REVIEW: “Mud”

April 28, 2013 by Keith Garlington

MUD poster After just two feature films Jeff Nichols has become a director whose name instantly attracts my attention. His first film “Shotgun Stories” was a real and gritty look at rural southern life. His next movie “Take Shelter” was a powerful and potent look at mental illness and its effects on a working class family. It was pure brilliance and one of the best films of the last decade. Now he’s back with another slice of southern gothic storytelling. This time he teams up with some marquee stars and a slightly larger budget to give us “Mud”. But does a little more cash and bigger names equal success or does it take away from the down-to-earth filmmaking that Nichols is known for?

Let me get this out of the way, “Mud” is a scintillating piece of cinema. It’s a coming-of-age story. It’s a thriller. It’s a skewed romance. It’s a film that dabbles in several areas yet it all comes together in a gripping story full of life and grit. Nichols takes us to a world that I was mesmerized by and lost in – a world that many people don’t know exists today. He also gives us characters that interest us and that we care about. He raises the stakes and wraps them up in a mystery that we can sink our teeth into. In other words he gives us the experience that is at the heart of why we go to the movies.

Jeff Nichols started writing the story for “Mud” around 2000 and it’s clearly a personal project for him. Many critics have called this film a modern-day “The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn” and for good reason. Nichols was particularly influenced by the Mark Twain classics. But what makes this movie stand out is the familiarity that Nichols has for the locations and the people he is depicting. The reason we buy into the story is because of the sharp reality that we see through his constantly moving camera. Like me, Nichols is an Arkansas native and the stunning detail and unashamed portrayal of a vanishing river subculture and small town life was as honest of a depiction as I’ve ever seen on screen.

It’s here in the south Arkansas delta, that 14-year-old Ellis (Tye Sheridan) calls home. His family is part of a low income river community that works the waterways as a source of income. He and his best friend Neckbone (Jacob Lofland) are adventurous sorts. One day they take their boat out to an island and discover a bigger boat left in the trees after a recent flood. They claim it as their own but there’s one problem. Someone has beaten them to it, namely a mysterious stranger who goes by the name of Mud (Matthew McConaughey). Ellis and the more cautious Neckbone develop a friendship with Mud but soon find out he’s a man of many secrets.

Sheridan, Lofland, & McConaughey

The movie builds itself around the mystery of Mud. Who is he, where did he come from, and why is he hiding on the island? Is he harmless? Is he dangerous? McConaughey and Nichols combine to create a fascinating character and I was thoroughly intrigued by him as they peeled back layer after layer. McConaughey seems to have reinvented himself over the past two years and his career has taken a better turn. But despite his recent good work, nothing he has done matches the phenomenal performance he gives here. For my money this is his very best work and I found myself always anxious for his next scene.

Just as impressive is young Tye Sheridan as the sensitive, tough, and vulnerable Ellis. I loved watching Sheridan navigate his scenes of discovery, revelation, and heartbreak like a seasoned professional. There was never a moment in the film that seemed too big for him and he felt right at home in his character’s shoes. This is really his story and the movie wouldn’t have worked without his amazing performance.

Nichols also puts together an incredible supporting cast loaded with personal favorites of mine. Reese Witherspoon plays a beautiful stranger who arrives in town and who may have deeper connections to Mud. She’s very good here and her name adds some pop to the cast but it’s a fairly small role. Sam Shepard is great as a surly old river hermit who prefers to be left alone. A Jeff Nichols favorite, Michael Shannon also appears in a small but well acted role as Neckbone’s uncle and guardian. But I want to single out a terrific supporting performance by the underrated character actor Ray McKinnon. He plays Ellis’s father and it’s a much more layered role that you might at first think. This is a character that’s right in McKinnon’s comfort zone and he shines particularly in what I thought were two of the movie’s more stirring and emotional scenes.

