REVIEW: “Three Colors: Blue”

November 20, 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 creative 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 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.

For much of the film it can be difficult to find the liberty in “Blue”, the first movie of Kieślowski’s Three Colors trilogy. In fact much of the film seems to be exploring a form of bondage – to grief, to pain, to the past. But I suppose it’s true what they say – liberty/freedom is much sweeter once you’ve tasted bondage. In “Blue” liberty as a theme is present, but much more as a desire than a reality.

The entire trilogy was written by Kieślowski and trusted collaborator Krzysztof Piesiewicz. Their first film focuses on a woman named Julie (played by the sublime Juliette Binoche) who is dealing with the death of her famous composer husband and young daughter from a car accident. Weighed down by the burden of her grief, Julie seeks to cut all ties with her past. She puts the family home up for sale, disconnects from the people they knew, and even destroys her husband’s final unfinished commissioned score. The only thing she keeps is her daughter’s sparkling blue mobile.

Julie wants to live as someone with no past. She rents an apartment in a corner of Paris with hopes of living in anonymity. But every unintended new human connection inevitably brings her closer to the past she is trying to escape. It’s here that Julie must decide whether to burrow deeper into her hole of isolation or unearth her sorrow and pain in hopes of breaking free from their hold on her. Kieślowski doesn’t make this an easy decision. It becomes even more complicated when secrets of her husband’s past surface.

The cinematography was handled by Sławomir Idziak who shot most of Kieślowski’s early work. As you can guess Idziak finds many ways to incorporate the color blue into his shots but they never feel meaningless. Like skillful craftsmen he and Kieślowski use the tones to great effect to accentuate feeling and highlight mood. It’s both beautiful and evocative. You will also notice a plethora of other crafty visual techniques that are constantly adding new perspective.

Kieślowski was all about examining human nature and no detail was too small or without meaning. “Blue” moves steadily and confidently, traits that are no doubt reflections of its director. It’s an intimate meditation centered by a bold, piercing performance from Binoche who speaks little but tells much through her revealing outward expression. As we observe the unfolding emotional layers of “Blue” we are given plenty to soak in. And it doesn’t take long before Kieślowski has us invested in his main character and the compelling themes finally brought to the surface most notably the aforementioned idea of liberty.

VERDICT – 4.5 STARS

REVIEW: “Independence Day: Resurgence”

November 18, 2016 by Keith Garlington

It’s hard to believe it has been 20 years since the release of “Independence Day”. I still remember that summer of 1996. ID4 was a big deal. A fantastic marketing campaign stirred up a ton of interest and when the film was finally released audiences weren’t disappointed. ID4 was a big, silly, science fiction romp that essentially redefined the summer blockbuster. It also represented a huge leap forward in CGI technology and featured some of the most memorable scenes ever created of movie mass destruction. It opened the gates for a slew of other disaster movies that would follow and its eventual sequel some twenty years later.

ID4 worked simply because it was fun. The pure spectacle was something to behold and unlike anything of that time. Most importantly it embraced its silliness and its cheesiness was part of its charm. Now flash-forward to “Independence Day: Resurgence”, a remarkably dull sequel devoid of any of its predecessors charms. Director Roland Emmerich returns along with co-writer and co-producer Dean Devlin. Both tapped into something good back in 1996, but their follow-up is a testament to how far blockbusters have fallen in terms of quality and ambition.

“Resurgence” spends a lot of time hearkening back to the first movie and milking that connection for all it can. Minus a few fun bits of nostalgia, it doesn’t do much to help. Perhaps twenty years is too long ago. Maybe people have simply forgotten these characters. Personally speaking I had no hankering for a sequel. But problems like that can be squashed if you have good story to tell. “Resurgence” has nothing new to say and its redundancy along with a complete lack of inspiration makes it pretty tough to endure.

The cliché-riddled story is pretty basic. A now unified earth has created a global defense force to protect us from any potential alien attack. How do you think that worked? A 3,000 mile-wide alien mothership (that’s stupid in itself) crashes through our atmosphere and attaches itself to earth in order to harvest our planet’s core. Thankfully we have a team of the best fighter pilots, scientists, and ex-presidents to put up a resistance. None of them are the slightest bit interesting, but they do put up a resistance.

It’s hard to say what we get more of, scenes of CGI or horrible lines of dialogue. It’s a close race. And of course we get the obligatory destruction of cities and the killing of millions of faceless people (poor London…isn’t it always London?). Sure, some of the visual effects look really nice and that’s where a bulk of its bloated $165 million budget goes. But it’s nothing we haven’t seen a million times by now and with nothing in the story worth clinging to, the effects ring hollow.

