REVIEW: “Hell or High Water”

December 8, 2016 by Keith Garlington

Taylor Sheridan’s script for “Hell or High Water” didn’t have the easiest track to the big screen. It was finally purchased for production in 2012 after being highlighted as the Black List’s top script, but it would be another four years before it would finally hit theaters. But it’s hard to believe there has been a timelier moment for the movie to land than right now.

It has been accurately defined as a neo-western. It’s also a heist movie. It could be considered a comedy. Some may even call it an incisive bit of social commentary. Actually all of the above are fitting descriptions of this sensitive but slightly off-beat tale of two brothers burdened by their economic struggles. Director David Mackenzie takes this idea and visualizes it through the lens of tough small town living, something that the film rightly shows is slowly dying off.

Those not close to or familiar with the rural challenges the movie depicts may not appreciate how accurately the film captures it. In the real America small working class towns are drying up. Many have economies dependent on one or two plants or factories and when those industries leave the communities suffer. Sheridan and Mackenzie capture this with such vivid and authentic detail through a powerful mix of camera, script, and setting.

It’s this world that brothers Toby (Chris Pine) and Tanner (Ben Foster) live in. Toby is recently divorced and struggling to keep his family’s ranch left to him by his deceased mother. A reverse mortgage has left him smothering in debt and trying to avoid a looming foreclosure. Tanner is a rambunctious sort, recently out of prison and with no real direction for his life. But he does love his brother and will help him any way he can. That means helping him with well thought out robberies of a series of small West Texas banks.

The movie also tells the story of a retiring Texas Ranger Marcus Hamilton (Jeff Bridges) who along with his partner Alberto (Gil Birmingham) set out to find the men responsible for the series of bank robberies. Much of the film’s humor comes from their back-and-forth banter which features a slew of affectionate insults. Bridges is a hoot and is right in his comfort zone. You could say he’s channeling a variation of his Rooster Cogburn from “True Grit”. The movie doesn’t miss a beat when it switches to Hamilton’s story and his scenes add more suspense to the inevitable crossing of paths.

Sheridan and Mackenzie go to great lengths to keep this from being a ‘good guy vs bad guy’ tale. They try hard to keep the black hats off of Toby and Tanner and put them on the banks and the economic system that keeps people down even when they seem to be ahead. This is emphasized when we learn oil was found on the family’s ranch. But I’m not sure the movie does a good enough job keeping the brothers within the grey area it wants them to be in. There are moments when they do try and morally reckon with their crimes and their hardships clearly contribute to their reasoning. But as things intensify it’s hard to know how the movie wants us to feel about them.

There is a pretty significant plot-hole in the final act that I can’t quite shake, but otherwise “Hell or High Water” sticks its landing. The similarities to the Coen Brothers’ “No Country for Old Men” are obvious from the start and there even seems to be a nod to Humphrey Bogart’s “High Sierra”. Those influences add a lot to the film but its strength is in its camera and in its realization of a segment of the country slowly being smothered out. The characters are easy to latch onto and the timely authentic story, while not perfectly told, feels grounded in a very true current reality.

VERDICT – 4 STARS

REVIEW: “Captain Fantastic”

December 4, 2016 by Keith Garlington

“Captain Fantastic” begins with a gorgeous opening shot that pans a dense forest canopy. It’s followed by an equally beautiful shot on the forest floor gazing up at the tree tops. The soothing quiet is only interrupted by the hypnotic sounds of nature. The sequence highlights the natural beauty but also the remoteness of the setting. It doesn’t take long for us to learn why this is important.

Actor Matt Ross wrote and directed this movie that on the surface resembles a left-wing fairytale. Viggo Mortensen plays a father named Ben who lives in isolation deep in the forest with his six children. They live off the land (as much as possible), have impromptu Woodstock-esque campfire jams, and frequently discuss the merits of Marxism, Trotskyism, humanism, anti-capitalism and a hodgepodge of other left-leaning isms. They even celebrate Noam Chomsky Day, for goodness sake!

