REVIEW: “Now You See Me 2”

October 5, 2017 by Keith Garlington

I suppose somewhere out there was an audience anxiously awaiting a follow-up to 2013’s wildly uneven “Now You See Me”. Still, you can call it the sequel I never expected. But modern day trends seem to indicate that when you bring in over $350 million at the box office against a $75 million budget chances are good the studio will push out another one.

So now we get the shrewdly titled “Now You See Me 2” with a slightly higher budget and slightly less money made at the box office. Still, $335 million is nothing to laugh at and apparently the series has its fans. Well they should be happy. “NYSM2” is more of the same – silly, a bit kooky actually, and all over the map.

Roughly eighteen months after slipping through the fingers of the Feds, The Four Horseman (the pop stars of the magic world) await their next assignment from The Eye, the goofy secret cabal of magicians revealed in the first film. They get their next job but are thwarted and exposed by a mystery man who also outs their FBI insider Dylan Rhodes (Mark Ruffalo).

The Horseman (Jesse Eisenberg, Woody Harrelson, Dave Franco, and new member Lizzy Kaplan) are abducted by a weaselly, off-the-grid tech wiz named Walter (Daniel Radcliffe). He brings the crew to Macau and blackmails them into swiping a computer device called “the stick”. Director John Chu (perhaps best known for the “Step Up” movies) goes the full “Ocean’s 11” route. In other words the film is not just trying to be a heist movie. It’s trying to be a really cool one.

But there is also Morgan Freeman and Michael Caine returning from the first film. Both have their own angles, both of which intersects with Ruffalo. Add in a few new characters – Radcliffe who is pretty good and Caplan who is fine. But there is also Woody Harrelson in the second of his dual roles playing Merritt’s identical twin. It’s a wacky performance, a stunningly bad character and an even worse wig.

And then there is the magic – rarely ever genuine illusion. Instead the majority is glaringly computer-generated making any impressive “Presto” moments all but nonexistent. And when they do try to offer up some form of explanation it’s too absurd to be taken seriously or with humor. There is the key heist scene which is actually pretty fun. It’s preposterous beyond measure and requires some of the worst security guards on the globe. But it’s an entertaining bit if you’re able to turn off your brain.

There is some occasional good chemistry between the Horseman and there are moments when you think the movie is going to fully embrace its corniness. I wish it had. Instead the smoke-and-mirrors story flies all over the place and never firmly lands anywhere. It’s a messy movie but not quite fun enough to call a glorious mess. Perhaps it is marginally better than the first film but I could never say that with any hint of confidence.

VERDICT – 2 STARS

REVIEW: “Macbeth”

September 28, 2017 by Keith Garlington

Easily one of William Shakespeare’s most renowned plays, “Macbeth” is believed to have been first performed 1606. Since then it has been adapted to nearly every form of media. The tragedy deals with several themes but at its core it examines unbridled ambition and the destruction it brings if unchecked.

Director Justin Kurzel along with a trio of screenwriters and a fantastic supporting cast begin their telling with a couple of notable deviations from the Bard’s classic text. The first is the opening scene – a haunting overhead shot of a deceased young child in a straw bassinet laying upon a funeral pyre. The infant is surrounded by loved ones shrouded in black including the child’s grieving parents Macbeth (Michael Fassbender) and Lady Macbeth (Marion Cotillard).

Shakespeare alludes to the Macbeth’s loss of a child, but Kurzel focuses on it as an entry point to their story. It’s significant in that it adds another layer (a far more penetrating one) to the couple aside from the lust for power that eventually consumes them. Here we see the sorrow of such a loss emphasized and for the Macbeth’s the wounds never fully heal. It’s an effective focus for the story.

Another deviation is that Kurzel shows the final battle sequence spoken of by Shakespeare. Still mourning the death of his young son, we see Macbeth on the battlefield preparing his ragtag group for what’s ahead. Among his soldiers is a young boy, undoubtedly a reminder of his own. Macbeth leads his band to victory but there are heavy casualties. During this sequence we see Macbeth as a mighty soldier but war has clearly taken its toll. Fassbender’s eyes do wonders in revealing the fragility hidden underneath the rugged exterior. This is another key defining point to what lies ahead.

