REVIEW: “Oblivion”

April 20, 2013 by Keith Garlington

Since his questionable comments and ill advised sofasaults on Oprah, Tom Cruise has become an actor that many people love to hate. But those things are in the past and as wacky as they were they still didn’t effect the level of his onscreen work. He’s a talented actor who throughout his career has tackled a wide variety of roles in iconic 80’s cheesefests, stirring and emotional dramas, big budgeted franchises, and even sci-fi thrillers. Now he returns to the science fiction genre in “Oblivion”, a much more direct and vast sci-fi picture than Cruise’s other efforts.

“Oblivion” is co-written and directed by Joseph Kosinski, the man behind Disney’s $400 million money maker “Tron: Legacy”. Disney originally purchased the rights to “Oblivion” in hopes of repeating Tron’s success but later relinquished the rights. It was quickly gobbled up by Universal Studios with Tom Cruise and Jessica Chastain set to star in the picture. Chastain would eventually drop out for “Zero Dark Thirty” with Olga Kurylenko replacing her. The movie is based on Kosinski’s unpublished graphic novel and was given an ambitious $120 million budget.

I have to say I was really excited for “Oblivion”even though the studio was very cryptic in regards to the film’s details. That’s a good approach to take because I found that the less you know going in the more effective the story will be. And for me it was quite effective. “Oblivion” doesn’t fall into the category of a science fiction masterpiece but thanks to its visionary conception, stunning effects, and some strong committed performances it doesn’t miss by much.

OBLIVION3

Now there have been three main criticisms hurled at “Oblivion”. Some have complained about its thin plot. Others took off points for its lack of originality. And yet others have had problems with the lack of any meaningful character development. I certainly don’t flippantly dismiss any of these gripes but I don’t necessarily agree with them either. There’s a lot going on in “Oblivion” and while it does borrow from several other sci-fi pictures, the same could be said for most science fiction. As for the lack of character development, that may be true but I found there to be a good and needed reason for it.

Like I said the less you know the better so I’m not going to spoil anything by divulging any significant details. The film is set in 2077 during the aftermath of a war with an alien species known as the Scavengers. The Scavs (as they’re affectionally called) destroyed our moon which sent Earth into a series of natural and environmental convulsions. A full invasion of Earth followed. The humans won the war but the planet was left ravaged and in disrepair. The surviving population now inhabit one of Saturn’s moons called Titan. Now if a sci-fi movie wants to score points with me just give me a futuristic world that’s not only visually impressive but that I can get lost in. That certainly happened here and even if you do have issues with the story, no one can say this isn’t an expressive setting.

Cruise plays Jack Harper one of the last people left on the planet. He works as a technician who does security and repair work as humanity tries to salvage the last bit of resources from the planet. His lone co-worker is Victoria (Andrea Riseborough). She oversees Jack’s work and reports back to their commanding officer Sally (Melissa Leo). Jack and Victoria have only two weeks left before they get to join the others on Titan, something she’s very excited about. Naturally things can’t go without a hitch. A series of events triggered by the appearance of a mysterious woman named Julia (Olga Kurylenko) catapult the story into some fun and rather exciting directions.

OBLIVION-02

I can honestly say I completely bought into this premise. For the most part it’s a well conceived storyline that undeniably takes from several other familiar sci-fi films. But it works for me mainly because of how intelligently it took all of these components and put them together to form what I think is a very competent and compelling science fiction piece. The story itself grabbed me and pulled me into this visual spectacle and I never found myself wanting to check out.

The movie also managed to surprise me. I knew there were twists involved and I had my eyes open for that. For the most part it kept me off balance and had me looking in every direction trying to guess where things were going. While I did eventually figure some things out before they were revealed on screen, it didn’t hurt my experience whatsoever. I also appreciate how this wasn’t a movie of wall-to-wall action. Don’t misunderstand me, there is action, some of it spectacular. But to my surprise the movie spent more time deliberately peeling off layers to the story. Now it may move too glacially for some but I really responded to this approach.