But there is so much more beyond that surface-level first impression. Ross’s story digs deeper into these characters unfolding a plethora of complexities, inner-conflicts, and motivations. After several unforeseen turns we not only see these characters in a new light, but the entire movie itself becomes something completely unexpected. It becomes a movie not interested in politics, but in what makes these characters tick.

This film truly works better the less you know. I will say Ben and his kids aren’t without some contact with the outside world. Sometimes they hop into their bus/motor home (affectionately named Steve) and hit a small market for supplies. They check their post office box and Ben makes one or two necessary calls before heading back into the wilderness. But one day he gets some troubling news which sets the direction for the remainder of the movie.

What follows is a weird but enthralling concoction that features genre slices from American road trip movies to pitch black comedies. And while there is a small ‘liberal versus conservative’ narrative and their are some interesting social observations, this isn’t a political film. It’s incredibly open and fair in its characterizations. That’s because it is interested in something much deeper and more provocative. The discussions Ross wants us to have are beyond socialism vs. capitalism. He challenges us to look deeper into ourselves.

For all this film does well Mortensen is the biggest highlight. In a nomination-worthy performance he takes this peculiar, off-beat character and depicts him with such bruising authenticity. He is the centerpiece and one of the film’s most compelling questions is whether or not Ben is a good father. At times the answer seems obvious while other times we can’t help but wonder. Yet we never doubt his love for his children. Mortensen is essential to selling this character. His performance is far from flashy. It’s subtle, completely unselfish, and works well with the really talented young cast.

Matt Ross’s story of this off-the-grid family clashing with the outside world naturally has its funny moments. But it’s also a film filled with genuine feeling. Ultimately “Captain Fantastic” is about the willingness to listen and be open. It speaks against separating ourselves and speaks to the idea of balance, both in our convictions and in our willingness to learn from others. It speaks to balance in our relationships with others and with the world around us. It’s a meaningful message wrapped up in a superb film guaranteed to be unlike anything else you’ll see this year.

VERDICT – 4.5 STARS

5 Phenomenally Volatile Movie Romances

November 30, 2016 by Keith Garlington

A year or so ago I did a Phenomenal 5 list focused on movie romances. Today we are again looking at romances but this time with a twist. These are five movie relationships known more for their fire and volatility than love and kisses. It didn’t take long for a big number to come to mind so I certainly wouldn’t call this the definitive list. Still, there is no denying that these five movie romances are not only volatile but also phenomenal.

# 5 – “War of the Roses”

In the 1989 Danny DeVito directed “War of the Roses” everything starts reasonably well. Michael Douglas and Kathleen Turner meet in college, fall in love, and eventually marry. Oh but how quickly it turns into one of the most outrageous and darkest black comedies of its decade. Their relationship sours, their marriage crumbles, and the Roses bring new meaning to “ugly divorce”.

#4 – “Cat on a Hot Tin Roof”

The marriage between Paul Newman’s Brick and Elizabeth Taylor’s Maggie seemed destined for trouble. It becomes abundantly clear as “Cat on a Hot Tin Roof” moves forward, slowly shedding light on their feelings toward each other and on destructive secrets from their pasts. Alcoholism, deception, dysfunction – all factors that influence this stormy, bitter relationship between two deeply flawed people.

#3 – “Kalifornia”

Adding a much different flavor to the list is “Kalifornia”, a twisted road thriller featuring a particularly tempestuous relationship between the violent, aggressive Early (Brad Pitt) and the simple, naive Adele (Juliette Lewis). The abuse we witness ranges from subtle and manipulative to fiercely physical. Incredibly the film makes the couple fascinating, even sweet on occasions. Perhaps that’s what makes the abusive side of their relationship even more disturbing.

