Author Archives: Keith Garlington

Random Thoughts on the 2016 Golden Globe Nominations

by

29

golden-globes-logo

The Hollywood Foreign Press Association has unveiled their precursor to the Oscars – the 2016 Golden Globe nominations. As with many of these things there were a few surprises while several nominations went just how you would expect. Here are a handful of random thoughts on today’s announcements:

  • Sylvester Stallone gets a Supporting Actor nomination. I finished my review of “Creed” by saying Sly could get some awards attention. Thrilled to see it. It is well deserved and it shouldn’t be viewed as some type of token nomination.
  • “The Revenant” received four Golden Globe nominations for 2015 films yet it doesn’t release until January 8, 2016. Yes I’m aware this is how it has been, but it is still annoying. Get the movie out. It’s finished for very select audiences but not for the rest of us?
  • What a morning for Idris Elba. He was nominated for both film and television. I can’t speak to his TV work, but his performance in “Beasts of No Nation” is top-tier. I would have no problem with him taking home the award.
  • Despite all of the praise we have heard throughout the year, I had a suspicion that “Mad Max: Fury Road” would conveniently miss out come awards time. Happy to be wrong. The film was nominated for Best Picture – Drama and Best Director. It certainly deserves the recognition. It’s one of the best films of the year and one of the best action movies from the past several years.
  • Who told Dennis Quaid how to pronounce Saoirse Ronan’s name? Was it John Travolta? But it could be worse. He could’ve said Dick Poop!
  • Who knew ” The Martian” was a comedy? Or was it a musical? 
  • Way back when the first trailer for “Carol” landed I tweeted that it was guaranteed a ton of nominations. It looked polished and primed for awards time. This morning it received five Golden Globe nominations. These things can be so predictable.
  • “Spy”? I mean it isn’t as teeth-grinding as a lot of Melissa McCarthy’s stuff, but nominations for Best Picture – Comedy or Musical and Best Actress? That’s a stretch.
  • I love seeing a smaller film like “Room” getting such recognition. For some reason I expect Oscar to give it the cold shoulder so I’m glad the Globes gave it some well deserved attention.
  • Quentin Tarantino got his obligatory screenplay nomination, but “The Hateful Eight” only landed two others (Jennifer Jason- Leigh for Best Supporting Actress and Original Score). But QT acolytes shouldn’t worry. The Academy loves him….kind of.
  • And Will Smith for “Concussion”? Obviously I haven’t seen the film or the performance, but this nomination seemed to come out of left field.
  • And no Meryl Streep? How can this be? How could this be allowed to happen? Thankfully Oscar always reserves a slot for her regardless of how undeserving the nomination may be. 
  • While I didn’t expect it to be nominated, I’m still a bit bummed that “Sicario” got nothing. Fantastic thriller and phenomenal supporting work from Benicio Del Toro. But again, not unexpected.
  • I think it’s safe to say that Alicia Vikander is pretty happy this morning. Two acting nominations but not a third for “The Man From U.N.C.L.E.”? The HFP must have forgot about that one.
  • We can now actually say “The Golden Globe nominated Fifty Shades of Grey”. Nothing about that sounds right!
  • I always forget that the Golden Globes and has no award for cinematography or documentary. That is a bit absurd.
  • The best and most intriguing category this year – Best Supporting Actor. I mean look at this group: Elba, Stallone, Shannon, Dano, and Rylance. Really strong.
  • What’s with all of the nominated one word titles? Room, Carol, Spotlight, Joy, Spy, Trainwreck, Trumbo, Brooklyn, Concussion, Grandma, Creed, Anomalisa, Youth, Spectre, Mustang. 

