Author Archives: Keith Garlington

“The Raven” – 2 STARS

by

26

THE RAVEN POSTER

Have you ever had a movie that you didn’t really respond to but you had a hard time pinpointing why? This is the case with me after watching the 2012 period thriller “The Raven”. This is a movie that intrigued me from the start although I did keep it at an arm’s length. While the components for a unique crime thriller seemed to be there, I still never felt myself drawn to hurry up and see it. So as you can see, my fence straddling with “The Raven” started early. Well now I have seen this widely slammed movie. Is it as bad as the vast majority of critics made it out to be? I don’t think so. But unfortunately it’s missing some major pieces that are vital in making this kind of movie work.

In case you don’t know the story, it’s set in 19th century Baltimore, Maryland. A brutal and grisly double murder puts the police on the trail of a serial killer who patterns his crimes after the short stories of Edgar Allan Poe. Lead Detective Fields (Luke Evans) at first suspects the eccentric Poe (John Cusack) but eventually calls on him to help in the investigation. It’s a cat and mouse game as the two sift through the clues left at every new and horrible crime scene, each tied in to Poe’s writings.

The stakes are raised for Poe after his fiancé Emily (Alice Eve) is kidnapped and used as a pawn by the killer. Now this is a direction the story takes that should give the movie some emotional kick but that’s not the case at all. Poe and Emily’s relationship is cold and lifeless. They try to throw in some tension with Emily’s father (Brendan Gleeson) who despises Poe, but that does little to liven things up. Emily’s capture does lead to some of the movies most intense moments. But the underplayed romance between her and Poe strips the movie of a genuine and much needed sense of urgency.

RAVEN 2

I guess that leads into where my real problems lie with “The Raven”. It moves at a sharp pace. It captures the dark and moody tone that it’s going for. The crime scenes are perfectly unsettling. But in the end so much of the story feels manufactured. The relationships feel manufactured. The urgency feels manufactured. Even the ending feels manufactured (and a bit unsatisfying as well). But perhaps the biggest sin this movie commits is its overall lack of suspense. It’s hard to call a thriller a success if it lacks suspense. “The Raven” desperately tries to muster some but I don’t ever remember feeling it at any point in the movie.

I think “The Raven” is a movie that has some good ideas, but it doesn’t do much with them. It’s not a sloppy or lazy picture. But it also fails to step outside the bounds of conventionality, something that the material afforded them the chance to do. Now it’s decent enough to keep you in your seat, but it never does anything to put you on the edge of it. Again, I guess that’s where my biggest problem lies. There’s nothing suspenseful that grabs you and keeps you glued to the screen. That’s what I want from a thriller and I just didn’t get enough of it here.

“West of Memphis” – 4 STARS

by

18

Memphis Poster

I’ve watched several documentaries over the years but I’m not nearly as well versed in them as I should be. To showcase my negligence even more, I don’t think I’ve ever watched a documentary in the theater. That finally changed with my viewing of “West of Memphis”, a film that looks at the 1993 murders of three 8-year boys in West Memphis, Arkansas. The case has seen a resurgence of media attention, much of it due to the HBO “Paradise Lost” trilogy and now this film. There have also been a vocal group of movie actors, directors, and music stars who have rallied to defend the three men convicted of the murders.

Usually when I see entertainers latch themselves onto high-profile news stories like this, I’m a little skeptical. To be quite honest, seeing Eddie Vedder, Henry Rollins, and the Dixie Chicks chiming in can sometimes do more to push me away than draw my interest. But “West of Memphis” is much more than a group of self-important celebrities posturing for attention (although there is some of that in the film). I found it to be an interesting documentary that had me challenging popular thoughts as well as weighing the wealth of new evidence and theories surrounding the case.

I was a 22 year-old Arkansan when the three young boys, Steven Branch, Christopher Byers, and Michael Moore were found murdered. Their bodies were discovered underwater in a drainage ditch, all three were nude, hog-tied, and showed signs of mutilation and sexual abuse. It was a horrific crime scene and the murders, the investigation, and the court cases captured the attention of the entire state of Arkansas. At the time, the buzz surrounding the events was enormous. And even now, after all these years, I like many other Arkansans who are old enough, still remember the details surrounding the sickening homicides and the highly publicized arrests and convictions that followed.