#2 – “A Streetcar Named Desire”

A second Tennessee Williams adaptation makes the list but with a twist. It’s impossible to consider one specific relationship in “Streetcar” without factoring in the three main players – Stanley, Stella, and Blanche. The depression and dysfunction of these three characters are so intrinsically intertwined and manifests itself through various degrees of mental and physical abuse. Sure, this may be a cheat, but the volatility of this three-headed relationship is too profound to exclude.

#1 – “Who’s Afraid of Virginia Woolf?”

Relentlessly nasty, toxic, and brutal. Those are just a few adjectives which perfectly describe 1966’s “Who’s Afraid of Virginia Woolf?”. Perhaps no film has presented a more hateful, venomous relationship than the one shared between George (Richard Burton) and Martha (Elizabeth Taylor). As the film moves forward we get more alcohol, more insults, and more pain until these two severely damaged people simply have nothing left.

So there are my five volatile movie romances. What do you think of my picks? See something I missed? Please let me know in the comments section below.

2016 BlindSpot Series – “The Candidate” (1972)

November 27, 2016 by Keith Garlington

What better way to fill my November Blindspot than by watching “The Candidate”. On the heels of one of the ugliest elections in American history, “The Candidate” is a light and frothy escape by comparison. To take that a little further, putting today’s election process next to the film’s depiction of a political campaign is like putting Quentin Tarantino next to Walt Disney.

Robert Redford co-produced and starred in this small-budgeted political dramedy from 1972. This was a significant film for Redford who by that time was already an established movie star. But “The Candidate” was one of several early Redford pictures that showed his appreciation for smaller independent films. This would eventually lead to the creation of the Sunset Institute and of course the Sundance Film Festival.

“The Candidate” follows the ins-and-outs of a California Senate race. Bill McKay (Robert Redford) is a community activist and son of former governor. He’s approached by Marvin Lucas (superbly played by Peter Boyle), a campaign strategist who needs a Democratic candidate for the U.S. Senate. Lucas’s sales pitch is a bit unusual – run against popular Republican incumbent Crocker Jarmon (Tom Porter) with absolutely no chance of winning. The one positive for McKay – say whatever you want about the issues you want. The idealistic McKay agrees.

From there the movie explores the behind-closed-doors politics involved in such a campaign. As McKay message begins to gain traction with the public, the party pours more resources into his campaign and (of course) want more control over him. That ‘clash versus compromise’ dynamic is a big part of the story. Jeremy Larner’s Oscar-winning script scrambles through the many layers of a campaign with keen insight and a satirical edge.

Director Michael Ritchie along with cinematographers Victor Kemper and John Korty shoot portions of the film in a semi-documentarian style which was a unique decision. It’s effective in adding an authenticity to how it pictures the campaign trail. They also do a good job capturing the sense of chaos both in front of the big crowds and the behind the scenes.

“The Candidate” dives into the inner workings of a political campaign and portrays it as good as any film. The jostling and wrangling is shown in both a positive and negative light. Where the movie suffers is in its portrayal of Bill’s personal life, specifically with his wife Nancy (played by the lovely Karen Carlson). The script shortchanges their relationship and leaves a lot on the table. It hints at different conflicts but never explores them. Nancy has a good number of scenes but neither she or her relationship with Bill gets the attention it needs. It’s basically an afterthought and the plot-holes it leaves are noticeable.

Redford deserves a lot of credit. He has done a ton for independent cinema not only promoting it, but by making it a key part of his own filmography. At the time Redford was big enough to have focused strictly on attention-getting big studio pictures. “The Candidate” was far from that yet Redford made the movie he wanted to make. The result is a fine election film that excels when highlighting the campaign but falls a little short elsewhere.

VERDICT – 3.5 STARS

REVIEW: “Three Colors: Red”

November 22, 2016 by Keith Garlington

Krzysztof Kieślowski was at a pivotal point in his life while making his renowned Three Colors trilogy. He had determined that these would be his last movies and at the conclusion of his trilogy he announced it to the world. It was 1994 and Kieślowski was at the pinnacle of his career. Yet he stepped away from filmmaking with the intent of sitting at home and smoking while never ever visiting a cinema again. Sadly, Kieślowski would die two years later at the age 54. A true artist driven by his own rules right to the end.