Speaking of hollow look no further than the characters and the performances. It may be a bit unfair to slam the cast when the material is this bad. There is line after line of cringe-worthy dialogue and nearly every character is firmly rooted in one stereotype or another. The cheesiness isn’t charming because the humor is so vapid and not a single relationship feels authentic.

Then you get to the actors none of whom seem completely convinced of what they’re doing. Liam Hemsworth plays a poor man’s Maverick from “Top Gun”. Jessie Usher is shockingly bad as the fighter pilot son of Will Smith’s character from the first film (Smith wisely said “no thanks” to this one). Even the always enjoyable Jeff Golblum is handcuffed by the shoddy script. Bill Pullman, Brent Spiner, and Judd Hirsch also return for a paycheck while none of the newly added twenty-somethings offer even a hint of fresh energy.

“Resurgence” flounders out of the gate, never shows an ability to build suspense, and offers up some of the most uninteresting characters I’ve seen in a while. Its CGI looks good but over time slams against your senses like a wrecking-ball. Maybe if this film went further into the “Sharknado” vein of intentional goofiness and absurdity it could have worked. As it is, “Resurgence” bored me and left me wondering if this was the best they could come up with after twenty years?

VERDICT – 1.5 STARS

REVIEW: “Point Break” (2015)

November 16, 2016 by Keith Garlington

“Point Break” is a tough one to figure out. Putting aside the obvious answer (m-o-n-e-y), I’ve wondered why someone would even attempt to remake Kathryn Bigelow’s 1991 cult classic. Could a contemporary approach even capture the wacky ingredients which made the original such an over-the-top, fun movie of its time? In the case of this 2015 remake, not exactly.

Director Ericson Core and writer Kurt Wimmer take their version in a noticeably different direction. The outline is basically the same but with a much more dour and self-serious tone. Bigelow’s film had a subtle layer of humor which showed itself in the macho bromances, cheesy surfer banter, and of course Gary Busey. Core and Wimmer yank out all of that and the movie suffers for it.

Luke Bracey takes the Keanu Reeves role as Johnny Utah. He’s no longer an ex-college football star with a bum knee. Instead he is an extreme sports poly-athlete (still not sure what that means) driven to the FBI after a friend’s death. Edgar Ramírez (an actor I generally like) takes Patrick Swayze’s place as Bodhi, an extreme sportsman and environmentally conscience mystic who often waxes eloquently about his oneness with the planet (“We’re trying to save this place by becoming one with it.”)

Bodhi is a thrill-seeking Robin Hood who, along with his merry band of X Gamers, rob from corporations and spread their wealth to the poor. In between these illegal deeds Bodhi is attempting to complete the Ozaki 8 – a series of extreme challenges which honor the forces of nature. This is what puts Johnny on their trail. He goes undercover earning the trust of Bodhi and gaining sympathy for his cause. But as Keanu so elegantly put it in 1991 “I’m an FBI agent!” The same applies in this film which does complicate things a bit for Mr. Utah.

Unfortunately there isn’t much else to add. Storywise the new “Point Break” is pretty bare-bones. Hardly any time is spent trying to understand these eco-friendly renegades. All we get is goofy philosophizing meant to tap into their thinking. It doesn’t work. There are also plenty of brainless logic gaps that had me wondering how Bodhi’s crew had escaped capture for so long.

The same paper-thin treatment is given to the characters. In many ways they are never given a chance. Bracey’s brooding gets old and he’s rarely given a chance to do anything else. Ramírez tries his best to make Bodhi a mysterious and lively individual and at times he pulls it off. But the material never allows him to stretch the character past the scripts unfortunate limitations. We also get a wasted Ray Winstone performance. He takes on the Busey character minus any hint of humor. And get Teresa Palmer wedged in as the kinda, sorta love interest. Her character adds absolutely nothing to the story.

But while it lacks in story, its visual presentation exhilarates. The remake doesn’t strictly focus on surfing. And while I believe that hurts the story, it also offers a host of opportunities for Core to capture some truly incredible extreme stunts from around the world. From BASE jumping in the Swiss Alps to wall climbing next to Venezuela’s Angel Falls. These are some insanely extreme sequences in some of the planet’s most beautiful locales and they are visually astounding. Core’s background is in cinematography and you can certainly see it on display.

If only the story had been given that same level of care and detail. Instead little creative thought seemed to go into the actual story, and the changes they did make simply don’t work. I don’t need “Point Break” to be serious or thought-provoking. I want it to be fun, action-packed, and it must have a sense of humor. Nowhere beneath the remake’s pseudo-spirituality, philosophical babbling, and fake tattoos will you find the humor it desperately needs. It certainly looks incredible and that saves it from being a disaster. But that’s not enough to make it a good remake.

