Author Archives: Keith Garlington

REVIEW: “To the Wonder”

by

49

TO WONDER POSTER

Terrence Malick is a filmmaker that marches to the beat of his own drum. To be honest, that’s one of the things I like the most about him. We say this often but here it unquestionably applies – you know a Terrence Malick movie when you see one. Malick has a distinct style of lyrical and visual storytelling and you either respond to it or you don’t. Personally I love it. Now sometimes his style is more impressive than his finished products, but for the most part Malick is one of my favorite filmmakers. In fact, his last film “The Tree of Life” was my clear favorite film of 2011.

Malick is a director who takes his time and only makes a film when he’s ready. This is evident by the fact that he has only six movies on his directing resume. His latest, surprisingly only two years after “The Tree of Life”, is another exercise in lyrical and contemplative style. It’s one of my most anticipated films of 2013. It’s called “To the Wonder” and for me it’s another soul-stirring gem that throws the textbook on conventional moviemaking out the window. Instead Malick is making another deeply personal film, possibly his most personal movie to date. It’s also his most romantic, most spiritual, and most tragic film all at the same time.

The movie follows a young couple as they navigate the unquenchable joys and the devastating heartbreaks associated with love. We first meet Neil (Ben Affleck) and Marina (Olga Kurylenko) in Paris, France. The two are madly in love and Malick expresses it through a rhythmic series of romantic and absorbing scenes in such beautiful Parisian settings such as the Luxembourg Gardens and the banks of the Seine River. There’s also a majestic sequence with the two outside of town at the gorgeous Mont Saint-Michel. Neil and Marina can’t seem to be able to control their affection for the other. There’s a strong focus on touch in these scenes whether it’s holding hands or running a hand across the shoulder blades. The romance between Neil and Marina is sublime and beautiful and I never doubted its authenticity.

TO WONDER 1

Marina, a Paris native and single mother, decides to move with her daughter to the States in order to be close to Neil. They land in midwestern Oklahoma where Neil works as an environmental safety inspector. The contrast between the energetic and vibrant Paris and their sparse and sometimes empty Oklahoma community almost serves as a metaphor for their relationship. The two who were as passionate as the French city they consumed now battle creeping bouts of emptiness and an emotional wedge that we watch grow and grow. It becomes painfully obvious that their relationship is hurting but neither seems to know what to do.

Then there’s the story of Quintana (Javier Bardem), the local priest in Neil and Marina’s area. Quintana is a troubled man. He has a deep love for the Lord but he feels disconnected. He’s dying to have the intimacy with God that he once had. He visits the sick, the poor, and the needy. He shepherds his flock. Yet there’s still a void in his soul that he desperately wants to fill. But he’s also a lonely man bound by the shackles of the priesthood an its strict rules. Watching Bardem’s solemn face and lonely, tired eyes really drew me to this character. It did surprise me how little he had to do with what seemed like the main focus of the film but Malick shows some moving similarities between his struggles and those of Neil and Marina.

Their stories do begin to connect and we watch as everything plays out. But don’t expect a tight narrative with a fully disclosed ending. Malick is more interested in having us observe and experience than being baby fed an entire story. He wants us to feel, to sympathize, to grow angry, and to meditate. Our time is spent observing and Malick lays his canvas before us. On it he explores inner conflicts, poor and costly decisions, and revived hope. It’s presented through an artistic machine that utilizes everything including the stunning score, the beauty of nature, a graceful camera, and the natural ambiance of the world surrounding his characters.

Affleck and Kurylenko are transcendent. The film features little to no dialogue with the exception of voice-over narrations therefore the two lead actors basically perform off of each other or in scenes alone. Neither ever seem aware of the camera and both get lost in their performances. Affleck was a great surprise. He’s quiet, sincere, and a stout and strong contrast to Kurylenko’s subtle elegance and grace. And speaking of Kurylenko, I think she gives an awards worthy performance. But while the performances are key, a Terrence Malick film is usually made in the editing room. Don’t believe me? Just ask Rachel Weisz and Jessica Chastain. Both shot scenes for the film but all of them ended up on the cutting room floor. Regardless the editing is sensational and the film moves like a page of good music with the exceptions of a few patches of repetition in the second half of the film.