Kieślowski’s Three Colors trilogy couldn’t be a better send off – a testament to a visionary’s passion for creating movies that burrow deep into the human elements that unite us. Kieślowski once said he preferred “touching on subject matters and situations which link people, and not those that divide people.” While he often spoke to the social and political climates of his times, they were too divisive and rarely his focus. He later said “Feelings are what link people together.” That very idea permeates ever frame of his Three Colors movies.

The trilogy’s name is taken from the three colors of the French flag – blue, white, and red. Each of the flag’s colors represent a particular ideal. Blue stood for liberty, white for equality, and red for fraternity. Each movie represents one of these ideals but on a human level and never within a political framework. Politics tend to divide and that was of no interest to Kieślowski. He sought to examine these principles within the confines of individual lives and all of the love, sorrow, pain, and humor that come with living. These are feelings and emotions that we all know and can connect to. All three films, while able to stand on their own, do connect in subtle and sometimes surprising ways.

With “Red”, the final film in the Three Colors trilogy, Kieślowski saves his best for last. While pulling some elements from the previous two movies, “Red” still feels strikingly unique both in look and tone. It probably has the most obvious relationship with the ideal it represents (fraternity), but that doesn’t mean it’s free of thematic exploration and nuance. Quite the obvious. Kieślowski rarely looks at his subjects literally meaning we get plenty to meditate and chew on.

“Red” features a fairly straightforward story but with a sense of mystery and wonderment. There is also a surprising amount of warmth that we don’t see in the other movies. “Blue” was cold in much of its dealings with isolation and separation. The coldness in “White” comes in the form of a broken relationship and a jilted husband’s desire for revenge. “Red” has some of the same but it slowly and steadily moves towards the warm glow of fraternity yet not without facing the quandaries of life Kieślowski loves to contemplate.

Irène Jacob plays Valentine, a university student and part-time bubblegum model living in Geneva. While driving home one night she hits a German Shepherd with her car. The address on the collar leads her to a reclusive ex-judge named Joseph Kern (Jean-Louis Trintignant). Their initial meeting doesn’t go well. The soured, callous Joseph seems to care nothing about his dog and even less about Valentine. Eventually the loneliness they both share sparks a compelling bond between the two.

“Red” is a film that deals with fraternity but it’s also about miscommunication and missed connections. We see this in Valentine and Joseph’s central relationship, but there are other ways the film emphasizes it. For example, a law student named Auguste (Jean-Pierre Lorit) lives in the apartment building next to Valentine’s. The two cross paths every day yet never once seem to notice each other. Both are in less than perfect relationships, Valentine with the smug domineering Michel who we only hear over the phone, and Auguste with the flirty Karin (Frederique Feder). Both have an avenue for a potentially better relationship but constantly miss the connection.

Kieślowski thoughtfully unwraps these people through their circumstances and intersects their stories in some unexpected ways. As he does so he challenges us to empathize with his characters and delve deeper into their motivations and feelings. This was common for Kieślowski whose true desire was to portray not merely what we see with our eyes but what we sense. This is so evident in his effective uses of each title’s color. In “Blue” it was moody and somber. In “White” it was often more naturalistic and at times idyllic. But in “Red” it conveys a number of feelings while also provokes our senses in a variety of ways.

“Red” is a mesmerizing and engaging experience right up to its peculiar but perfectly fitting ending. It connects itself to the previous two film but at the same time continues the trend of being surprisingly unique. All three movies have managed to be within the same world but strikingly different in terms of story, tone, aesthetic, and meaning. “Red” is a superb way to bring the trilogy to a close and it’s particularly moving in that this was the final movie Kieślowski would ever make. In “Red” he left us with an exclamation point on a fabulous career and a firm reminder that his work stands among the best of his craft.

