition for Best Animated Feature. I’ll be rooting for Wes Anderson’s “Isle of Dogs” but it will have to fend off heavyweights “Incredibles 2” and “Ralph Breaks the Internet”.
The Timothee Chalamet love continues. This year he is nominated for “Beautiful Boy” which should surprise no one. Essentially he is the new Jennifer Lawrence from a few years back. Good young actor but maybe a little overhyped?
Aaaaand “Bohemian Rhapsody”, a movie that provoked a fairly mixed reaction yet it wakes up to a couple of big nominations. Best Picture and Best Actor? Really? It results in some pretty great performances and pretty great movies missing out.
Nothing for the Coen Brothers and their excellent “The Ballad of Buster Scruggs”. It’s certainly not a mainstream movie but I still feel it’s one of the year’s best.
Great to see Elsie Fisher get a nomination for “Eighth Grade”. It’s such a strong performance in a year full of rich performances from young newcomers. But Best Actress – Musical or Comedy? Sure, there are amusing moments but it’s hardly a straight-up comedy.
“The Quiet Place” seems to have lost some of its umph but I still adore that film. It’s a shame to see it all but forgotten here.
While there are a lot of compelling names in the actress categories I guess the big question is which one of them will be knocked out come Oscar time for Meryl Streep’s obligatory spot?
“Crazy Rich Asians” was a surprisingly fun little movie. But as with several other nominated films I hardly see it as an awards caliber movie. Is this the HFPA’s attempt at reaching out to a broader audience? Will the Academy follow in their footsteps?
And nothing for “You Were Never Really Here”, a fantastic movie from director Lynne Ramsay. She is one of several female filmmakers with strong 2018 movies who couldn’t penetrate the male-dominated Best Director category.