So there are just a few random thoughts about this year’s Golden Globe nominees. What did you think about the announcements? What do you see as some nice surprises or glaring omissions? Agree or disagree with any of my thoughts? Let’s talk about it in the comments section below. Here is a full list of the movie nominees:

Best Picture, Drama

  • Carol
  • Mad Max: Fury Road
  • The Revenant 
  • Room
  • Spotlight

Best Picture, Comedy or Musical

  • The Big Short
  • Joy
  • The Martian
  • Spy
  • Trainwreck

Best Director

  • Todd Haynes, Carol
  • Alejandro Innaritu, The Revenant
  • Tom McCarthy, Spotlight
  • George Miller, Mad Max: Fury Road
  • Ridley Scott, The Martian

Best Actor, Drama

  • Bryan Cranston, Trumbo
  • Leonardo DiCaprio, The Revenant
  • Michael Fassbender, Steven Jobs
  • Eddie Redmayne, The Danish Girl
  • Will Smith, Concussion

Best Actress, Drama

  • Cate Blanchett, Carol
  • Brie Larson, Room
  • Rooney Mara, Carol
  • Saoirse Ronan, Brooklyn
  • Alicia Vikander, The Danish Girl

Best Actor, Comedy

  • Christian Bale, The Big Short
  • Steve Carell, The Big Short
  • Matt Damon, The Martian
  • Al Pacino, Danny Collins
  • Mark Ruffalo, Infinitely Polar Bear

Best Actress, Comedy

  • Jennifer Lawrence, Joy
  • Melissa McCarthy, Spy
  • Amy Schumer, Trainwreck
  • Maggie Smith, The Lady in the Van
  • Lily Tomlin, Grandma


Best Supporting Actor

  • Paul Dano, Love & Mercy
  • Idris Elba, Beasts of No Nation
  • Mark Rylance, Bridge of Spies
  • Michael Shannon, 99 Homes
  • Sylvester Stallone, Creed


Best Supporting Actress

  • Jane Fonda, Youth
  • Jennifer Jason Leigh, The Hateful Eight 
  • Helen Mirren, Trumbo
  • Alicia Vikander, Ex Machina
  • Kate Winslet, Steve Jobs

Best Screenplay

  • Emma Donoghue, Room
  • Tom McCarthy and Josh Singer, Spotlight
  • Charles Randolph and Adam McKay, The Big Short
  • Aaron Sorkin, Steve Jobs
  • Quentin Tarantino, The Hateful Eight

Best Original Score

  • Carter Burwell, Carol
  • Alexandre Desplat, The Danish Girl
  • Ennio Morricone, The Hateful Eight
  • Daniel Pemberton, Steve Jobs
  • Ryuichi Sakamoto & Alva Noto, The Revenant

Best Original Song

  • “Love Me Like You Do,” Fifty Shades of Grey
  • “One Kind of Love,” Love & Mercy
  • “See You Again,” Furious 7
  • “Simple Song #3,” Youth
  • “Writing’s On the Wall,” Spectre


Best Animated Feature Film

  • Anomalisa
  • The Good Dinosaur
  • Inside Out
  • The Peanuts Movie
  • Shaun the Sheep Movie

Best Foreign Language Film

  • The Brand New Testament
  • The Club
  • The Fencer
  • Mustang
  • Son of Saul

5 Phenomenal Box Office Bombs That Deserved Better

by

46

PHENOM 5

Just a few weeks ago The Phenomenal 5 list looked at bad movies that were huge box office hits. This time we are doing it a little different. I thought it would be fun to look at box office bombs that are actually much better films than their theater earnings indicate. These are movies that deserved the audiences that films like “Avatar”, “Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull”, and “Transformers” brought in. I tried to focus on films that have still never gotten over the box office drumming they took. The number of good movies brutalized by poor theater showings is pretty astonishing therefore I wouldn’t call this the definitive list. But there is no denying that these five box office bombs truly deserved better.

#5 – “Serenity”

SERENITY

It may surprise some but Joss Whedon was indeed directing movies prior to “The Avengers”. One such film was “Serenity” based on his science-fiction television series “Firefly”. The film follows the events of the series and brought back the entire cast led by Nathan Fillion. Actually I had not watched the series so I wasn’t expecting much from the film. I was wrong. This is fun, engaging, quip-filled sci-fi but it never caught much of an audience. It barely made back its budget and any possibly followups were quickly tossed out. What a shame.