Matthew McConaughey as Mud

While “Mud” is a deep south thriller filled with mystery and intrigue I was surprised to find a deeper reoccurring theme that penetrates the entire story. It’s really a movie about love. Throughout the film we see the ravaged emotions, fractured relationships, and heartbroken cynicism left in the wake of failed love. A big part of the film focuses on Ellis’s confusion over what he believes love to be and the harsher reality that he witnesses all around him. It’s sad to watch him innocently cling to his idyllic perception of love. In fact, every character in the film has some dealings with the painful side of love. The way Nichols weaves this throughout his narrative is simply genius.

There are only a couple of things which keep me from calling this the perfect movie. One centers around the Neckbone character. Young Jacob Lofland delivers a nice performance especially considering he had no acting experience. My problem with his character isn’t in his work but surprisingly in Nichols’s writing. Neckbone is a potty mouth and Nichols uses that as a source of humor. But he constantly goes back to it over and over through the entire movie. First of all I don’t particularly find a cursing kid that funny, but beating the same drum over and over was a drag. There’s also a big sequence at the end that is actually satisfying although it’s a bit jarring. It delivers in the end but it did feel a little out of place with the rest of the movie.

That said, it’s clear to me that “Mud” once again verifies that Jeff Nichols is a master craftsman who uses his southern roots and appreciation for classic filmmaking to tell stories rich with vigor and authenticity. “Mud” is an atmospheric and evocative film that takes a southern fried look at adolescence. It’s nestled in the reality of trot lines, cottonmouths, Piggly Wigglys, and Big Banjos while never coming across as clichéd or condescending. It’s a part of the world not far from where I live which makes the movie’s treatment all the more satisfying. “Mud” was my most anticipated movie of 2013 and my expectations were through the roof. Thanks to Jeff Nichols for exceeding those expectations with what will surely be one of the year’s best films.

VERDICT – 4.5 STARS

The Keith & the Movies Valhalla Induction

April 26, 2013 by Keith Garlington

K&M VALHALLA

The Keith & the Movies Valhalla is a place of tribute for those movies that I hold in the highest regard. These are films that embody everything that is great about motion pictures. These are the best of the best – movies that I truly love and that stand above the rest. There are many great movies that won’t find their way into these sacred halls. But here you will find those films that I believe personify brilliance in filmmaking, storytelling, and entertainment. These glorious 5 star accomplishments are worthy of special recognition as the very best. Ok, enough of the high drama! In other words, these are my favorite movies of all time, ok?

______________________________________________________________________________

ONCE UPON A TIME IN THE WEST (1968) – I’ve always been picky when it comes to westerns. I grew up around them but I never latched onto them. That was before Sergio Leone showed me what a western could be. His monumental work “Once Upon a Time in the West” from 1968 is hands down my favorite western. Everything from Leone’s gritty signature style and brilliant camerawork to Ennio Morricone’s entrancing score works to perfection.

There are so many memorable scenes in “Once Upon a Time in the West”. From the masterfully conceived train station opening to the intense and anticipated final showdown, the film is filled with one fantastic scene after another. And of course how can I talk about this movie and not mention the cast. A young Charles Bronson plays the mysterious stranger who everybody is trying to figure out. Jason Robards gives the best performance of his career as a scruffy bandit ringleader. Then there’s the breathtakingly beautiful Claudia Cardinale who holds her own with all the tough guys. But it’s Henry Fonda who steals the movie as one of the most detestable villains you’ll find. It’s a role unlike anything Fonda had played at the time which made his performance all the more spectacular. If you haven’t seen this film you should. If you don’t like westerns, it doesn’t matter. A great movie is a great movie and this is a great movie.

“Once Upon a Time in the West” is the fifth inductee into the Keith & the Movies Valhalla. But there are more amazing movies to come in the near future so stay tuned. What are your thoughts on this Sergio Leone classic? Is it worth the accolades it’s received or is it an overrated picture? You now know my opinion. I’d love to hear yours. Take time to share your comments below.

