Author Archives: Keith Garlington

REVIEW: “The Gunman”

by

20

GUNMANposter

It shouldn’t surprise anyone to hear of Sean Penn making a political thriller. It may surprise them to see him make one this bad. For years Penn has been involved in a number of humanitarian causes and numerous times he has thrust himself onto the political landscape. Sometimes it has resulted in great work while other times he has looked attention-starved and self-promotional. And despite his occasional foray into the bizarre, you like to think he is a man of conviction. From a movie perspective you like to think he can still act. “The Gunman” will leave you questioning both.

To be completely honest it wasn’t Penn who drew me to this movie. It was the supporting cast featuring Javier Bardem, Idris Elba, and Ray Winstone. Three great actors – all basically wasted by a film void of all energy, originality, or substance. Even Penn’s attempt to add a political edge comes across as preachy, moral high ground posturing instead of a thought provoking and substantive critique. All we are left with is the action and Penn’s buffed up physique, neither of which are enough to save the movie.

GUNMAN1

Penn plays Terrier, a member of an assassination squad working in the Congo. A contract comes to them calling for the assassination of the Minister of Mines. Terrier is chosen to carry out the mission and then leave the Congo to go into hiding. I’m assuming this is to protect his team and his unknowing girlfriend Annie (Jasmine Tribca). The Minister’s death unleashes violence and instability throughout the region. Years pass and a remorseful Terrier returns hoping humanitarian work can help atone for his sins.

But while working he is targeted by a hit squad which pushes him back into hiding. Convinced that the incident is connected to the Minister’s assassination, Terrier sets out to find his old squad to see what they know and warn them of a potential threat. One of his old mates is Felix (Bardem), now a wealthy alcoholic who, to Terrier’s chagrin, happens to be married to Annie. This adds a new complexity to Terrier’s search for answers, but it’s nothing compared to the trouble he runs into as he gets closer to the truth.

I mentioned how the movie wastes its supporting talent. Bardem’s character is paper-thin and other than a couple of times where he’s doing some serious scenery chewing, he is given nothing to do. Idris Elba finally pops up in the final act but only gets a couple of brief scenes. Ray Winstone plays the prototypical ‘mentor’ character to Terrier. You’ve seen this character so many times before and nothing about him deviates from the blueprint.

Gunman3

That brings us to Penn and specifically his approach to his character. Penn plays it ultra-serious the entire way never showing an ounce of humor and other than some painful grunts you rarely see any emotion. He constantly looks sour as if he had eaten some bad food and at times he seems more interested in showing off his biceps than the movie.

With “The Gunman” you ultimately end up with a dull, emotionally inert, slog of an experience. None of its components really work – the half-baked romance, the throwaway performances, the powerless political messaging. Even the big violent finale is as preposterous as anything you would see in a Van Damme straight-to-DVD movie. Some of the shootouts look pretty good but when there is absolutely nothing behind them and when they are treated this seriously, even they fall flat. Basically “The Gunman” fires nothing but blanks.

VERDICT – 2 STARS

2 Stars

REVIEW: “Jupiter Ascending”

by

41

JUPITER POSTER

It took some time but I have finally come to an unimportant realization –   I am not a fan of the Wachowskis. I’m not sure why it took me so long to admit it because I’ve never had the best experiences with their films. “The Matrix” was a good movie, but I never saw it as the monumental classic others have. It’s sequels interested me less. “Speed Racer” was an unwatchable mess. “Cloud Atlas” was one of the most laborious theater experiences I’ve ever had. Yet despite these not-so-stellar reactions I always find myself watching whenever a new movie comes around.

The latest from the Wachowski siblings is “Jupiter Ascending”, an ambitious science fiction romp that has all the ingredients to be yet another slog. Six years ago Warner Brothers approached the Wachowskis about creating an original sci-fi franchise. Lots of money and resources were put behind the project in hopes of producing a profitable series. That hope looks unlikely. The film barely recovered its production costs and it found very little critical support. But here is the big surprise – it’s not a terrible movie. That being said it is another Wachowski movie whose ambition is only surpassed by its flaws.

JUPITER

The story isn’t nearly as intelligent as the Wachowskis probably think, but it’s also not as incoherent or convoluted as some critics proclaim. In fact, at times it is pretty basic stuff, but at other times it’s just downright silly. The story is basically a melding of Cinderella and the Wizard of Oz thrown into a big, vibrant science fiction world. Mila Kunis plays Jupiter Jones, a young woman who housecleans for wealthy Chicago elites. But actually Jupiter is the reincarnated heir of planet earth.