VERDICT – 2 STARS

REVIEW: “Arrival”

November 14, 2016 by Keith Garlington

The cryptic and ambiguous ad campaign for Denis Villeneuve’s “Arrival” made the movie impossible to define. Some things are obvious. “Arrival ” is clearly science fiction and it looks to be playing around in the ‘alien invasion’ sub-genre. Past that it’s hard to tell what this movie is. There isn’t a glimpse of alien warfare or mass destruction. Actually there is no big action highlight to speak of. Since Hollywood has influenced our leanings towards that type of movie, I’m certain some people will leave “Arrival” having expected something far different than what they were given.

Denis Villeneuve is a filmmaker as difficult to pin down as his new movie. But there is one thing we can learn from his small but impressive filmography. Villeneuve loves tension and his ability to ratchet it up through a wild assortment of means is showcased in each of his movies. “Arrival” is a much different project but it doesn’t take long to recognize that common thread of tension.

The film is based on Ted Chiang’s award-winning short story “Story of Your Life” which played with linguistics and communication inside of an alien encounter. Villeneuve and screenwriter Eric Heisserer stick close to that idea. Their adaptation isn’t about flying saucers, alien abductions, or the CGI devastation of Earth’s metropolises. It’s much more cerebral and metaphysical. I guess you could say this is the thinking man’s alien abduction movie.

Amy Adams plays Louise, a language professor who, along with everyone else on the planet, is shocked when twelve mysterious spacecraft land at different points around the globe. After one ship lands in Montana, Louise is approached by Army Colonel Weber (Forest Whitaker) to lead a team sent in to communicate with the aliens. She is to work alongside theoretical physicist Ian Donnelly (Jeremy Renner) to find the answer to the biggest question – what is their purpose here?

To answer that question Louise and Ian must first learn the alien’s highly advanced language which comes in the form of symbols resembling inkblots or coffee mug stains. For Louise it’s imperative that her superiors be patient, but as world governments begin to cave to paranoia it could be us who ushers in a global catastrophe.

There is another reoccurring layer to the story that feeds into the overall mystery. From the opening shot we get flashbacks to a tragedy from Louise’s past. The more she learns of the alien language the more vivid her flashbacks become. In addition to developing suspense, these sequences provide a human pulse to the film mainly because of Adams’ measured performance. She is sophisticated enough as an actress to remain genuine and understated which keeps her character emotionally grounded.

Villeneuve’s storytelling is both patient and methodical which is sure to frustrate some and blow the minds of others. Yet while deliberate, the aforementioned tension never fully leaves even in the quieter scenes. That’s in big part thanks to an ever-present sense of dread and an eerie ominous mood which is clearly a focal point. Villeneuve has shown himself to be a stylish, visual filmmaker and he combined his flair for tantalizing imagery with cinematographer Bradford Young’s love for deep shadows and natural lighting. Also adding to the mood is the ethereal, off-kilter score from Villeneuve favorite Jóhann Jóhannsson. It’s both beautiful and foreboding – some of the best use of movie music this year. Plus there is the use of Max Richter’s exquisitely haunting “On the Nature of Daylight” which is such a perfect fit.

The film’s final act becomes a real mindbender as we start fitting together all of the pieces including some things we didn’t even know were pieces. This too is sure to split audiences between those who go for its mental gymnastics and those who see it as too much. Me, I loved it from the start. I appreciated the intelligent science fiction, but also how the film steps beyond genre. It turned out to be far more intimate and thought-provoking than I ever expected. And all of that on top of the superb visuals, art direction, and score. “Arrival” is an absolute gem from Denis Villeneuve and hopefully a precursor to his next movie, 2017’s Blade Runner sequel.

VERDICT – 5 STARS

REVIEW: “Nerve”

November 10, 2016 by Keith Garlington

In the age of Twitter, Periscope, Facebook, and Instagram I suppose it’s only natural that we get a cautionary tale on the dangers of social media and the World Wide Web. At first glance it’s pretty easy to question the need, but if there are kids in the world as dim-witted as some we meet in “Nerve” perhaps we do need a cinematic intervention.

“Nerve” is directed by the duo of Henry Joost and Ariel Schulman. The two are probably best known for their clever 2010 maybe-documentary “Catfish”. The two movies are obviously different, but they do have something in common – both play with the connection between young people and social media. For “Catfish” it was limited to Facebook. For “Nerve” the playground is significantly bigger.

Emma Roberts plays Venus Delmonico, but everyone knows her as simply Vee. She’s a smart and somewhat reserved senior in high school with an art school scholarship waiting if she chooses to take it. Contrast her with her best friend Sydney (Emily Meade), a rambunctious popularity hound who has become an internet “somebody” by playing a cyber reality game called Nerve. It’s basically live-streaming Truth or Dare where you gain money and (more importantly) followers by doing dumb stuff in public. The followers then dare you to do something even dumber and they watch as you stream it. Yippee.