#4 – “Waterworld”

WATERWORLD

To this day “Waterworld” is remembered for its cost controversy and its failures to cover its budget at the box office. At the time it was the most expensive movie ever made and the news focused more on that than the film itself. The movie deserved a lot better. There are some rough patches but overall the  dystopian vision of a flooded earth is very compelling. The movie does several interesting things within the setting and there are several scenes that still stick with me. Not a perfect film but one that doesn’t deserve the pounding it has taken over the years.

#3 – “John Carter”

JOHN CARTER

Yet another science-fiction movie with a mammoth-sized budget that fell well short of box office expectations. Disney went all-in with “John Carter”, a move that proved very costly. The film needed to make $600 million globally to break even. It didn’t even manage $290 million. Did Disney overspend? Absolutely. Is “John Carter” a bad movie? Absolutely not. It’s too long. It has a fairly stiff lead performance. It sometimes gets a bit too cheesy. But I think “John Carter” is a lot of fun. It’s filled with some amazing effects, jaw-dropping set pieces, and it lays the foundation for what could have been a strong sequel. That certainly isn’t happening now.

#2 – “Once Upon a Time in America”

ONCE

There is a frustrating and shameful story behind the American release of Sergio Leone’s fabulous gangster epic “Once Upon a Time in America”. This was the final movie in Leone’s brilliant filmmaking career. It was set to release with a running time of 229 minutes. It did so in Europe. Panicking over some early screening reactions, it was decided to not only cut the American version down to 139 minutes, but also to rearrange numerous scenes. This was all done without Leone’s consent and the results were disastrous. The film bombed and to this day the brilliant original 229 minute version doesn’t get the appreciation it deserves.

#1 – “Hugo”

HUGO

Movie fans often talk about Martin Scorsese movies. In those conversations you rarely hear any mention of “Hugo”. The 2011 film based on the Brian Selznick novel was generally applauded by critics and well represented at the Academy Award ceremony. But it is generally known as a box office flop and as a result it has been forgotten. Overall the film is believed to have lost around $100 million mostly due to the stiff competition it faced in the theaters (“Twilight: Breaking Dawn Part 1” and “The Muppets”). In reality it is a charming, stimulating, and poignant story told through the lens of a true filmmaking great. The fact that “Hugo” has been forgotten by many is discouraging. It was one of my favorite films of 2011 and it holds up remarkably well today.

So there are five good movies (in some cases great movies) that performed poorly at the box office and have never fully recovered. Each deserved a much better fate. Agree or disagree? Please let me know in the comments section below.

REVIEW: “Beasts of No Nation”

by

28

BEAST poster

If there is one thing that profoundly comes across in Cary Fukunaga’s searing war drama it is that war has a cost – an intense human cost. In the case of Agu, the preadolescent lead character in “Beasts of No Nation”, it’s about the loss of family, the loss of childhood, the loss of innocence.  It is a bleak, uncomfortable, yet thoroughly arresting portrait of child soldiering that never tiptoes around the revulsion of its subject matter.

This was a seven-year project for Fukunaga where he worked as writer, director, and cinematographer. It is a fictional piece based on a 2015 debut novel by Nigerian author Uzodinma Iweala. Fukunaga knew he wasn’t making a movie for the masses. This simply isn’t the type of material that people will flock to see. But that is just one reason to respect the talented 38-year old who previously made the terrific “Sin Nombre” but is probably best known as the director for the first season of “True Detective”.

BEAST1

To bring the film to light Fukunaga and company had to navigate numerous hurdles. Some were related to financing or securing distribution. But there were also problems tied specifically to shooting in Eastern Ghana – malaria, theft of equipment, and near-death experiences. Fukunaga would later call it the hardest thing he has tackled, but the movie flourishes due to the rich authenticity of the locations.

The film opens with a sequence that haunts the rest of the story. Young Agu (played with eye-opening purity by newcomer Abraham Attah) and his friends are running around with the hull of an old television. They implore potential buyers to watch through the hollowed out screen while they play out different TV shows on the other side. Kung Fu, soap operas, 3-D. It’s a playful and spirited sequence built around the vitality of childhood. It plants a picture in our minds that slowly erodes as the film moves forward.