REVIEW: “House at the End of the Street”

April 25, 2013 by Keith Garlington

Am I starting to sense a trend here? Have you noticed that after getting some serious critical acclaim a number of young actresses are immediately running out to do soft PG-13 horror pictures? After really finding her way onto the critics radar with “Martha Marcy May Marlene”, Elizabeth Olsen quickly followed it up with “Silent House”. After making a huge splash in 2011 and giving what may end up being an Oscar-winning performance in 2012’s “Zero Dark Thirty”, Jessica Chastain started off 2013 with “Mama”. And then there’s “House at the End of the Street”. Jennifer Lawrence first wowed critics with “Winters Bone” and then blew up the box office with “The Hunger Games”. She followed it by dipping her toes into the horror genre with a film that’s decent enough and relatively harmless, but that still feels like a quick money draw from her recent success.

Lawrence plays Elissa Cassidy, a high school student who moves to a small wooded town with her recently divorced mother Sarah (Elisabeth Shue). They get a great deal on a beautiful home and they later find out why. It seems the property values have gone down following the gruesome murders of a couple in the house next door. Elissa and Sarah begin to find out more about the murders from the locals. But there is the question of what is fact and what is just gossip? They learn that the couple’s son Ryan (Max Thieriot) is living alone in the house. He’s been ostracized by many in the community and he’s the subject of so many rumors and speculations. He becomes the centerpiece of much of the film’s mystery.

Obviously Jennifer Lawrence is the real draw here and as you would expect she does a good job. But I have to say this isn’t challenging material. She does a lot of the same old stuff that you would expect from a movie like this. About the only opportunity she gets to flex her acting muscles are in the scenes with Shue. Elissa and Sarah don’t have the best relationship and the film’s better dramatic moments are when these two are hashing it out. Unfortunately we don’t get to much of it. As good as these moments are, they’re just thrown in here and there and they feel like an afterthought.

While “House at the End of the Street” is advertised as a horror movie and it does have its moments of standard horror fare, in many ways it feels more like a thriller – not a great one, but a thriller nonetheless. Other than a couple of sudden blasts of loud music, the film doesn’t have any genuine scares. And it never really succeeds in creating the tense and creepy atmosphere it shoots for. But this isn’t a terrible movie. I actually found myself interested in the secrets and twists surrounding the murders in the house next door. The story also remains entertaining despite some obvious plot holes and unintentional silliness. I was never bored and I appreciated some of what the filmmakers were trying to do.

I think the biggest problem with “House at the End of the Road” is that it’s an aggressively average movie. There’s not one thing that it does exceptionally. On the other hand there are very few egregious and crippling flaws. It’s not a horrible movie but it doesn’t do anything to set itself apart. That’s why it’s a decent movie to check out on DVD on a rainy day. But expect to have forgotten all about it the next day. It’s a ‘one-and-done’ film in my book but it’s a fairly entertaining one. It just has no staying power and it won’t challenge you with anything bold and new. It turns out to be more of the same and that’s a shame.

VERDICT – 2.5 STARS

The Public Movie Defender – “Robin Hood”

April 24, 2013 by Keith Garlington

The idea behind The Public Movie Defender is to take up the cause of a particular movie that I believe is better than the majority of reviews it has received. These are movies which I feel are worth either a second look or at least a more open examination considering the predominantly negative opinions of them. The films chosen are ones that I like so therefore I’m taking their case and defending them before the court of negative opinion. Let the trial begin…

DEFENDANT # 1 – “ROBIN HOOD”

Occasionally I like to take the time to focus on a particular movie that I really like but many others didn’t. Call it my unnecessary yet obligatory sense of personal duty or some warped affection for getting blasted by my fellow movie fans. Whatever it is, I find it fun defending movies that I appreciate but many others may not. One such film is Ridley Scott’s 2010 period adventure “Robin Hood”. Lingering at an undeserved 43% on Rotten Tomatoes, “Robin Hood” has faced a variety of gripes from its slow, plot-heavy narrative to its historical inaccuracies. These things didn’t bother me at all and the movie went on to be one of my favorite films of that year.