Memphis 1

The film starts by going back over the case. It uses archived news footage and interviews to lay out the disappearances and subsequent discovery of the three children’s bodies. I found this to be the most impressive and effective part of the entire film. With amazing care and precision, director Amy Berg resets the table for those familiar with the case and gives a history lesson to those who aren’t. She captures the tension and emotion that soaked the entire community during the time. She also does a wonderful job of bringing the audience into this simple blue-collar part of the country. The film instantly refreshed the timeline in my mind and almost immediately my heart was once again heavy for these families that suffered such terrible losses.

But the documentary quickly shifts to its main focus – the three young men convicted of the murders. Known as the West Memphis Three, Damien Echols, Jessie Misskelley, and James Baldwin were teenagers at the time they were arrested and convicted for the murders. Misskelley and Baldwin would receive life sentences while Echols, the perceived leader of the group, received the death penalty. They would spend 18 years in prison before a movement would arise and promote new evidences that some believe prove their innocence. “West of Memphis” clearly has a slant and a motive behind it. In fact Damien Echols is one of the film’s producers so I was questioning how objective and forthcoming the film would be.

The film’s defense of the West Memphis Three begins with attempts to discredit the police’s questioning of the suspects particularly during a confession made by Misskelley. It then attempts to show mistakes and flaws in the prosecution’s handling of the case as well as forensic incompetence my the state medical examiner. Now some of the filmmaker’s arguments raise some interesting questions, but others don’t seem to hold water. I also found it interesting that the film leaves out some of the more important questions surrounding the three teens, their statements, and their behavior during the investigation and trials. But even though I wasn’t completely sold on the filmmaker’s defense, they do offer up enough compelling questions to cause you to believe there may be a reasonable doubt.

Memphis 2

But then the film takes another interesting turn. It removes the focus from the West Memphis Three and places it on Terry Hobbs, the stepfather of Steven Branch. It begins by linking new forensic evidence to him as well as documenting inconsistencies in his own story. The film also shows several interviews with people who speak of Hobbs’ past, his personality, and of inconsistencies that may implicate him in the murders. This is where I really found myself questioning the credibility of the state and the prosecution of the West Memphis Three. I did find it interesting that the film used some of the same tactics that it confronts the earlier prosecution of using. Uncorroborated statements, out-of-the-blue accusations, and questionable witnesses. But there are also several pieces of fascinating information that bruises Hobbs’ credibility.

All of this leads to the reason I really appreciated this documentary. The filmmakers have a strong and obvious opinion but they lay out enough facts, bits of evidences, and testimonies to allow the audience to decide for themselves. I was thoroughly engaged and constantly found myself moving from one side to the other while trying to deduce what was truth and what wasn’t. I also appreciated how the film moved at a crisp and fluid pace as it went from one investigative premise to another. Well, except for the end where the filmmakers go to great lengths to make heroes out of the West Memphis Three. If they are innocent, they should have never been unjustly convicted. That’s a travesty. But aside from the murder accusations, these weren’t the best of kids especially Echols and to place them on a pedestal felt a bit uncomfortable.

At just under two and a half hours, “West of Memphis” does get a little long-winded. It could have trimmed down the attempts at credibility through celebrity appearances and some of the prison scenes meant to endear Echols to the audience. But these shortcomings did little to hurt the overall effect of the picture. It’s an impressive piece of investigative filmmaking and it had me completely involved. I questioned the prosecution. I questioned the detectives. I questioned family members. I questioned the West Memphis Three. So after all the compelling food for thought, what’s my conclusion? I still don’t know who killed those three little boys. And without a doubt that’s the saddest thing of all.

REVIEW: “Red Dawn” (2012)

by

35

Red Dawn

I have no problem saying I was a big fan of 1984’s Red Dawn. And whether it’s the nostalgia, the good action, the interesting storyline, the movie still holds up for me today. Now I grant you the politics are outdated and the cheese may not appeal to newer audiences as it does for many of us who grew up during those days. But I still find it to be a rousing good time despite its occasional silliness. That appreciation for the original film combined with what I saw from the first trailers had me concerned about the 2012 remake. Hollywood doesn’t have the best track record when it comes to remakes and let me just say that this new Red Dawn will do nothing to change that.