TO THE WONDER 2

As with his other movies, Malick uses his visuals to draw us in and also tell the bulk of his story. His sensational command of his camera and his artist’s eye for capturing beautiful shots are essential to his success. His camera is constantly moving and it always seems perfectly positioned. I was absorbed in what I was seeing and his fluid and poetic transitions from shot to shot kept me that way. Even for those who don’t respond to the film as a whole, they’ll be hard pressed to not be fascinated with Malick’s visual artistry.

There will be plenty of people who can’t latch onto “To the Wonder”. It will be perceived as slow, confounding, and lifeless. I couldn’t disagree more. I loved the film and while it’s certainly not as challenging as “The Tree of Life”, it’s still a captivating piece of cinema. It doesn’t answer every question. It doesn’t adhere to a conventional storytelling formula. It asks the audience to think and to feel. If you’re not open to that you’re probably not going to respond well to this film.

In his final review before his unfortunate passing, the late Roger Ebert said this about “To the Wonder” : “(Many will) be dissatisfied by a film that would rather evoke than supply.” I think he’s right and some early reviews have shown that to be true. But I believe Malick has given us another standout picture that takes a real (sometimes uncomfortably so) look at relationships, faith, and the quest for love in both. Yet it’s all told through an artist’s lens with entrancing metaphoric imagery and a steady grace that could only come from a Terrence Malick film. I know many are going to struggle with this movie but for me it’s the first great film of 2013.

VERDICT – 4.5 STARS

“Chocolat” – 3 STARS

by

12

Chocolat POSTERIn the 2000 romantic drama “Chocolat” a woman comes into a small French village and attempts to inject new life into the prudish community through her scrumptious chocolates. Sounds a little odd, right? Well in some ways it is but the film also delves into several heavier social and family issues sometimes convincingly but not always. It does have plenty of entertaining moments and it features some fine performances, but I’m still not convinced it’s a film worthy of the Oscar Best Picture nomination it received.

The story is based on Joanne Harris’ novel and written for the screen by Robert Nelson Jacobs. It takes place the a fictional French hilltop village of Lansquenet-sous-Tannes. One day a strong north wind blows Vianne (Juliette Binoche) and her young daughter Anouk (Victoire Thivisol) into town. The two newcomers quickly rent an abandoned patisserie and the apartment above it from the crabby Armande (Judi Dench). Vianne turns the place into a chocolate shop and begins to capture the attention of the locals.

One such local is Comte Paul de Reynaud (Alfred Molina), the town’s mayor who rules the community with an iron moral fist. He’s particularly turned off by Vianne for her more provocative attire and her insistence on opening a chocolate shop at the start of Lent. Reynaud goes to great lengths to sour the people’s view of Vianne but as more people taste her magical chocolate concoctions a profound change begins to take place in the village. Several townsfolk find that her chocolates cure personal troubles in their lives. They spark a new romance, they lead someone to independence, and in another case they even work as supercharged Viagra.

chocolat 1

It seems that organized religion may serve as the punching bag in this film. It’s portrayed as stuffy, intolerant, and overbearing. But it’s the concept that’s the target more than the people. The people are treated more as simple-minded followers with Reynaud being the moral dictator and true mouthpiece of the church. But I was never fully convinced that Vianne was such a great person either. She certainly exposes several of the churches hypocrisies and she makes the lives of several people better. But she also uses some pretty disrespectful tactics including usurping parental authority and planning a fertility celebration on Easter Sunday clearly to be confrontational. The film treats these moves as positive but that’s not the way to win me over to her perspective. And what exactly is she? Is she a witch, a chocolate magician? I never did figure it out.