Agu lives in an unnamed West African village with his parents, big brother, baby sister, and disabled grandfather. The village lives under the illusion of safety in what is called a “buffer zone”. But reality lurks on each side of them in the form of opposing forces in a violent civil war. Inevitably the war bleeds over into the village and the savagery that follows sees Agu’s family killed. He flees into the jungle where he is eventually found by a rebel faction and their charismatic leader known only as Commandant (played with a forceful, seductive swagger by Idris Elba).

BEAST2

Commandant recruits the reluctant Agu into his army of child soldiers who he calls his “warriors”. He starts by breaking down any barrier of innocence and then preying on Agu’s vulnerability. He’s a hypnotic snake oil salesman who his soldiers see as larger-than-life. We also visualize him that way although our lofty perspective is tainted by the other evil side of him we see. He is a ruthless and vile egotist who takes his army from village to village, teaching them to slaughter, to pillage, and to do whatever sadistic bidding he may require. We get scenes reminding us of their innocence, but they are swallowed up by the horrors Commandant leads the children to do. Elba is phenomenal in showing us this brutal, mythical force and then later the insecure and self-destructive layers that threaten to undo him.

Fukunaga doesn’t take the easy way out, but he also doesn’t relish in the blood and violence. Everything has meaning and each atrocity we see through Agu’s eyes strips away more of his hold on right and wrong. The morality struggle is excruciating to watch and the film’s reliance on young Attah is bold. But even more audacious is the performance from the 14 year-old first time actor who channels more authentic emotion and inner-conflict than the most seasoned vet.

BEAST3

I also appreciate how “Beasts” doesn’t launch itself into the political realm. Some critics have knocked the film for not talking about a specific conflict or focusing on a specific regime. They speak as if the film loses some of its potency as a result. I completely disagree. Fukunaga has said he didn’t want this to be “an issues film”. But that doesn’t mean there isn’t a conscious meaning to much of what we see. And the film’s avoidance of politics allows for a more personal and impacting story to be told.

“Beasts of No Nation” is a movie you may not want to see a second time, but it’s one you must see a first time. Experiencing Agu as our eyes and ears; experiencing his struggles, fears, and dissent down this dark and violent path is  crushing. But buried deep within this story is a glimmer of hope. It is at times unrecognizable and unfathomable, but it’s there and it keeps us deeply connected to this young boy. “Beasts” may not make tons of money and it may not get a lot of talk come awards time. It should. This is one of the more emotional cinematic experiences of the year and easily one of the best films. It deserves an audience.

VERDICT – 4.5 STARS

4.5 STARS

 

REVIEW: “Love & Mercy”

by

22

love poster

It was 1961 in the Southern California city of Hawthorne. Three brothers, a cousin, and a high school friend formed a group that would grow into one of the biggest American  bands in music history. They called themselves The Beach Boys, a reference to their harmonious “California Sound”. They would go on to sell over 100 million records and have 36 Top 40 hits. The creative center of the group was Brian Wilson.

“Love & Mercy” is a dual narrative biographical drama about the life of Brian Wilson. The film hops back and forth between two specific timelines. One takes place in the 60s and follows a young Brian during the band’s heyday. The second takes us to the 80s where Brian’s life is dictated by opportunistic handlers and heavy medications.

There are two important creative decisions that help distinguish this from other films of its type. First, director Bill Pohlad keeps his focus strictly on these two periods of Wilson’s life. It’s a wise move that distances the film from more conventional structures. The periods don’t always feel connected and there are times where the leaps from one period to the other are a bit clunky. Still I appreciated the nuanced approach and they both helped tell a compelling and personal story.

love1

Second, “Love & Mercy” is a very inward-looking biopic. It is much more interested in showing the inner brilliance of Brian Wilson on a creative level as well as the mental and emotional turmoil that sends his life careening out of control. We spend a lot of time inside his head surrounded by voices and swirls of sound. We also spend a lot of time examining the aftermath. This is all calculated and much more interesting than I was expecting.