I still remember when I was driving to the theater to first see Ridley Scott’s “Robin Hood”. I couldn’t help but wonder if I had set my expectations so high that it would be impossible for the movie to reach them. After all, this is Ridley Scott and Russell Crowe, the same team who brought us “Gladiator”, a true favorite of mine. Could one of my favorite working actors and one of my favorite working directors come close to matching the success of their previous Oscar winning period film? The answer is yes, for my money they did come close. While overall “Robin Hood” isn’t as grand or as seamless as “Gladiator”, it does well in many of the same areas that made “Gladiator” such a strong film.

This isn’t your standard Robin Hood that we’re all familiar with. This is considered a prequel to the ‘steal from the rich, give to the poor’ story that’s been told numerous times before. It follows Robin Longstride (Crowe) as he goes from being an archer in King Richard’s army to the most wanted man in all of England. Along the way he witnesses the death of King Richard in battle and the rise of King John (Oscar Isaacs), Richard’s younger brother. King John isn’t a likable leader. His arrogant, self-serving approach to governing and his burdensome heavy taxes have turned the people against him and it couldn’t be a worse time for that. An invading French army is knocking on England’s door but the people need unifying.

Meanwhile Robin and his three new but merry men find themselves in Nottingham where secrets to his past may lie. Its here than he runs into the proud and spirited Marion (Cate Blanchett). I won’t give anything away but anyone even remotely familiar with the Robin Hood story knows that they eventually hit it off. But violence and war comes to Nottingham which catapults Robin right into the center of the tumult. The story takes its time getting to this point. It deliberately moves through several plot points and it lays out a lot of story along the way.

This is what turned off a lot people. They found it all flat and plodding. Personally I loved the slow and calculated buildup. I loved the clear focus on the characters, the politics, and the strategies behind the events taking place. I loved that it wasn’t just another period film focused almost exclusively on the action. For me the intentional time spent with character development worked fine and it fed the action sequences giving them more meaning and weight. With the exception of a couple of needless inclusions, I was wrapped up in this story and while it might have been too slow for some, I found its proficient script in the hands of this truly great cast made for some wonderful entertainment.

Now when it comes to making an epic-scale period piece few can do it better than Ridley Scott. Here his amazing attention to detail, extravagant set pieces, and gorgeous cinematography create a believable and stunning 13th century England. From the film’s opening sequences to it’s furious finish, the realistic feel and old English atmosphere is one of the reasons the film worked so well for me. As alluded to above, Scott also brings just the right amount of action scenes. The frantic, gritty camera work and carefully executed CGI allows for the small battles and huge epic scale war sequences to maintain an undeniable energy. But again the film doesn’t totally rely on them. There’s a very deliberate tale that unfolds in an effort to set up the legend of Robin Hood. Scott takes his time and adds a fresh depth to these very familiar characters.

Then there’s the strong lead performance of Russell Crowe. He has always been able to take a character and combine strength with a genuine humanity. Crowe’s Robin Hood is possibly the most human of any previous portrayals showing a sad but strong man in the dark about his past and uncertain about his future. It isn’t loud or showy work but it fits nicely with the tone that Scott is looking for. I also have to mention the performance of another favorite actor of mine. Mark Strong takes on another “bad guy” role and he’s able to create yet another delightfully despicable villain. He’s such great fun to watch. Cate Blanchett puts together a very different and intriguing Marion. She’s strong and independent and Blanchett certainly holds her own amid the slew of male performances. There’s tons of great supporting work from Max von Sydow, Oscar Isaac, William Hurt and more.

“Robin Hood” is an entirely different look at the classic character that does lend to a more serious telling of his legend. That, mixed with the slower plot-thickened narrative, clearly didn’t work for those with much different expectations for the film. It not only worked for me but it impressed me and I found it easy to be absorbed into the story. I’ll admit there are some moments that could have been cut and there are bits of silliness in the big finale. But they never came close to ruining my experience and after several viewings I still believe this is one of the best films of the Scott/Crowe collaborations. That’s my defense and I’m proudly sticking to it.