Fed up with Sydney constantly pointing out her lack of moxie, Vee begins playing Nerve. Her first dare crosses paths with another player Ian (Dave Franco). Their followers team them up for an assortment of dares across New York City, each a little riskier than the previous one. The dares move from embarrassing to life-threatening and the game (much like the film) eventually gets completely out of hand.

At times “Nerve” is presented like a music video – high energy, bright lights, pounding modern music. It all fits in with the film’s hyper pacing. The story never stays planted in one place very long which is probably a good thing. It keeps our attention away from the shallowness of the characters and the stupidity of their actions. And by the time we get to the final act no amount of fast pacing can cover how preposterous things become.

There is a lively, spirited heartbeat in “Nerve” that pretty much runs from the opening title screen to the ending credits. Joost and Schulman deserve credit for sustaining that energy as they explore some intriguing internet-based themes. But the film is undercut by its story’s inability to finish and its flimsy handling of its characters. For example, you get the sense that the movie wants us to believe these characters are deeper than the surface impressions we are left with. It never convinced me. And by the time the story reaches its climax practically all logic is out the window. So for all of its hip style and colorful vivacity “Nerve” still has issues it can’t quite overcome. But then again maybe I’m just getting old

VERDICT – 2.5 STARS

REVIEW: “Doctor Strange”

November 8, 2016 by Keith Garlington

As their bank accounts have blossomed Marvel Studios has shown a confidence and willingness to explore nearly every corner of their comic book universe. Obviously they have spotlighted their biggest properties – The Avengers, Captain America, Iron Man and so on. But they have also ventured into other areas occupied by lesser known characters (to some). Here you find movies like “Ant-Man”, “Guardians of the Galaxy” and the latest Marvel installment “Doctor Strange”.

When watching “Doctor Strange” it doesn’t take long to recognize what has become a familiar origin story blueprint for the Marvel Cinematic Universe. It’s particularly similar to what we got with “Iron Man” and “Ant-Man” – a deeply flawed individual becomes the possessor of great power, he uses said power to face a sizable threat, he gets a measure of self-redemption, and then he is connected to the greater MCU through a an end credits scene. The names have changed and the powers are different, but it’s more or less the same Marvel formula.

Something Marvel Studios does exceptionally well is cast their movies. Benedict Cumberbatch is the ideal choice to play Stephen Strange, a renowned neurosurgeon with a big IQ and an even bigger ego. After a violent car crash costs him the full use of his hands, he has several experimental surgeries all of which fail. Unwilling to accept his fate, Strange seeks out eastern medicine in Nepal. He meets with a mystic known only as The Ancient One (played by a shorn Tilda Swinton) who shows him he must put aside his intellect and look inward to his spirit, something that’s a bit difficult for a raving egomaniac.

The main antagonist is a fellow named Kaecilius (played with the appropriate amount of gruff by Mads Mikkelsen). He’s actually one of the more compelling characters – a sorcerer who deeply believes that he is acting for a greater good. Other characters include Chiwetel Ejiofor as Mordo, the Anicient One’s right-hand man, Rachel McAdams as Strange’s (sort of) love interest Christine, and Benedict Wong as a faithful soldier/librarian named…well…Wong.

Director Scott Derrickson, most known for his horror movies, was given $160 million which he mostly put to good use. Locations are a highlight with filming taking place from New York City to Hong Kong to Kathmandu. But the film’s bread and butter lies in the special effects which range from merely okay to absolutely astounding. So often Marvel movies focus their effects on blowing up buildings or crashing large objects. “Doctor Strange” offers a new look that deals more with magic and the otherworldly. The visuals look their best when characters distort the dimensions of a cityscape. Think “Inception” but on mystical HGH. Whenever it plays around with the Dark Dimension stuff it doesn’t look nearly as impressive.

Also in line with other Marvel movies is the humor. The MCU has wisely refused to take itself too seriously and the same applies here. The humor comes from a number of sources but most prominently from an inanimate object. The Cloak of Levitation is easily the most recognizable piece of Doctor Strange attire. Here it functions semi-autonomously and some of the movies funniest scenes involve the cloak running around with a mystical mind of its own. There are also a few clever lines where the film understands its absurdity and winks at the audience. It’s a much-needed ingredient.

“Doctor Strange” seemed like another wild stretch by the MCU, but if early box office numbers are an indicator they have another success on their hands. There are definitely some new things being done here most notably in the visual effects. The ending is also a nice diversion from the routine MCU formula. On the other hand, this is a Marvel origin story through-and-through which is getting a little tiresome even for a bonafide comic book fan like me.