Paul Dano plays Brian Wilson from the 60s. Dano is an actor who can play certain roles well, but they have to be very specific to his narrow talents. This happens to be one of those roles. Dano stares into space, makes weird faces, and relays a general awkwardness – all things that he can do very well. But I don’t want to sell him short. He is very in tune with his character and with Pohlad’s vision. I like Dano a lot here. It’s a very human portrayal. But he also keenly shows us Wilson’s creative drive. He does all of this through a cleverly understated performance.

love2

Dano takes us through Wilson’s struggle with the pressures of being in a hugely popular band. The stresses, the panic attacks, and eventually the drugs. John Cusak plays Wilson in the 1980s, a shell of a man mentally damaged by his past but also by a leech of a psychotherapist and guardian Dr. Eugene Landy (Paul Giamatti). Cusak is given a much different role than Dano and he too succeeds in showing us another phase of this complicated life.

At this point Wilson is a man on a leash with literally no life to call his own. That changes when he meets a goodhearted car saleswoman named Melinda (Elizabeth Banks). She catches glimpses of the real Brian buried inside by Landy’s mental oppression. She likes what she sees and she is willing to fight the sleazeball Landy. Banks does a really good job drawing personality out of Wilson. It is through their relationship that we see this Brian Wilson as more than a heavily sedated zombie. And Giamatti, well he is always fantastic at playing a scumbag.

As I’ve pointed out there are so many things “Love & Mercy” does well. There are some small bumps, but ultimately the biggest reason it succeeds is because it operates in human terms. It doesn’t bog itself down by adhering to the common mainstream biopic formula. Instead it shows us what made this creative genius tick. Do we ever truly understand where that drive and inspiration came from? Not exactly, other than it came from the same dark place that eventually broke him. This is compelling stuff. It is a story worth telling and “Love & Mercy” tells it really well.

VERDICT – 4 STARS

4 Stars

REVIEW: “Creed”

by

40

CREEDPOSTER

If you had told me at the start of the year that I would pay money to go see a “Rocky” spin off with old man Stallone training the son of Apollo Creed I would have laughed in your face. Nothing about that concept sounds appealing. If you would have told me I would not only see the movie but thoroughly enjoy it, I would have called you insane. Yet despite my closed-minded skepticism “Creed” turned out to be one of the bigger surprises of 2015.

A ton of credit can go to the film’s director and co-writer Ryan Coogler. You may remember him from 2013’s “Fuitvale Station”. Coogler reunites with his Fruitvale star Michael B. Jordan to give us a film that is one part spin-off and one part sequel to 2006’s “Rocky Balboa”. On paper this sounds like an all-around bad idea but Coogler does something special. Much like Fruitvale there is an earnest dedication to telling its story through human lenses. There is such a genuine humanity to the film that even when we get the big crowdpleasing moments, they feel completely earned.

Creed1

The movie begins by introducing us to Adonis “Donnie” Johnson (Jordan), a young man living in the shadows of a troubled childhood. He is the son of the late boxing great Apollo Creed and born from an extramarital affair. Apollo’s widowed wife (Phylicia Rashad) finds Donnie in a juvenile facility and takes him in. She gives him a plentiful life and helps him get a good job with a promising future.

But there is a perpetual inter-turmoil inside of Donnie. He is filled with anger and angst that he releases through fighting. First it’s small-time fights in Tijuana, Mexico, but later he quits his job to go pro in hopes of carving out a name for himself. He heads to Philadelphia to seek out his father’s close friend Rocky Balboa (Stallone). He asks Rocky to train him but the aged former champ turns him down. Donnie’s persistence combined with loyalty to an old friend leads Rocky to take the young fighter under his wing.

You could say Coogler is simultaneously telling two different stories. Donnie’s is a search for his own identity. He wants no part of his father’s legacy and he keeps him a secret. He wants to make his own name and plow his own path. But at the same time he needs guidance and stability in his life and in the ring. We genuinely like the guy because he is an underdog. That’s why audiences first embraced Rocky way back in 1976. Jordan has the same charm and authenticity to win us over.

But there is also the story of Rocky. Gone is his swagger and larger-than-life persona. Replacing it is a melancholy contentment with where he is at in this stage of his life. He’s tired, older, grayer and Stallone wears it truthfully and without an ounce of show. The physicality is gone yet Sly is given a lot more to do. It’s a deeper and dramatically meatier role and I would call it easily one of the best performances of his career.