The film’s strongest point is its acting. Binoche is brilliant and she has always amazed me with the believability she brings to ever performance. Judi Dench was also great as Vianne’s grumpy landlady. Dench does ‘surly’ well and she’s a real treat here. I also loved the always underrated Alfred Molina. He was fantastic as a character who’s a lot more complex than you may think. Johnny Depp even pops up in a smaller role as a river drifter who catches Vianne’s eye. There are several other fine performances worth mentioning from Lena Olin, Carrie-Anne Moss, Leslie Caron, and Peter Stormare.

“Chocolat” is a movie that’s entertaining despite its occasional heavy-handedness and familiar storylines. It does suffer from a few periods of dullness and the conventional ending seems a little disjointed considering how most of the film seems quite unconventional. But it’s the performances that carry this film and there are enough interesting developments in the story to keep things moving. Yet despite that, there were some things that kept pushing me away and I can’t help thinking that there was potential here for a little more satisfying experience.

REVIEW: “Alex Cross”

by

19

ALEX POSTER

“Alex Cross” is Tyler Perry’s attempt at starring in a serious movie outside of his normal comfort zone. Now you won’t see him running around in drag sporting his familiar Madea getup, but there are times in “Alex Cross” where that might have made things more interesting. Now to be fair, this movie is nowhere near as unbearable as I was anticipating and there are some pretty good moments. But in the end this is all to familiar material and the movie never does anything to set itself apart. In other words we’ve seen this all before.

Tyler Perry isn’t the first actor to portray Alex Cross, the lead character from James Patterson’s series of novels. Morgan Freeman took on the role in 1997 with “Kiss the Girls” and in 2001 with “Along Came a Spider”. Not only are these two films considerably different than this new vision, but the Alex Cross character undergoes a hefty transformation as well. He’s still a police detective and forensic psychologist but here he’s more open to mixing hand-to-hand combat and his sawed off shotgun to his Sherlock Holmesesque skills of deduction.

ALEX CROSS1

Life is good for Alex. He has a beautiful wife, two lovely children, and one on the way. He’s also been offered a cushiony FBI desks job that pays a lot more money and would allow him to spend more time with his family. But isn’t it just like a sadistic serial killer to make things more complicated. Alex is called to a high-profile crime scene with his partner and lifelong friend Tommy (Edward Burns). They connect the murder to a man they call Picasso. He’s played by an almost emaciated Matthew Fox sporting a shaved head and noticeably fake tattoos. As with all of these movies, Alex and company set out to stop Picasso by picking through clues and getting to the next victim before the killer does. Like I said, it’s pretty familiar material.

“Alex Cross” runs the gamut from a crime drama to a revenge thriller. As the movie continues things get grislier to the point of seriously pushing the bounds of its PG-13 rating. Considering the movie does focus on a brutal serial killer and the hunt to find him, it’s not unreasonable to expect some rather gruesome content. But while “Alex Cross” does stretch the PG-13 rating, it seems shackled by it as well. I kept feeling as if the movie wanted to be darker, grimmer, and a bit more shocking than it was. I don’t think that would transform this into a great film but I can see where it would provide an edge that would help it overall.

But back to one of the bigger questions surrounding the movie. Was Tyler Perry able to pull this off? Let me just say that he was surprisingly adequate but nothing extraordinary or memorable. And while there were no egregious flaws in his performance, there are several times where he overplays a scene and other times where his stale line-reading is a distraction. It’s interesting that Idris Elba was initially cast for the part and I can’t help thinking he would be a better choice. But as for Perry, I was expecting a lot worse.

Alex Cross - Matthew Fox

Edward Burns probably gives the best performance of the movie even though some of the lines he’s given are pretty lame. And then there’s Matthew Fox. His performance is a tough one to peg. There are a few scenes, particularly when he’s wrestling with threatening dialogue, where he’s not that convincing. But overall I do think he pulls it off mainly because he sells ‘crazy’ pretty well through the combination of his unusual appearance and his moral apathy. But perhaps the most jarring performance comes from John McGinley as Alex Cross’ police captain. He’s terribly miscast and every line he says is ridiculously overdone. His performance stands out but for all the wrong reasons.