While still on the battlefield Macbeth and his chief ally Banquo (Paddy Considine) encounter three witches (possibly five depending on your interpretation) wandering and observing through the post-battle haze. The witches prophesy that Macbeth with soon be Thane of Cawdor and eventually King of Scotland. Banquo is told he will be a “father of Kings”. Later the sitting ruler King Duncan (David Thewlis) arrives and determines the Thane of Cawdor to be a traitor. Due to his success in battle Macbeth is given the position seemingly verifying the witches’ prophesy.

Upon hearing this Lady Macbeth begins feeding her husband’s hunger for power. Cotillard has a magnificent presence both as a manipulative and devious conniver and as a grief-stricken mother. Again, the film’s opening scene adds this welcomed bit of nuance and it is something that haunts her character throughout the movie.

The ascension to power and subsequent spiral into madness is skillfully handled. Macbeth soaks in paranoia and blood. Lady Macbeth is torn by guilt and shame. Through it all Fassbender and Cottilard shine. They both are so keenly in tune with their characters and the unique period dialogue they are given. Visually, stylish flairs are found all through the film. They drive the mood and superbly capture a cold, muddy medieval Scotland.

The true tragedy of this story doesn’t simply lie with the Macbeths. The greater tragedy is how the consequences of their actions shake the entirety of Scotland to its core. Kurzel keenly explores the classic tale while offering a few of his own original twists. Literary purists may be put off by this, but it kept me mesmerized from its heart-shattering opening scene, through a couple of slow patches, and right up to its slightly nihilistic ending. I say nihilistic but like much of the film, I guess it’s all in the interpretation.

VERDICT – 4 STARS

REVIEW: “King Arthur: Legend of the Sword”

September 13, 2017 by Keith Garlington

As a movie fan here is a scenario I have experienced more than once: I see a trailer for a big studio picture and immediately say to myself “This movie is in trouble”. Then I learn of its $175 million production budget and I say “Make that BIG trouble”. And then critics begin dropping a slew of scathing reviews (not always a guaranteed indicator but in many cases…). Needless to say my expectations bottom out.

But then I actually see the film and it turns out to be far from the horrid experience I expected. “King Arthur: Legend of the Sword” fits into this category. Now don’t get me wrong, this isn’t a ringing endorsement. At the same time it’s far from the unwatchable dreck I was led to expect.

Where to start? Guy Ritchie’s take on the Arthurian legend doesn’t follow many traditional guidelines. You could say (for better or for worse) Ritchie does his own thing. That’s good in the sense that it feels like a unique undertaking and the looniness is one of my favorite things about it. What’s not so good is that it misses much of the mythical and magical charms that has made the story somewhat timeless.

Since 2004’s forgotten and underrated “King Arthur” Warner Brothers has been hard at work attempting to bring a new film to light. They finally settled on what is supposed to be the first of a six film cinematic universe. The likeliness of that happening has dwindled. Something about losing $15 million will do that.

The film begins with Camelot under siege by the dark mage Mordred. It’s a sequence resembling a cheaper version of Peter Jackson’s battle for Minas Tirith (see “Lord of the Rings: The Return of the King”). King Uther Pendragon (Eric Bana) prevails much to the chagrin of his ambitious and devious brother Vortigern (Jude Law). Hungry for the throne, Vortigern leads a coup against his brother. Realizing the peril, Uther sends his infant son Arthur drifting down the river, baby Moses style. Then through a speedy time-hopping sequence we learn young Arthur was found by a group women and raised in their brothel.

What follows is a gonzo account of Arthur’s rise, his introduction to Excalibur, and of course a confrontation with the new king Vortigern. Charlie Hunnam plays Arthur, now all grown up and with a fantastical and unwanted destiny laid out before him. Hunnam is a good actor but here he seems a bit hog-tied by the script. It’s steadily working towards him becoming the mythical sword-wielding hero, but for too long it keeps him locked in as the reluctant denier.

The action is pretty good and Jude Law is a hoot playing such a detestable slug of a human being. And the sheer nuttiness of the whole thing works in several regards. Despite its noticeable flaws, before I knew it I found myself having fun with this gonzo vision of Camelot. But is it enough to put things in motion for a full cinematic universe? I’m afraid not. It’s entertaining as its own thing, but there isn’t much to draw anyone back for another dose. Like I said, not a ringing endorsement but fun enough.