VERDICT – 4.5 STARS

REVIEW: “Chernobyl Diaries”

April 23, 2013 by Keith Garlington

I remember the first time I saw the trailer for 2012’s “Chernobyl Diaries”. I thought it looked pretty good and I wondered if it might be the shot in the arm that the struggling horror genre desperately needed. Modern horror films have become lazy, uninspired, and derivative. Unfortunately those three words also perfectly describe “Chernobyl Diaries”. It turned out to be a classic case of the trailer being better than the movie. Every good scene is found in the trailer and some could reasonably argue that even those scenes are lacking. Yet another example of how the genre is stuck in a rut and just spinning its wheels.

I’ll give “Chernobyl Diaries” credit, the premise for the film is a pretty good one and it seemed ripe with potential. Three twentysomethings, Chris (Jesse McCartney), his girlfriend Natalie (Olivia Dudley), and her best friend Amanda (Devin Kelley) are on a European trip. After stops in London, Paris, Rome, and Prague, the three visit Kiev where Chris’s brother Paul (Jonathan Sadowski) lives. The next stop on the itinerary is Moscow but before they go Paul convinces the group to take a day trip to Chernobyl and the ghost town of Pripyat which is built around it. Their tour guide is a man named Yuri (Dimitri Diatchenko) who specializes in “extreme tourism”.

Chernobyl 2

Just to freshen your memory, the Chernobyl catastrophe was a devastating Soviet nuclear incident that happened in 1986. A massive explosion in Chernobyl reactor four shot radioactive fallout into the atmosphere where it spread for miles across the Soviet Union and Europe. A Soviet coverup followed and the true death toll of those effected throughout the following years is unknown. The town of Pripyat, with its population of almost 50,000 people at the time, had been originally built to house the Chernobyl workers and their families. Due to its close proximity, the town was the hardest hit. It was instantly vacated and remains a ghost town today. This is where our four young tourists, Yuri, and another signed up couple pay a visit.

The brief history lesson I just gave is probably more entertaining than anything you’ll find in the film. Obviously when the group arrives there and begin to tour the abandoned city things go afoul. We know that’s going to happen. What I didn’t know was that the movie would take this interesting premise and ruin it almost immediately. It didn’t take long before I started noticing the same repetitive tricks, none of them effective. There’s honestly not one genuine scare in the entire picture and the movie never does anything to create a creepy atmosphere. Constantly walking in the dark with a flashlight or down tight hallways doesn’t constitute horror. But obviously that’s all the filmmakers had, creatively speaking.

Another big flaw in the film deals directly with the “threat” the group is facing. We are never really given a satisfying explanation of who or what they are and we never really see them. Now in much more capable and competent horror movies this might have added to the mystery and intensity of the film. Not here! I kept thinking that maybe the baddies could bail the movie out of the dull and lethargic hole it was in. Instead they’re just a faceless group that feel like retreads from other films. The movie tries to explain who or what they are in the final scenes but it’s so poorly done and I honestly didn’t even care at that point.

The movie also isn’t helped by its pretty shoddy acting and paper-thin characters. It’s funny watching the film try to give them some depth early on. We get some details about some past family drama between the brothers and the relationship between Chris and Natalie is about to take a turn. Yada, yada, yada. None of it adds an ounce to the characters. But apparently the filmmakers cared as little about the characters as I did. I don’t think any of them were actually killed on screen and one of them was completely forgotten.

One good thing about “Chernobyl Diaries” that it doesn’t prolong the agony. At a running time of under 90 minutes, I was quickly able to go about my business of forgetting the forgettable. Now the film was running on a small budget and that’s evident. But capable filmmakers have made really good films with even less money. This is an example of squandered potential but it’s also pretty crappy filmmaking featuring a pretty crappy cast built around a pretty crappy screenplay. In other words, I think it’s safe to say that “Chernobyl Diaries” won’t be credited for kickstarting the horror genre. In fact it shouldn’t be credited for much of anything.