Now if you’re unfamiliar with the original story that’s ok. The new version only incorporates the general idea and a few of the names. Most everything else is new but certainly not better. The film starts by introducing Jed Eckert (Chris Hemsworth), a Marine on leave in his hometown of Spokane Washington. We also meet his brother Matt (Josh Peck), a high school football quarterback who doesn’t have the best relationship with his older brother. The movie also chunks in a few more introductions including Matt’s girlfriend Erica (Isabel Lucas), one of Jed’s old schoolmates Toni (Adrianne Palicki), and the boys’ father Tom Eckert (Brett Cullen). All are awakened one morning by an all out military assault on their town. Now don’t even try to use your brain to figure out how the enemy got that many planes, ground forces, and Humvees in the area undetected. The explaination is laughable. In fact, it’s best just to turn your brain off at the opening scene. I mean it seems like the filmmakers certainly did when they were putting together this crappy concoction of errors.

Red Dawn1

This Red Dawn attempts to modernize the politics and the characters while telling the same basic story. Instead of Cuba and Russia from the 1984 film, this time North Korea is the occupying force that attacks the United States with a little help from Russia although how they’re associated is never adequately explained. In fact all we get is news footage during the opening credits which supposedly sets the deteriorating political climate of the world. Aside from that, the invading army is nothing more than a nameless, faceless force showing nothing in terms of motivation or incentive. They just supply our group of young heroes with people to kill. Their arrival causes chaos in the city but Jed, Matt and a few of their friends are able to escape up into the mountains. From there they form into a group of rebels that wages guerrilla war against their occupiers.

I know this sounds silly but the original movie actually did this quite well. It took a small group of scared young people, fleshed them out, and over several seasons turned them into pesky guerrilla fighters mainly focused on survival. This film takes an uninteresting group with practically no personality, zips them into combat, and soon has them carrying out complex missions in the middle of occupied Spokane. No training and very little trial and error. And in this film the North Korean army has to be the worst occupying force ever in the history of cinema. Jed and company are able to waltz right into town at their leisure, detonate C4 explosives wherever the wish, and walk right out of town with their AK47’s tucked under their jackets. And this is just for starters. Throughout the movie you’ll find huge gaps in logic, glaring plot holes, and numerous moments where all you can do is bury your face in your hands.

If I wasted time singling out every stupid moment and ridiculous inconsistency this review would go on forever. Instead let’s just give discredit where discredit is due. Carl Ellsworth and Jeremy Passmore’s script is bad. NOTHING that they’ve added, from the new character twists to the annoying profanity, is an improvement or even on par with the original Red Dawn. It’s one of the most amateurish and laughably bad scripts you’ll find and that’s unforgivable considering it’s a remake of a movie that I felt was well written and highly entertaining. This mess is anything but that.

Red Dawn 2

And then there’s the dialogue and the performances. I was astonished at some of the ridiculous lines crossing the lips of the actors in this movie. Several times I just sat there with my jaw dropped trying to figure out how some of these scenes could have made the final cut. Whether it’s the pseudo-toughness of the kids or the rare moments where they’re trying to show emotion, the film is littered with corny and brainless dialogue. The most laughably bad scenes come with the arrival of Jeffrey Dean Morgan and his two fellow Marines. Their embarrassing attempts at macho military talk left me speechless, particularly Matt Gerald. I swear he may have given one of the worst and most cringe-inducing performances I’ve ever seen. You’ll literally root for his character to be killed just to ease the assault on your ears.

Ok, enough of this. I could say so much more about this movie but I’m already sick of talking about it. In summary, Red Dawn is an unmitigated disaster from start to finish. About the only positives I can come up with are the explosions look good and Chris Hemsworth is decent. But even he is eventually buried by his poorly written character and the shallowness of his lines. Red Dawn ends up being another incompetent remake that shouldn’t even exist. It has virtually nothing in common with the original and it shreds everything that the first film did so well. I can’t see anyone who even slightly appreciated the 1984 film to find anything worthwhile in this remake. But then again I can’t see anyone who appreciates good movies to find anything worthwhile either. It’s that bad!