VERDICT – 3 STARS

REVIEW: “The Circle”

September 8, 2017 by Keith Garlington

Nestled somewhere deep inside of “The Circle” lies an interesting concept for a movie. Maybe it was bad creative choices. Maybe the Dave Eggers novel didn’t translate well from book to screen. I’m guessing it’s a combination of both that shortchange this film adaptation. There are certainly some filmmaking decisions that don’t pan out and you would like to think the tech-heavy story is better explored in Eggers’s novel (which I haven’t read).

“The Circle” is directed by James Ponsoldt who also wrote the screenplay along with Eggers. Their story tinkers with modern themes of privacy, interconnectivity, and even Information Age totalitarianism to a degree. It all sounds nice a relevant. Problem is it’s all squished together in a half-baked of soup of clumsy execution, unbelievable story angles, and underdeveloped relationships.

Emma Watson plays Mae Holland, an aimless twenty-something stuck working a crummy job, driving a crummy car, and with a crummy social life. Things perk up when her best friend Annie (Karen Gillan) gets her an interview at The Circle, a Silicone Valley tech corporation in the mold of Apple, Google, etc. Mae gets hired (to what position I still haven’t figured out) and is soon grafted into the company’s cultish hipster culture.

Tom Hanks plays Eamon Bailey, the company’s Steve Jobs-ish CEO who has his predominately millennial employees under his charismatic spell. He opens the door for Mae to climb the corporate ladder by becoming the face of his push for more control of the world’s information. Mae’s rise makes her a celebrity on campus but distances her from her family and friends.

A key conflict in the film pits Mae’s old personal life again her new life of success and popularity at the Circle. The film struggles to make Mae’s personal life worth caring about. Her parents are played by Bill Paxton and Glenne Headly, the two genuine characters in the entire movie. Paxton’s Vinnie struggles with MS while Headly’s Bonnie is his strong supportive caregiver. They are easy to care for but much of that comes from the real life circumstances. Both Paxton and Headly died this year adding an extra emotional punch to these final performances.

“The Circle” tries to offer up a thought-provoking critique but ultimately it’s more goofy than provocative. First off it’s simply impossible to believe in The Circle as an actual organization and it’s even harder to believe in the many characters who bought into it. And in this world don’t underestimate the power of the frownie face emoji in foreign policy. And then you have Mae stepping out and becoming ‘transparent’. It’s meant to be a big deal step forward when it’s nothing more than a souped up YouTube channel

Several other things stand out. Ellar Coltrane (“Boyhood”) plays Mae’s shy childhood friend. They do some interesting things with his character before it runs off the rails but it’s hard to enjoy it because Coltrane’s performance is so bad. And then you have John Boyega, a welcomed addition but he the story completely wastes him.

Despite its many sour notes “The Circle” isn’t unbearable. It moves along pretty well and it keeps your attention. But I wonder if that’s due to good filmmaking or to my bubbling curiosity that just couldn’t wait to see where this mess would go next. Regardless of what it teases, “The Circle” doesn’t really go anywhere and that may be its biggest flaw – lots of potential, practically all of it wasted.

VERDICT – 2 STARS

REVIEW: “Alone in Berlin” (2017)

September 1, 2017 by Keith Garlington

For me the strengths of Vincent Perez’s “Alone in Berlin” are fairly obvious – a unique and heart-wrenching true story and two superb acting talents as its leads. That was more than enough the keep me attached to this slow-boiling World War 2 drama.

Brendan Gleeson and Emma Thompson play Otto and Anna, a German husband and wife living in 1940 Berlin. The two are devastated upon receiving the news that their only son Hans is killed during battle. His death puts stress on their already dry marriage and each mourn in their own lonely way. But their loss also gives them a new perspective on the growing war unfolding around them.

As the Nazi influence begins to reflect across Berlin the couple witness things that intensify their repulsion and disillusionment. Otto begins writing anti-Nazi messages on postcards and secretly leaving them all around the city. At first it’s a therapeutic emotional release to help him cope, but soon it also becomes about duty. And when Anna joins him, their dangerous quest expands while also bringing them closer together as husband and wife. It gets even riskier when the Nazi’s hire a principled German police detective (Daniel Brühl) to track down those responsible.