Oblivion1

With all that praise being said, I did think the film flirted with convention a bit too much in the final act. It’s not that it’s terrible and poorly done but for me it didn’t really fit with the way the movie had progressed up to that point. I’m being pretty vague but let’s just say things are a little too on the nose. And while I do think the three main characters aren’t fully developed for good reasons, there are some characters and a particularly important plot point that felt terribly underwritten. This effected a rather important turn that the film takes later on. I’ll also add that there was one big special effects money shot at the end that I felt was a pretty humdrum. Considering the dazzling effects we had been given up till then, I was expecting a bigger payoff. I’ll leave it at that.

Those are my only gripes and even though they do restrain “Oblivion” from being one of the great science fiction pictures, they didn’t kill my experience. In fact I like the film a great deal. Cruise gives another strong lead performance and he’s helped by solid work from Kurylenko and Riseborough. The eye-popping visuals help create a futuristic wonder and the Iceland locations give a perfect sense of desolation. And I haven’t even mentioned the marvelous sound design and the soundtrack from M83 which I found to be a really nice fit. There’s just so much I liked about “Oblivion”. And while I can’t just completely overlook its handful of flaws, they’re easy to get past especially when you were as intrigued and glued to the screen as I was.

VERDICT – 4 STARS

It’s the 2013 Lammy Awards & I’ve Been Invited!

April 19, 2013 by Keith Garlington

LAMMY TROPHY WIN

The 2013 Lammys have rounded the final turn and are heading for home. The final nominees have been announced and the voting is now open for the final round. I have to admit I was really surprised to find that my little ol’ Keith & the Movies site had been submitted for four Lammy Awards: Best Movie Reviewer, Best Running Feature (The Phenomenal 5), Best New Lamb, and Best Blog. I have to admit I was pretty surprised to see my named mentioned by some fellow movie bloggers that I respect a great deal. And while my expectations were low, I was hoping I may squeak in and grab a nomination in a category or two.

Monday the Lammys were announced and while I didn’t make it in a couple of the categories I was hoping for, I did snag a nomination for BEST NEW LAMB. I gotta say that’s pretty cool especially when I look at the wealth of talent represented by my fellow nominees. I really don’t think I stand a chance but it’ll be fun to watch things play out. Either way if I do lose it’s good to know I’ll lose to a very deserving winner. And not only are my fellow nominees deserving, but I’ve gone on to become pals with most of them. Of course I hope they all lose to me but you get what I’m sayin’.

Let me end by giving a huge “THANK YOU” to everyone who has read my material, “liked” a post, commented, or shared something from Keith & the Movies. Blogging wouldn’t be nearly as much fun for me if people weren’t reading and seemingly enjoying some of what I’ve written. It wouldn’t be nearly as much fun without the comments and the conversations from you people who visit the site. And a Lammy certainly wouldn’t be possible without each of you (and of course the great people over at the LAMB who put this all together). Finally, a special congratulations to my fellow BEST NEW LAMB nominees especially Marked Movies, Terry Malloy’s Pigeon Coup, The Focused Filmographer, Head in a Vice, and Rorschach Reviews. You guys are tremendous.

So get the confetti poppers and the disco ball ready. Ice down the Diet Dr. Pepper and warm up the cheese dip. I would really appreciate your vote for BEST NEW LAMB. But hey, regardless of who wins, we’ll celebrate their victory together at the after party!

K & M Commentary – A Case for Classic Movies

April 18, 2013 by Keith Garlington

I’ve been a movie fan for most of my life. In fact as far back as junior high school I had aspirations to be a film critic. That never panned out as my life took a different course but my love for movies never waned. Yet while my love for film never left, it did mature as I grew older. Over the years I’ve come to love and appreciate classic cinema, not just the well-known Hollywood classics, but wonderful smaller gems and great groundbreaking movies from abroad. These pictures have not only earned my appreciation but they’ve given me a better understanding of filmmaking, cinematic creativity, and pure storytelling. These classic pictures have made an indelible mark on my movie perspectives and they continue to do so.

But it’s safe to say that classic movies don’t touch everyone the same way as they do me. Over the years I’ve spoke to many people who openly don’t like “old movies”. Then there are those who won’t go as far as to say they don’t like these films, but they back burner them due to what’s really a lack of enthusiasm. Now as a point of clarity let me say I’m not judging anyone’s taste. We all know movies are a subjective art. What’s good for one isn’t always good for the other and that’s the way it should be. But I can’t help wonder why there isn’t a broader appreciation for the classics these days and a rush to catch up with these films that paved the way for what we see today.