Make sense so far? Probably not so here’s the deal. Earth and a number of other planets are owned by a powerful alien royalty called the House of Abrasax. The Matriarch of the royal family has been murdered leaving the ownership of the planets split between three siblings: the power-hungry sociopath Balam (Eddie Redmayne), the conniving playboy Titus (Douglas Booth), and the sweet but equally devious Kalique (Tuppence Middleton). The planets are considered harvest grounds by the aliens and Earth is the most profitable. Jupiter’s existence means the siblings can’t control Earth and therefore the profit so she finds herself stuck in the middle of one big family squabble.

JUPITER2

Thankfully there is Channing Tatum as the ridiculously named Caine Wise. He is a genetically engineered “splice” – a half human and half….ahem….wolf. Yep, you read that right. To add to the character’s absurdity, he speed skates through the skies with a pair of rocket boots and has a penchant for eyeliner. His main contribution to the story is to constantly rescue Jupiter from various states of peril in the nick of time. We also get Sean Bean as Caine’s buddy Stinger. He is half human and half honeybee but do we really need to get into that?

I will say the Wachowskis know how to world build. The creativity behind some of the effects are impressive and the locations are a lot of fun. For example to get to Balam’s “refinery” you enter through the big red spot on Jupiter’s surface. On the flipside not all of the action sequences work as well. Watching Tatum skate through the sky or fly around in these bird-like ships is cool at first but the movie milks them and they grow tiresome. The movie relies heavily on its CGI which is both good and bad.

JUPITER3

But the film’s problems don’t stop there. The story is built upon a pretty interesting mythology and foundation but most of it is told through a ton of exposition. Rarely does the film show us anything. Also for all of the cool and interesting things the story does, there are also too many moments and details that are beyond. And then there are a couple of key performances that don’t work at all. Tatum is cold, emotionless, and uninteresting. Some of it is the role but Tatum does it no favors. And what on Earth is Eddie Redmayne doing? His husky mumbling and sudden outbursts are laughably bad at times.

In a weird way “Jupiter Ascending” was a nice surprise. After my past experiences with the Wachowskis I was expecting the worst. But this is a watchable bit of sci-fi and often entertaining. Unfortunately some of its ideas are shockingly silly, it relies too heavily on its special effects, and a couple of the more important performances hurt the film. So while this may be better than some Wachowski films, it’s only marginally better and definitely not enough for me to call myself a fan of their work.

VERDICT – 2.5 STARS

2.5 stars

5 Phenomenal Movies from 2000

by

44

PHENOM 5

Several months ago I wrapped up my year-by-year look at the films of the 1980s. Instead of just falling in line and jumping to the 90s, I thought I would skip a decade and save it for later. Today I starting my look at the 2000s from a Phenomenal 5 perspective. The year 2000 was a very intriguing movie year especially for the ladies. A number of ‘Girl Power’ stinkers popped up (“Bring It On”, “Coyote Ugly”, “Charlie’s Angels”), but we also got several strong and memorable female leads (Juliette Binoche in “Chocolat”, Julia Roberts in “Erin Brokovich”, Ellen Burston in “Requiem for a Dream”).

But it was also a very strong year for some of Hollywood’s biggest actors as today’s list will show. Overall it was a year rich with variety so I wouldn’t call this the definitive list. But still, there is no denying that these five movies from the year 2000 were nothing short of Phenomenal.

#5 – “O Brother, Where Art Thou”

O Brother

Whenever is see “written and directed by Joel and Ethan Coen” my enthusiasm shoots through the roof. In 2000 the filmmaking brothers gave us a deep south action comedy set during The Great Depression. So many things contribute to this film’s success. The impeccable locations brought through the film’s Oscar nominated cinematography. The period perfect music. Great performances from Clooney, Turturro, and Nelson. And of course that razor-sharp Coen brothers humor. It all makes for a fabulously funny experience.