VERDICT – 4.5 STARS

REVIEW: “Three Colors: White”

November 21, 2016 by Keith Garlington

Kieślowski’s Three Colors trilogy couldn’t be a better send off – a testament to a visionary’s passion for creating movies that burrow deep into the human elements that connect us. Kieślowski once said he preferred “touching on subject matters and situations which link people, and not those that divide people.” While he often spoke to the social and political climates of his times, they were too divisive and they were rarely his focus. He later said “Feelings are what link people together.” That very idea permeates ever frame of his Three Colors movies.

The trilogy’s name is taken from the three colors of the French flag – blue, white, and red. Each of the flag’s colors represent a particular ideal. Blue stands for liberty, white for equality, and red for fraternity. Each movie represents one of these ideals but on a human level and never within a political framework. Politics tend to divide and that was of no interest to Kieślowski. He sought to examine these principles within the confines of individual lives and all of the love, sorrow, pain, and humor that comes with living. These are feelings and emotions that we all know and can connect to. All three films, while able to stand on their own, do connect in subtle and sometimes surprising ways.

When writing about “Blue” (the first film in Krzysztof Kieślowski ‘s Three Colors trilogy) I noted the difficulties in first finding the liberty. In “White” recognizing a meaningful connection to “equality” proves even harder, but it is there for the gleaning. All it takes is a careful eye to see it in the central relationship, in the sociopolitical probing, and in viewing the story as one big sweeping allegory. And as with the color blue in the previous film, white is prominently used for a number of purposes.

But at the same time Kieślowski doesn’t seem beyond using the color white to play with his audience. Those who have watched “Blue” will remember the mood and feeling conveyed by the director’s use of that color. Having set up our inquisitive eyes with that film, you can almost sense Kieślowski chuckling as we try to do the same in “White” – as we try to decipher meaning that isn’t always there. It’s an idea seemingly unique to this installment of the trilogy, but also congruent with what is essentially a dark comedy.

You could say “White” is a story about love, not so much through the eyes of a romantic but a realist. The love Kieślowski examines isn’t neat, warm, and bubbly. It’s peculiar, painful, and messy. That messiness is evident in the film’s opening moments as a Polish hairdresser named Karol (Zbigniew Zamachowski) is being humiliated in a Paris divorce court by his wife Dominique (Julie Delpy). She testifies that she no longer loves him and wants a divorce due to his impotency. Through a series of unfortunate mishaps he loses his home, money, and passport.

With no means of getting back to Poland, Karol resorts to panhandling in the Paris metro. There he meets and befriends a fellow Pole Mikołaj (Janusz Gajos) who helps him get back to Warsaw through the most unorthodox of means. Once home he gets his footing and sets out for revenge/equality which in Kieślowski’s film are inseparable. First Karol throws himself into the fledgling capitalist system of post-communist Poland where we hear repeatedly “everything is for sale”. It’s all part of an elaborate plan to get back at Dominique even though it’s abundantly clear that he still loves her.

Zamachowski was instructed to keep Charlie Chaplin’s movies in the back of his mind when acting. Kieślowski’s intent was not to mimic Chaplin but to let his physical language influence Zamachowski’s performance. It works in two ways, first as an sly comedic device but also in portraying Karol as gentle and timid. We particularly see it in the first half of the film where Karol is seen as hapless and directionless. Much like the beat-up suitcase in the opening scene, moving along on an airport conveyor with absolutely no control of where it’s going.

Things get a little zany in the last act of “White”, but appropriately so considering the quirkiness of the story. Yet while this is easily the lightest of the trilogy, “White” clearly has much to say about a host of things pertaining to the human experience. It isn’t as meditative as “Blue” but it plays with just as many themes and delves into numerous facets of Kieślowski’s favorite subject – human nature. That makes it a worthwhile component of the Three Colors experience.