For me the classics represent a purer form of moviemaking. These were films made without the benefits of the technologies and innovations that we have today. They focused on good performances, sound writing, and a director’s keen eye. It was also a time of discovery in terms of technique. So many influential directors were finding new ways to tell their stories through their cameras and visual styles were first taking form. It’s through the classics that we can witness the new waves of filmmaking that broke new ground all over the world. Through the classics we can observe as the entire landscape of motion pictures evolve. This isn’t just a field ripe with unforgettable movies. The classics are a window into the fascinating history of cinema.

Today is most certainly a different era. The business side of movies has contributed to monster-sized budgets and even bigger studio expectations. The constantly evolving technology of special effects has become one of the biggest instruments in storytelling and presentation has become vital. 3-D, IMAX, high definition, etc. All of these things play major roles in modern filmmaking and our experiences are the better because of them. Or are they? Could it be argued that the fascination with flashy effects and 3-D presentation has in many cases taken the place of a good story with intelligent writing?

Take a look at the movies that are put out today. Now there have always been bad movies. Yet I’m amazed at how easy it is to get a movie made these days. Splash on a coat of fancy special effects or incorporate some of the numerous crutches that Hollywood uses today and you’ll get a big screen release. In many cases creativity has taken a backseat to repetitive and lazy filmmaking. Whether it’s the crutches of lame and vulgar attention-getting content or the crutches of shallow, mindless productions soaked in expensive visuals, Hollywood uses them to their fullest and we see it in film after film each year.

But couldn’t it be said that the studios are simply supplying the demand? Are they just making movies that people will endorse through their dollars and debit cards? Could the lower standards of modern moviegoers be feeding this monster? There are so many movies today that make tons of cash which leaves me scratching my head. I mean when else but today would Adam Sandler still have a job? Nonetheless “Grownups 2” hits theaters this summer and you can count on big box office numbers.

Now to avoid any hypocrisy let me say I love modern movies. I go to the theater every chance I get and I am as anxious for a next big release as anyone. I don’t shy away from big budgets or special effects and I’ll give the film its deserved praise if it’s done well. But I also love classic cinema and everything that it embodies and I want other people to love it too. Thankfully we still have some brilliant filmmakers today who work both in front and behind the cameras. They still give us great films – movies that entertain us, impress us, and provide an escape. But this is nothing new. They are following a rich tradition set before them by the likes of Keaton, Chaplin, Hepburn, Welles, Bogart, Huston, Stewart, Kelly, Kurosawa, Ford, Wilder, Cooper, Bergman, Hitchcock, Grant and so many more. It’s the classics that paved the way and its the classics that still hold up remarkable well today. I’ll never grow tired of them and hopefully more people will open themselves up to them as well. A good movie is a good movie regardless of when it was made.

REVIEW: “42”

April 17, 2013 by Keith Garlington

42 poster

I am a huge baseball fan and I’ve always been drawn to a good baseball movie. Unlike any other sport, baseball has the history, the personalities, and the spirit which are perfect ingredients for a good sports movie. For years we’ve seen baseball movies that focus on everything from the sport’s history, inspirational true stories, hilarious locker room comedies, and spirited fantasy pictures. The newest one to join the bunch is “42”. It’s the story of Jackie Robinson and his breaking of the color barrier which opened the door for black baseball players to play in Major League Baseball.

I mentioned inspirational, it’s hard to find a more inspirational story than this one. While this is the story of Jackie Robinson, a large part of the movie focuses on Branch Rickey, the president and general manager of the Brooklyn Dodgers. In the film Rickey (Harrison Ford) decides to shake things up in the world of baseball by bringing a black player into the all white league. With the 1946 season ahead, Ricky knows that the backlash will be severe but he believes it’s the right thing not just for baseball but for his bottom line. He believes he’s found his man in Jackie Robinson (Chadwick Boseman) – a tough kid who Rickey believes can handle the pressures that are sure to come.

42 3

Jackie is brought from the Negro League to play for the Montreal Royals, Brooklyn’s farm team. The movie then follows his eventual rise to the big leagues while documenting the many struggles and hardships he faced in a segregated and racially divided America. Writer and director Brian Helgeland doesn’t gloss over the uncomfortable racism of the time which is something that gives Jackie’s story such a sense of significance and importance. It makes his endurance and accomplishment all the more profound.