VERDICT – 1.5 STARS

5 Phenomenal Tom Cruise Movies

April 22, 2013 by Keith Garlington

PHENOM 5

With the release of his new science fiction romp “Oblivion” this past weekend, I thought it would be as good a time as any to look at the career of Tom Cruise. Now unlike many I actually like Cruise and think he’s a very capable actor. I certainly understand the backlash that followed his past comments and infantile sofa jumping with Oprah. But that was in the past and much more importantly I think his movie resume is pretty impressive and speaks for itself. So today I’m listing 5 Phenomenal Tom Cruise Movies. Now with almost 40 feature films to his credit I wouldn’t go as far as calling this the definitive list. But I have no problem calling these 5 Tom Cruise movies absolutely phenomenal.

#5 – “TOP GUN” – I originally had “Mission Impossible: Ghost Protocol” in this spot. I love that film and consider it easily the best of the franchise. But even though I tried, I couldn’t leave “Top Gun” out of a Tom Cruise list. I fully recognize that “Top Gun” is filled with enough corn and cheese to make a casserole. I also understand that it’s a product of the 80’s and it’s shameless in its display of gratuitous hunk shots. But you know what? I still love it! I still remember being excited about seeing the Kenny Loggins “Danger Zone” video before the film was released and how it amped up my anticipation for the movie. I remember seeing it in the theater and leaving on high. While these days my feelings are more nostalgic, I still hold this 1986 flick from the late Tony Scott close to my heart.

#4 – “JERRY MAGUIRE” – For a long time I heard people I knew singing the praises of “Jerry Maguire”. I had friends who were constantly yelling “Show me the money!” at the tops of their lungs. But I wasn’t able to chime in because I was late coming to this 1996 Tom Cruise drama. But once I finally caught up with it I understood what my buddies had been so excited about. Now I have to admit that it wasn’t Tom Cruise that drew me to this picture. I was really interested in catching up to Cameron Crowe’s work and I was attracted to the sports element of the story. But I found that it was Cruise who really carries the film. I love his performance. He had me sympathizing with him during some scenes and he had me wanting to slap his face in others. It’s a showy performance but it feels right at home in this really good film.

#3 – “MINORITY REPORT” – This is another of Tom Cruise’s films that I caught up with well after its theatrical release. But it’s another one of his films that blew me away after I saw it. This Steven Spielberg science fiction thriller completely caught me off guard. I went in with pretty mediocre expectations but I was surprised to find a well written and deeply layered story that grabbed me from its opening moments. Cruise gives yet another strong performance as an officer in a preemptive crime task force. He’s faced with a variety of moral quandries and soon finds himself in the middle of a complex murder investigation. Again it’s Cruise who drives this movie and he’s an absolute blast to watch as things in the movie go absolutely bezerk. This is a great sci-fi picture.

#2 -“COLLATERAL” – Whether you like Tom Cruise or not you have to admit that over his career he has branched out and hasn’t been afraid of tackling fresh new roles. There’s no better example of that than his role as a professional hitman in Michael Mann’s “Collateral”. In the film Cruise pays an unwitting taxi driver (Jamie Foxx) to drive him around Los Angeles to his five important “appointments”. Armed with firearms and funky dyed hair, Cruise moves effortlessly between his cold-blooded contract killer persona to waxing philosophically in the back of Foxx’s cab. He kills it with his performance and I think it’s some of the best work of his career. If you want to see Cruise’s range, this is a good film to get that.

#1 – “THE LAST SAMURAI” – I’ll never forget the first time seeing “The Last Samurai”. I went to the theater on a Friday morning with no expectations whatsoever. I mean we are talking about Tom Cruise as a samurai, right? I left that theater blown away, so much so that I returned the next day to see it again with my wife. First off, Cruise gives a fantastic performance. It may not be his very best work, but for me this is hands down my favorite Tom Cruise movie. Whether it’s his scenes as a burnt-out alcoholic or the great moments he shares with Ken Watanabe, Cruise makes what sounds like a ridiculous role for him into one of of his more multifaceted performances. I never get tired of “The Last Samurai” and for my money it’s Cruise’s best.

So there they are. My 5 phenomenal Tom Cruise movies. See some you like or dislike? Have different films that would make your list? Please take time to share you thoughts below.