#4 – “The Patriot”

PATRIOT

Many arguments could be made that Rolland Emmerich’s “The Patriot” deals too heavily in melodrama. Some critics have griped about its historical inaccuracies. Both criticisms may have merit but that doesn’t stop the film from being a rousing and emotional experience. “The Patriot” has its big action moments and a truckload of drama, but at the heart is a relationship between a war-weary father scarred from his past and his seven children. The Revolutionary War swirls in the background and it often comes more front and center, but ultimately it’s Gibson’s conflicted and tormented character that wins me over.

#3 – “Memento”

Memento

Christopher Nolan has established himself as one of the most ambitious and compelling working directors. His mind-bending projects stand out for taking chances and always trying something new and fresh. That exact same approach is what earned him attention in 2000 when he released “Memento”. Everything about the film is unique. Even its structure stands out. It tells its story through two timelines visually differentiated – one is in color, the other in black-and-white. Nolan weaves together what could have been an utter disaster. Instead it is a true gem and the launching point of a great filmmaker’s career.

#2 – “Cast Away”

Cast Away

It’s hard to verbalize my fascination with this movie. I remember first seeing it and being so intensely engrossed in its story of a man stranded on a deserted island. But the movie gives us more than that. There is also a deep flowing emotional undercurrent that gives an interesting weight to everything we see. Tom Hanks is fabulous both in his physical transformation and in humanizing the many struggles his character faces. For the majority of the film there is no one else but Hanks and he never loses the audience. It is truly brilliant work in a brilliant movie.

#1 – “Gladiator”

Gladiator

No movie of 2000 sucked me in, excited me, or left as big of an impression as Ridley Scott’s period epic “Gladiator”. For me “Gladiator” encapsulates why cinema is such a powerful and potent medium. Scott is able to transport us back to the Roman Empire. The action sequences are both brutal and beautiful. The story is exciting and multifaceted. It’s a story of loss. It’s a story of survival. It’s a story of vengeance. And then there is the rugged and charismatic performance from Russell Crowe – perfectly cast and perfectly in tune with his character. It’s such a phenomenal movie and for me it was the clear #1 for the list.

So there are five phenomenal movies from the year 2000. What say you? There were several great films that I hated to leave off. Would they make your list? Please take time and share your thoughts in the comments section below.

 

REVIEW: “Mortdecai”

by

24

Mort poster

Life is full of important questions. Does Donald Trump really think his hair looks good? Will Tom Cruise ever age? Do people actually watch “Keeping Up with the Kardashians”? But perhaps the most perplexing question is this – what has happened to Johnny Depp? And to go a bit further, what is driving him to pick such wretched projects these days? Over the years Depp has chosen a wide variety of weird and eccentric roles. But since his last “Pirates” movie, several of his choices have been…well…suspect.

Simply put, “Mortdecai” is his worst yet. It’s an appallingly unfunny action comedy fueled by lazy humor, juvenile gags, and its absurdly creepy main character. The film is based on a book series by English novelist Kyril Bonfiglioli. There were several books in the series which makes me think there was some decent material there. But screenwriter Eric Aronson doesn’t capture anything interesting or entertaining.

Mortdecai (Depp) is a shady art dealer and charlatan who, along with his high maintenance wife JoHanna (Gwyneth Paltrow), is financially strapped due to heavy tax debt. Inspector and old college acquaintance Alistair Martland (Ewan McGregor) comes to Mortdecai to help find a stolen rare Goya painting in exchange for settling his tax debt with the government. Along with his trusted manservant Jock (Paul Bettany), Mortdecai globetrots around the world, encounters a variety of uninteresting people, and faces plenty of dangers. Whatever.

Yep, that's the face you'll have as the final credits roll

Yep, that’s the face you’ll have as the credits roll

I’ve already mentioned how terribly unfunny the film is. You can only handle so much of Depp’s measly voice and bizarre gap-toothed smile. Humor focused on vomit, dry heaving, and body parts gets old quick. It also doesn’t help that the entire stolen painting mystery is sleep-inducing. It’s dull, lifeless, and smothered out by all of the vain attempts at humor. The movie tries to liven things up by injecting a few comedy-laced action sequences, but they are just as uninspired and forgettable.

I feel as though “Mortdecai” revolves around a continuous inside joke that I was never let in on. Surely a comedy can’t be this anemic, lame, and humorless. I sat stone-faced the entire time watching a talented and wasted cast flounder around with some of the worst material of the year. It could be said that this is a new low for Johnny Depp. The guy has talent. We have seen it in the past. But you see none of it in “Mortdecai”. Instead you get Depp at his most annoying and you have to wonder how much more of this nonsense can his career take?