“Alex Cross” isn’t the worst movie out there. Its biggest problem is that it’s just not memorable enough to overcome its clear flaws. Most of the movie features too much that we’ve seen before and the ending feels like a cheap cop out. And while Tyler Perry may not have been the worst choice, I think it’s obvious he wasn’t the best choice. All of this contributes to “Alex Cross” being pretty forgetful. Some ingredients are there for what could’ve been a good movie. But the ingredients themselves don’t equal a fine dish. That’s certainly the case here.

VERDICT – 2 STARS

“Anchorman: The Legend of Ron Burgundy” – 2.5 STARS

by

43

ANCHORMAN posterThere are a lot of people who absolutely love “Anchorman: The Legend of Ron Burgundy”. I’ve heard so many people talk about its hilarity and give it rave reviews. Yet I have stayed away from it for several reasons, mainly Will Ferrell. I know most people love the guy and find him hysterical, but I can only handle his brand of humor in small doses. Another turnoff for me was seeing that “Anchorman” is a Judd Apatow production. Again, I know Apatow’s movies have a big audience but I’m not into his insistent crass and raunchy style. So the question becomes why would I watch this film? Simply put, I’ve been asked about this movie so many times that I felt I should give it an objective look.

Let me get this out of the way first. “Anchorman” isn’t as bad as I feared. In fact it has several clever gags and some laugh-out-loud funny moments. But it also has the same flat and unfunny “humor” that plagues most of Ferrell’s movies. And of course Apatow’s dull raunchy influence is found at different points throughout the film. It’s really a shame because I like good absurdist comedy and “Anchorman” has a lot of that. But there are also several moments where the movie thinks it’s a lot funnier than it actually is. This roller coaster ride between funny and unfunny scenes can be a little taxing.

Ferrell plays Ron Burgundy, a beloved and legendary anchorman for San Diego’s #1 ranked Channel 4 News. His popularity is citywide and he’s considered the big fish in the San Diego news reporting community. He rolls with his news team consisting of his loud and obnoxious sportscaster “Champ” Kind (David Koechner), his fashion-conscience field reporter Brian Fantana (Paul Rudd), and team weatherman Brick Tamland (Steve Carell) who is basically the village idiot and that’s saying something considering the company of clowns he keeps. The four are given a pretty long leash by their boss Ed Harken (Fred Willard) and they spend it partying with newsroom groupies.

Anchorman

The film is set in the 1975 and it spends a lot of time spoofing the male-dominated society of the time. Burgundy and company view women as a lesser species whose main purpose is to serve them and their “needs”. Of course their sexism is so insanely over the top that it’s often times quite funny. That sets up quite a clash when these moronic Neanderthals learn that, in the interest of diversity, the station has hired a beautiful news reporter named Veronica Corningstone (Christina Applegate). Ron thinks it’s a ridiculous idea and that there’s no room for women in the news room. But he underestimates Veronica’s tenacity and ambition. He also underestimates her irresistible beauty and charm, and his attraction to her jeopardizes his role as a chauvinistic icon.

Ferrell co-wrote the script and I assume he tried to cater his role to his style of comedy. He has his moments where he’s very funny but there are also several times where his character’s gags land with a thud. Some of his jokes are so shallow and poorly written that they resemble material you would hear during a subpar comedy club’s amateur hour. But Ferrell does provide some good laughs especially when he’s swapping lines with his team. But overall I don’t think he’s the funniest character in the film. For me it was Steve Carell. He’s a complete space cadet and he had me laughing nearly every time he spoke. I also thought Applegate was very good as the straight person in the midst of a ton of lunacy. There’s also some really fun scenes with Willard. He’s a guy that can be very funny if given the right material.

Anchorman1

There are several cool touches that make the movie fun. I loved Bill Curtis’ pitch-perfect narration. The hyper-70’s wardrobes and hairstyles are a blast and the whole parody of the 70’s network news scene worked for me. Ferrell and gang play within this period sandbox and they’re clearly having a ton of fun. There are also a host of interesting cameos that pop up along the way. Some work while others are pretty pointless. I also have to tip my hat to Ferrell’s willingness to humiliate himself to get a laugh. It doesn’t always work but more often it does.