I also appreciated how Helgeland showed people on both sides of the racial line willing to look past the peripheral façades in order to see and accomplish a greater good. But of course it was Jackie who bore the brunt of the abuse and it was his strength of character and perseverance that ultimately made the difference. The film also does a great job of recreating the mid-1940s. The clothes, uniforms, and neighborhoods all brim with a pitch-perfect period feel. And seeing Ebbets Field recreated full of energy and life was spectacular.

Boseman gives a really nice performance. In movies like this actors will often take an opportunity to overact which tends to heighten the performance while lowering the material. That’s not the case here. Boseman remains surprisingly restrained even during more emotional scenes. I was also struck by how much he resembled Robinson, not so much in the off the field scenes but during the baseball games. There were four or five glimpses on the field where I would have sworn there was CGI trickery involved.

42 2

And then there’s Harrison Ford, fake eyebrows, gravely voice, and all. It took me a couple of minutes to adjust to his performance, but in no time I was completely sold on his character. It’s such a great role and Ford knocks it out of the park (pun most certainly intended). Ford and Boseman are the most notables but there is some good supporting work worth mentioning. I really liked Christopher Meloni as manger Leo Durocher. Unfortunately his role is a pretty small one. I also liked Nicole Beharie as Jackie’s wife Rachel. And then the baseball guy in me really enjoyed watching Lucas Black as Pee Wee Reese. Granted, sometimes the material he’s given is pretty flimsy but he’s still a lot of fun.

All of these things help make “42” a good movie despite a few issues I have with it. I was really hoping the movie would be able to avoid many of the common trappings that biopics fall into. Now I knew Jackie’s story so I wasn’t expecting a huge surprise. But I was hoping for more than the obvious and conventional finale we’re given. I won’t go into detail but everything neatly falls into place and the movie gives the emotionally uplifting ending it aims for. You can see it coming a mile away.

42 1

I also had to roll my eyes at several injected scenes meant for either dramatic effect or to shed light on the racism of the day. It stands out because in several other scenes “42” shows the racism of the day in much more potent and effective ways. But then you get Alan Tudyk as Phillies manager Ben Chapman. History bears witness that Chapman was a bad guy and his actions, especially against Jackie Robinson, were deplorable. But here he almost comes across as a cartoon character. He gets to the heart of what actually happened but I had a hard time buying into him.

Still this is a solid baseball movie based on an incredible story of courage and perseverance. I also couldn’t help but feel that giddy baseball fan excitement well up inside of me as I watched it. There’s a great sense of love for the game and a sensitive respectfulness for the subject matter found in “42”. And while it’s not a perfect film, it’s yet another example of how this great sport is fertile ground for quality storytelling.

VERDICT – 3.5 STARS

REVIEW: “Inception” (2010)

April 16, 2013 by Keith Garlington

After the release of Christopher Nolan’s “Inception” back in 2010, I wrote a review on my earlier blog site praising the film. After several more viewings I would continue to applaud it as my favorite film of that year. But as excited as I was over “Inception”, I still don’t think my previous review did justice to what has become one of my favorite movies of all time. I still find “Inception” to be one of the most original and most ambitious movies I’ve ever seen. But ambition doesn’t always equal a greatness. Thankfully “Inception” not only aims high, but it succeeds in creating a movie unlike anything I’ve seen before.

It’s hard to pigeonhole “Inception”. It’s a heist film, a tragic romance, science-fiction, and an action film. But what impresses most is how it uses all of these ingredients flawlessly. The bulk of its success can be traced right back to Nolan. Christopher Nolan is one of our greatest working directors. He wrote, co-produced, and directed this film which I believe only he could have pulled off. It took him almost ten years to write the script, and it was the huge success of “The Dark Knight” that secured the much-needed funding. But you sure can’t argue with the results. “Inception” ended its box office run making nearly $840 million worldwide.