VERDICT – 1 STAR

1 star

Great Images From Great Movies (3) – “Jaws”

by

25

GREAT JAWS

Truly great movies leave indelible marks. It may be through an emotional connection to the story. It may be through a remarkable performance or a signature scene. But it could also be through the brilliant imagery that films carves into your mind. That’s what this feature is all about – highlighting great images from great movies.

JAWS poster

Jaws9

JAWS6

Jaws9

Jaws8

Jaws5

Jaws10

Jaws11

JAWS3

JAWS1

Jaws4

JAWS2

JAWS END

So what are thoughts on this Spielberg classic. Is there a particular image that stands out to you?

REVIEW: “Z for Zachariah”

by

31

Zposter

The post-apocalypse has become one of the favorite settings for modern day filmmakers. Think about it. We’ve witnessed the aftermath of an earth ravaged by everything from nuclear war to energy depletion to zombie outbreaks. And while some may argue it has been done ad nauseam, I have to say I love it. It’s a setting that offers filmmakers opportunities to put human beings through a plethora of powerful emotional and relational situations.

So right off the bat “Z for Zachariah” places itself in this familiar setting. But the film, directed by Craig Zobel and based on a novel originally published in 1974, shows us several new things and quickly differentiates itself from the post-apocalyptic norm. Flickers of science fiction can occasionally be seen but for the most part it lingers in the background. Instead the film focuses on the most compelling and absorbing dynamic – human drama.

Z1

The movie begins after what appears to be a nuclear holocaust. There is no widespread destruction or vast wastelands. Only emptiness and radiation – vacant mountain cities filled with remnants of a once vibrant past. It is here that we meet Ann (Margot Robbie) rummaging through a radiation-soaked town before heading back to her home – a farmhouse in a miraculously radiation-free pocket of territory high in the mountains. Ann is alone, surviving by working the same farmland as her father during her childhood. She also shares her father’s deep faith believing God has sheltered their land for His own purposes.

One day while out hunting Ann is stunned by what she sees – another human being. Roaming a winding mountain road in a radiation suit and pulling a cart full of his belongings is John Loomis (Chiwetel Ejiofor). After a complicated first meeting, Ann brings John to the farm where he begins sharing in the work. John was a scientist and an engineer and is respectful of Ann’s beliefs and gracious for her hospitality. We watch as a unique human relationship is formed, each approaching it from very different walks of life. But things get complicated when a mysterious stranger named Caleb (Chris Pine) arrives; a veritable ‘third wheel’ who brings an entirely new set of emotional complexities to the relationships.

Z2

This is the story Zobel seeks to tell. There are no mutated monsters, hordes of zombies, or packs of marauders. Simply three people dealing with their internal and external situations. They could just as well be the last people on Earth which adds a unique perspective to the story. Even in their incredible instances of survival, the basest and most primal human instincts still must be dealt with. And despite their miraculous situations, people will always birth conflict.

But Zobel and writer Nissar Modi look at these things through different lenses. For example there is a deep spiritual element that we see in Robbie’s character and through the rich symbolism sprinkled in the story. It allows for the pondering of several compelling points. But Loomis and Caleb bring interesting twists of perspective that ask a number of thoughtful questions. This was one of the many things that impressed me. Even in its simplicity, the story is an intelligent and nuanced exercise in human examination and internal exploration.

Z3

And what a telling performance from Margot Robbie, an actress I had given little attention. She is sublime, turning in a beautifully delicate and stripped-down performance. She is the heart of the film and in many ways its frail moral compass. But right behind her is Ejiofor. In a sagacious performance he gives us the most layered and complex character of the film. Even Chris Pine, and actor who hasn’t always impressed me, is very good in giving us an interesting and cryptic third character. These three make up the entire cast and each deliver on a high level.

“Z for Zachariah” is a breath of fresh air, a post-apocalyptic morality yarn that may play out too slowly for some. It unwinds at a deliberate pace, patiently touching on its subjects while never spelling itself out. Yet there is such a satisfying effectiveness to the slowness. Zobel engages his audience not through the normal and expected genre machinations, but by peeling back revealing layers of humanity. Layers that, when examined by an honest eye, can sometimes be quite ugly. Personally, I found it fascinating.

VERDICT – 4 STARS