“Anchorman” actually attempts to provide some social commentary within its outlandish humor but I don’t think it pulls it off. For me it’s a film better appreciated as an insanely silly and preposterous comedy. That’s not necessarily a bad thing. Unfortunately it’s a terribly uneven film and you have to wade through numerous flat and unfunny jokes to get to the good stuff. It seems that for every hilarious gag “Anchorman” gives you two boring and lazy ones. And of course there’s the Apatow signature toilet humor that’s just as cheap and annoying as in Judd’s other pictures. And it’s really a shame. “Anchorman” has a number of great scenes and I found myself laughing out loud numerous times. Unfortunately I found myself rolling my eyes just as much.

REVIEW: “Room 237” (2012)

by

24

room 327 POSTERI’m not the biggest fan of Stanley Kubrick. He has a couple of movies I really like and a couple that I hate. I recognize his talent and filmmaking skills but I’m not always blown away by this storytelling. “The Shining” is one of his films that I like although not near as much as the obsessives we find in the documentary “Room 237”. While I enjoy “The Shining”, I’m not as smitten with it as many are. But the five people we meet in “Room 237” are beyond smitten. They are consumed with the film.

I had read very little on this unsanctioned documentary prior to watching it. I just knew that it was a look at the deeper meanings of what is perhaps Kubrick’s most recognized film. In its own way that’s what “Room 237” is about. But the documentary doesn’t look at popular theories surrounding some of the film’s bigger questions. It more closely resembles far-fetched conspiracy theories thought up through obsessive analysis. I can’t say I left the picture with any new sense of revelation. To be honest I was a little disappointed. It wasn’t at all what I expected. On the flip side there were some unexpected elements in the movie that I found fascinating.

“Room 237” shows the incredible ability of cinema to open itself to a variety of interpretations. It also shows the amazing love that some people have for movies. That’s certainly the case with the enthusiasts we are introduced to here. Not only do each love “The Shining” but their interpretations wildly differ. It really drove home something I’ve always said – movies often speak to different people in different ways. I love the ability to discuss a film and present my interpretation to someone who sees it differently. Movies that give us that have done us a great service.

room 237

But there is a such thing as letting your obsession run wild and that’s what we get here. One person goes through detailed analysis of how the film is about the “white man’s” genocide of the American Indians. Another firmly believes that the entire film is about the Jewish Holocaust. Yet another believes that Kubrick uses the movie to expose his participation in the faking of the Apollo 11 moon landing video footage. Perhaps the funniest theory is that the film is loaded with subliminal messages that support a subtext involving haunted phantoms and demons who are sexually attracted to humans. Yes, someone actually believes that.

Their impassioned defenses of their theories can be interesting especially when they break the film down frame by frame to offer evidence. But honestly it’s hard to take a lot of their ideas seriously. Their entire argument may hinge on a typewriter, the number 42, or a carpet pattern. They often times point to interesting oversights found in the movie. But their relevance to the theories they’re purporting can be pretty flimsy. That’s where the movie falls a bit short. I can appreciate the passion and near fanaticism that the movie features. But the fact that none of these theories carry much weight makes the documentary feel lightweight. Yes I was entertained, but I was left wanting more.

Close to the end of “Room 237”, a gentleman speaks of his life becoming “The Shining”. He talks about his plans to move his family to a secluded part of the country where he can continue to study the film. What an example of a man’s creepy monomania. These infatuations and enthusiasms are what this documentary is really about. Some are intriguing, most are preposterous. Yet there is still something to be said about this kind of love for a movie. For some of us a movie can deeply stir us and a special love for that film can arise. I think “Room 237” shows that you can take that a tad too far. I just wish this documentary gave me a little more to chew on.