The film stars Leonardo DiCaprio, an actor Nolan had wanted to work with for some time. He plays “Dom” Cobb, a dream thief for lack of a better title. He, along with his partner Arthur (Joseph Gordon-Levitt), are paid to infiltrate the subconsciouses of their targets via their dreams and steal information. When the dream extraction from a wealthy Japanese businessman named Saito (Ken Watanabe) goes wrong, Cobb and Arthur learn they were being tested. Instead of extracting information, Saito wants them to pull off an “inception” on a business rival. The idea of inception is that instead of stealing information, you plant it in the target’s subconscious while they’re dreaming. Dom wonders if inception is even possible, but he’s enticed to take the job when Saito promises to use his influence to clear Cobb’s name of a mysterious murder charge that has kept him from returning to his two children in the United States.

To do the job Cobb needs a crack team of experts. Eames (Tom Hardy) is basically a forger (or probably better described as an impersonator). Once inside a dream, he has the ability to take on the identity of anyone. Ariadne (Ellen Page) is the architect. She is able to construct mental labyrinths inside the dreamer’s subconscious. This is essential if the team is going to know their way around the dream. Yusuf (Dileep Rao) is basically the team’s pharmacist. He’s the one who controls the sleep via his numerous concoctions. Saito also insists on going to keep an eye on his “investment”. Nolan takes us through the formation of the team, shows their training, and of course their attempt at inception. As the story moves forward Nolan plays with our minds, placing dreams within dreams. And it only gets more complicated as their well-planned heist hits some unexpected roadblocks.

One thing I’ve always loved about a Christopher Nolan film is his ability to put to gather the perfect cast. This may be his best yet. This is DiCaprio’s first time working with Nolan and they two gel well. Dom knows his business but he’s a tortured man with loads of emotional baggage. Leo handles all of this perfectly. I also loved Tom Hardy who steals nearly every scene he’s in. Eames is a confident wisecracker who doesn’t take his work lightly. Gordon-Levitt gives another strong performance and is given one particular action sequence that still blows me away. Then there’s Page who brings a needed sense of caution and reality to the mission.

But there are some other great performances that are equally important to the story. One of my favorites was Marion Cotillard as Mal, a mysterious woman with a special bond with Dom who repeatedly appears within his dreams. Cotillard’s performance is multi-layered and fascinating. Michael Caine, a Nolan favorite, is very good as Dom’s father-in-law and caregiver to his children. The always great Cillian Murphy plays the team’s central target for inception. It was also great to see Tom Berenger given a nice role while the great Peter Postlethwaite shines in what would be his last performance before his death.

Of course Nolan also treats us to some incredible eye candy. The movie was filmed in locations all over the world including Tokyo, Morocco, Paris, and Alberta. Each of these places have their own distinct look and feel within the movie, whether they take place in reality or in a dream. This was an intentional move by Nolan who wanted to place his film in the contemporary world while also playing with our perceptions of what is real and what’s not. And of course since we’re talking about dreams, Nolan has a spectacular and diverse visual sandbox to play in. He wows us with several amazing special effects sequences that include rotating hotel rooms, trains barreling down big city boulevards, and a shootout at a fortified arctic base. “Inception” hits you with one spectacular set piece after another and all of it fits nicely with the movie’s deep and layered story.

“Inception” isn’t a movie with a straightforward, by-the-book narrative. It’s a film that requires you to pay attention. Some people have pushed back, calling it overly and unnecessarily complex. For me it’s refreshing to have something completely original that challenges its audience. And it’s amazing to watch how well it all unfolds. Nolan constantly throws new kinks into his story to the point where I questioned whether he could bring it all together. But he masterfully corrals everything in an exhilarating final 20 minutes, culminating in one unforgettable last shot.

For me, everything in “Inception” works – the special effects, the action sequences, Nolan’s phenomenal script, the perfectly tuned cast, Hans Zimmer’s pulse-pounding score. To be honest, this is why I go to the movies. Nolan dodges the overused conventions and trappings to deliver something incredibly new. And he surrounds with such expert craftsmanship. That said, be prepared to think. The story is a challenge which may not be everyone’s cup of tea. But the magnificent payoff makes it worth every ounce of effort.