Boxing is certainly a key part of this film, but it mainly serves as a support for the true meat and potatoes. Coogler is interested in his characters and their relationships. Every boxing scene whether training or an actual fight tells us more about Donnie or it builds up his relationship with Rocky. Then there are other characters like a local musician (Tessa Thompson) who Donnie falls for. She opens up an entirely different side of Donnie. But these relationships work because Coogler takes his time and allows them room to grow and breathe.

Creed3

Coogler also shows a remarkable technical ability especially for a young filmmaker. There are so many things I liked about his presentation. There are several fabulous tracking shots that cleverly use lighting or darkness to give the appearance of long takes. And how many boxing sequences have we seen over the years? Yet Coogler’s slow-moving camera and his knowledge of when to pull the camera back and keep it still result in some exhilarating boxing scenes.

There are other impressive touches such as the way he shoots Philadelphia and the handling of the music (often teasing us with variations of Bill Conti’s original “Gonna Fly Now”). It all works to service the characters and their stories. “Creed” has its clichés and its big mandatory crowd-pleasing moments, but even they are handled well by a confident filmmaker who is a true rising talent. For Coogler this is a step up from the admirable “Fruitvale Station”. For Jordan it’s a bold ‘getting back on track’ after “Fantastic Four”. And for the 69 year-old Stallone it could equal and invitation to the Oscars. Now that would certainly bring a smile to my face.

VERDICT – 4.5 STARS

4.5 STARS

K&M Retro Review: “Good Morning Vietnam”

by

20

 

good-morning

It has been a little over a year since the passing of Robin Williams yet he is still remembered through his incredibly diverse body of work. He was a comedian with his own special brand of humor. It was humor that I couldn’t always connect with. But over the years Williams proved himself to be more than a shallow, one dimensional actor.

While he had caught attention with some earlier performances, “Good Morning Vietnam” gave Williams his big break. In each of his previous films Williams was kept on a leash. This was the first movie to allow his nutty, hyperactive comedy to run wild. Audiences and critics loved it. The movie was a huge box office success and Williams would earn an Academy Award nomination.

VIET1

But “Good Morning Vietnam” offered Williams a chance to do more than just give frenzied comedy routines. The story features several dramatic turns which Williams deftly handles with an eye-opening proficiency. For me these dramatic moments are what sets the film apart and these scenes are what make Williams’ performance so special.

Williams plays Airman Adrian Cronauer, a DJ for the Armed Forces Radio. It’s 1965 and he has been reassigned to Saigon where the Vietnam conflict is growing in intensity. The broadcasts have mainly consisted of a tame pre-selected playlist and sanitized and censored news meant to control the information flow to the troops. But Adrian is a bit…different. His irreverent on-air humor and constant rule-breaking sparks the ire of his superiors but is hugely popular with the troops and his fellow DJs.

Writer Mitch Markowitz’s story features several on-air monologues. He and director Barry Levinson hands them over to Williams and lets him go. It has been said that much of the manic comedy we get was improvised by Williams. Lightning fast quips, heavy sarcasm, and a number of impersonations including Walter Cronkite, Richard Nixon, and Elvis Presley. It’s truly impressive even if I didn’t find a lot of it funny. But even if it isn’t my type of humor, it’s easy to appreciate what Williams is doing.

VIET2

While this is essentially a comedy, one of my favorite things about it is how well it represents the locations, atmosphere, and complexities of Vietnam in 1965. The film was shot in Bangkok, Thailand and utilizes numerous parts of the city. Much of this is realized through relationships Adrain forms namely with a beautiful young local (Chintara Sukapatana) and her protective brother (Tung Thanh Tran). Through them Adrian is introduced to a number of the harsh social and political realities

Forest Whitacker, Robert Wuhl, Bruno Kirby, and Noble Willingham round out a fine supporting cast but Williams is the movie’s heart and soul. This was the film that launched his career to new heights and many people were introduced to his impressive diversity as an actor. I still don’t think the manic humor is nearly as funny as it is admirable, but when Williams is allowed to stretch out dramatically he gives us some of film’s best scenes. Those are the moments when “Good Morning Vietnam” stands out.

VERDICT – 3.5 STARS

3.5 stars