VERDICT – 3 STARS

5 Phenomenal Movies From 1983

by

59

PHENOM 5

It’s been a few months since I did my last look at the movies of the 1980’s. I’ve been going year by year looking at the movies the made the 80’s such a phenomenal decade for motion pictures. Now its time to look at 1983. This was a year that offered a huge variety of great movies from stirring dramas to war-themed action pictures to classic sci-fi. With such a nice variety of movies to choose from it was pretty tough narrowing down this list. But after seeing this list I’m sure you’ll agree that these five movies from 1983 are absolutely phenomenal.

VACATION#5 – “NATIONAL LAMPOON’S VACATION” –
It was in 1983 that we were first introduced to the Griswold family. Clark, Ellen, Rusty, and Audrey have since become well known names in movie history. It all started with “Vacation”, a movie about the family’s cross-country trip to Walley World, America’s greatest theme park. They leave from their home in Chicago and make their way to Los Angeles experiencing one comic mishap after another. The lovable idiot Clark Griswold is still Chevy Chase’s funniest role and Beverly D’Angelo will always be recognized as Ellen Griswold, Clark’s high tolerance leveled wife. “Vacation” features so many memorable moments involving the beautiful Christie Brinkley, their cousin Eddie and his wacked out family, the Grand Canyon and more. This is an 80’s comedy classic.

UNCOMMON VALOR#4 – “UNCOMMON VALOR” –
I’ve had a real soft spot for “Uncommon Valor” since I first saw it back in the mid-1980’s. It’s certainly not what I would call a perfect film, but I’ve always loved the story and the great lead performance from Gene Hackman. He plays a retired Marine Colonel who believes his son may still be alive in a newly discovered POW camp in Vietnam. After being dissed by the government he assembles a team consisting of old military buddies and others connected to the war to go in and get our men (and hopefully his son) out. Solid performances from a fun cast of characters is a strength including an early screen role for Patrick Swayze. Obviously there are some conveniences needed to push the plot forward and sometimes you’ll have to suspend disbelief, but I’ve always loved “Uncommon Valor” even if several critics didn’t.

TERM OF#3 – “TERMS OF ENDEARMENT” –
1983 was a good year for “Terms of Endearment”. It had a successful box office run and then went on to win the Academy Award for Best Picture. The movie features a stellar cast including Shirley MacLaine, Debra Winger, Jack Nicholson, and more. The story follows the life and relationship between a controlling mother (MacLaine) and her smothered but loving daughter (Winger). The film guides us through the biggest moments of their lives – relationships, poor decisions, consequences, and tragedies. The film is so well written and both its joys and sorrows feel deeply grounded in reality. I love that about the film. But it’s the superb performances which are the biggest key to its success. “Terms of Endearment” is a fine film.

CHRISTMAS STORY#2 – “A CHRISTMAS STORY” –
I can’t imagine that director and co-writer Bob Clark had any idea that his 1983 Christmas movie would become such a holiday classic. But that’s certainly what has happened with “A Christmas Story”. This is the story about young Ralphie (Peter Billingsley) and his quest to acquire the ultimate Christmas present – a Red Ryder BB Gun. The film is loaded with memorable moments and great supporting characters. But this is also a movie about family and Ralphie’s family is unforgettable. His patient mother, his annoying little brother, and his scene-stealing old man (Darren McGavin is fabulous) all help make this movie great. This is a must watch every holiday season. But “A Christmas Story” isn’t just a fun holiday feature. It’s a truly great movie.

JEDI#1 – “THE RETURN OF THE JEDI” – I’m a huge unapologetic “Star Wars” fan so naturally the final chapter in one of the greatest motion pictures trilogies of all time had to make this list. “The Return of the Jedi” had some weak points (yes I’m looking at you Ewoks) but it was still an incredible wrap up to an incredible series. The opening scenes spent freeing Han Solo remain some of my favorites in the entire franchise and the massive three-pronged battle at the end finishes things up with gusto. All of the characters end up in perfectly fitting places and the story finishes on the perfect note. Whether you love George Lucas or hate him (now I’m looking at you fanboys) you have to admit this was a brilliant finale. Well done Mr. Lucas. Well done!

So there they are – five phenomenal movies from 1983. Agree or disagree with my list? See any glaring omissions? Please let me know. Leave your comments below.