VERDICT – 5 STARS

5 Phenomenal Non-Western Shootouts

April 15, 2013 by Keith Garlington

PHENOM 5

In what I think was my second ever Phenomenal 5 I looked at phenomenal western shootouts. Now, over 50 lists later, I’m going to look at 5 phenomenal non-western shootouts. I separated the two mainly because nearly every western features or ends in a big shootout. But over the years movies have found more ways to incorporate great gunplay into their storylines. And let me just say I am a sucker for a good gunfight. To narrowed the list down I stayed away from military and war movies. Like westerns they deserve a list all their own. So no more delaying. Let’s get to it. Now as you can imagine there have been tons of shootouts throughout movie history so it would be dumb to call this the definitive list. But I have no problems calling these 5 non-western shootouts absolutely phenomenal.

#5 – “THE MATRIX”

MATRIX
In 1999 the (then) Wachowski brothers gave us “The Matrix”, a science fiction action picture that quickly gained a huge following. While I don’t love the movie like many others do, I still recognize it for some of its incredible action sequences. The best one involves a shootout that had to make this list. In an attempt to rescue Morpheus, Neo (Keanu Reeves) and Trinity (Carrie-Ann Moss) have a showdown in a lobby with a group of heavily armed agents. But the two come prepared. With trench coats filled with pistols and sub machine guns, they shoot it out in a stylistic slow motion barrage of bullets. It’s an incredibly slick sequence chock full of gunfire, flying debris, thousands of shell casings, flying bodies. I don’t know about you but that’s right up my alley!

#4 – “THE INTERNATIONAL”

One of the more underrated movies of the last few years is “The International”. This globetrotting thriller starring Clive Owen and Naomi Watts has one of the most realistic and energetic shootouts I’ve ever seen. The two stars are hot on the trail of a corrupt international bank that’s filtering money to arms traders, terrorist groups, and an assortment of other baddies. Owen tracks down an important lead to the Guggenheim Museum. But as he moves to apprehend the lead he finds a heavily armed hit team is waiting. An intense 7 minute shootout follows that’s up there with anything else you’ll see. Lead flies, bullet holes riddle the white museum walls, and glass shatters as Owen tries to make it out alive. This shootout blows me away.

#3 – “THE KILLER” (1989)

KILLER
Director John Woo could have a list all his own. Woo made a name for himself by filming some of the most dynamic shootouts ever. This king of the Hong Kong action movie genre gave me plenty of scenes to choose from but I went with the final showdown from his 1989 film “The Killer”. Chow Yun-fat and Danny Lee find themselves at odds with a violent criminal organization known as the Triads (I won’t spoil why). While meeting in a church, the two find themselves surrounded by loads of heavily armed (isn’t that always the case) Triads thugs. An insane shootout follows as the thugs attack the church in full force. Muzzle flashes, screaming gunfire, and an insane assortment of falls are all mixed with Woo’s signature slow motion. Bravo!

#2 – “DESPERADO”

I have a real soft spot for Robert Rodriguez’s 1995 action flick “Desperado”. It’s easily my favorite of his Mariachi films. “Desperado” has such a great mix of insane over the top action and hilarious humor. And of course Rodriguez’s style is undeniable. There are several great shootouts in the film but there’s one that stands out for me. El Mariachi (Antonio Banderas) calls his two guitar case toting buddies and squares off against a drug lord’s gang. In old west style, the two sides square off on a dirt road but this is no old west gunfight. The bad guys pull up in their bulletproof limo armed with assault rifles. But our mariachis aren’t armed with plain old guitar cases. One is actually a rocket launcher and the others are fully automatic mini-guns. The result is a ridiculously wild shootout with a scorching Tito and Tarantula tune playing in the background. Perfection!

#1 – “HEAT”

HEAT
If you ask me about shootouts in the movies one will always instantly come to mind – the downtown firefight in Michael Mann’s fantastic crime thriller “Heat”. First of all the movie is spectacular and features two of our greatest actors, Al Pacino and Robert De Niro. Pacino is a cop, De Niro is a criminal with a muddy moral compass. De Niro and his crew (which includes Val Kilmer and Tom Sizemore) are finishing their final big bank heist when they run into Pacino and a brigade of cops. An intensely realistic shootout follows in the streets of downtown Los Angeles. Few shootouts can match what Mann gives us here. The loud sounds of accentuated gunfire bouncing off of the buildings and the brilliance of how it’s shot and edited pull you into the middle of the chaos. It’s truly phenomenal!