First the performances, it should surprise no one that both Gleeson and Thompson are wonderful. Gleeson conveys the emotionally worn Otto through his tired, somber eyes and dispirited mannerisms. Thompson portrays Anna as a determined woman but one who clearly feels the weight of her sorrow. Their performances are so rich and grounded that you never doubt either character or any of their motivations. Brühl is also good in a role that he has played before.

For the most part the story steers clear of depicting the war’s atrocities. They are mostly handled from a distance. But in the handful of scenes where they do hit the screen, the impact is effective. Some who yearn for a harsher visual representation of the horrors may find Perez’s film too sanitary. It’s a response I’ve seen towards other films that sought to tell a more confined, individual story. I don’t agree. Perez keeps his focus on his two central characters and the film is better for it.

One gripe is that the film moves a bit slow at times and it often relies to heavily on its two leads. But that doesn’t make it any less inspirational and heartbreaking. “Alone in Berlin” tells a poignant story that is unique and authentic. As a fan of films set in this period, I was plenty satisfied with what Perez and company deliver and hopefully more people will give it a look.

VERDICT – 4 STARS

REVIEW: “The Girl with All the Gifts” (2017)

August 28, 2017 by Keith Garlington

It seems that every year or so we get a zombie movie that attempts to bend the crowded genre in a new direction. I’m talking about movies like “Zombieland”, “Train to Busan”, and even Schwarzenegger’s “Maggie”. This year’s entry is “The Girl with All the Gifts”, a wickedly crafty zombie flick that twists the genre’s rules and packs more brains than you may think (and no, that’s not an attempt at zombie humor).

The tone is set in the opening scenes. The setting is an underground military base just outside of London. Director Colm McCarthy’s camera leads us down a dreary hallway lined with cells, one belonging to a young girl named Melanie (Sennia Nanua). A blaring alarm pierces the halls and we watch Melanie walk over and sit in a wheelchair. Armed soldiers open her cell and fasten the multiple restraints. They wheel her down the hall to a ‘classroom’ with other constrained children. It’s an eerie, uncomfortable opening that lays the groundwork for us.

You see, these kids are unique – a new breed if you will. I’ll let you find out how, but they are of special interest to the military facility. Melanie is the brightest among the ‘students’ and maintains a sweet demeanor regardless of the interaction. Some treat her well, such as her kind and caring teacher Helen (Gemma Arterton). Others are cold and indifferent. Take Dr. Caldwell (Glenn Close in her creepiest role in years) who basically sees the kids as lab rats. Offering a third perspective is Sgt. Parks (Paddy Considine), the military leader who is constantly leary of the threat these kids may pose.

These four are forced together when zombies (affectionately called “hungries”) penetrate the facility. They escape the base and head for London but (as you can guess) finding refuge is easier said than done. You could be tempted to say this becomes a standard zombie survival story at this point. Those elements are certainly there, but the movie has much more in mind.

McCarthy along with writer M.R. Carey play with the zombie movie model and employ many of its tactics. But at the same time they seem more interested in creating moral tension between the characters by forcing them to face complicated dilemmas that don’t have the easiest answers. We too are asked to wrestle with these things and come to our own tough, murky conclusions.

Nowhere is this better illustrated than with Melanie herself. The film walks a clever tightrope in its presentation of her. On one side is the genuinely innocent, lovely young girl who we have immense sympathy for. On the other side is something dangerous, ferocious, and potentially deadly. We fear her and are charmed by her at the same time. We hear her tender, sweet voice coming from her horrifying blood-stained mouth. It’s an unsettling tension the film creates and maintains throughout. Young Sennia Nanua is a key ingredient. Her tough, committed performance is vital both to the character and the movie.

Even with its tiny budget of around $5 million, “The Girl with All the Gifts” offers up an experience that should please both those who love zombie flicks and those who want more to chew on (figuratively of course). There is enough originality to make it feel fresh and it’s plenty creepy enough to make you squirm. That’s what I’m looking for in a “zombie movie”.