VERDICT – 1 STAR

For a much better version, please check out my review of the original Red Dawn (1984) .

“The Intouchables” – 4.5 STARS

by

27

INTOUCH poster

Rarely does a movie blatantly push all of my buttons yet completely win me over. That’s the case with the French drama The Intouchables. This is an irreverent and unashamed movie that aims to be a crowd pleaser and boy was it. It was a huge box office smash after its November 2011 release in France and eventually opened in the United States in 2012. But some critics have dismissed the film for its pandering to audiences and many critics who gave it positive reviews still spoke against its aim at broad appeal. But it doesn’t stop there. In absurd attempts to malign the film some critics have even deemed the movie to be racist and utterly offensive. Well this may not be the most well written quick response to these objections but I’ll say it anyway – Give me a break!

I have absolutely no problem with a movie aiming to be a crowd pleaser if it’s a good movie. The Intouchables is a very good movie and it works because of a smart and often times hilarious script and two fantastic lead performances. While it certainly goes for the feel-good emotion it also makes no apologies for its brash and playful handling of subjects that are often treated gingerly. For me that wasn’t a point of criticism. Instead it was fresh and new and one of the film’s several strong points. And the racism accusations defy reason. I’m not going to start breaking down plot points that prove the absurdity of the argument but let’s just say the film never promotes or depicts anything that led me to believe it was the slightest bit racist.

INTOUCH2

Now to the story – Olivier Nakache and Éric Toledano both wrote and directed this story of a wealthy quadriplegic man named Philippe (François Cluzet) and his new caregiver Driss (Omar Sy). The film starts with the two men speeding down a Paris street in Philippe’s Maserati. It’s obvious to us that the two have developed a bond and a friendship. From there the movie tells us their story through a one long flashback which begins with Philippe’s search for a new caregiver. A line of applicants sit in his lavish Paris mansion and among them is Driss. The other applicants are well dressed and educated in home care but all lack experience and some are just buffoons. Driss on the other hand is only there to get a signature to show he applied for the job and therefore qualify for a benefit. Fed up with waiting he barges in and gives a pretty brash “interview”.

Eventually Philippe hires him against the wishes of his staff. They find Driss to be loud and obnoxious but Philippe is looking for someone who doesn’t pity him and makes him feel alive. That’s the bond that fuels their relationship. The bulk of the film focuses on these two men and their improbable friendship. Both have their own set of issues and both find a release in the other. This is what I really responded to and not once did I find their relationship disingenuous or fabricated. I loved their playful banter and I appreciated how Philippe’s handicap was never used as a melodramatic pawn to anchor the narrative. Instead the film attempts to make him a real person to us. Yes he’s sympathetic but we also see him as experiencing life with the help of Driss.

The bigger reasons all this works are the two lead performances. Cluzet and Sy are brilliant and watching them play off each other is great entertainment. I found both performances to be full of sincerity and perfectly suited for the material. I had seen Cluzet in a handful of other French films including the more recent “Little White Lies” so his strong work here didn’t surprise me. But I was surprised at just how good Sy is. It’s really a big performance but it works very well. And I was blown away by his comedic timing, something that seems completely natural to him.

INTOUCH1

This leads me to another of The Intouchables strong points – the script. Nakache and Toledano put together a fantastic story that’s a great mix of heartwarming drama and hysterical comedy. For me it was the comedy that shined the brightest. Cluzet and Sy were great but a key reason for that was the well written screenplay. I loved the steady flow of humor and I have to say I haven’t laughed this much at a movie in a long time. But even the dramatic moments were strong and I was just as invested in them as anything else. They’re thoughtful and well conceived and aside from the occasional scene of contrived sentimentality it all comes together perfectly, just as you would hope it would.

There are several other things that I really loved about the film from the supporting work of Audrey Flouret and Anne Le Ny to the the beautiful piano driven score by Italian composer Ludovico Einaudi. But I think you get the point. Suffice it to say The Intouchables was a fantastic experience from its brilliant opening to its satisfying final scene. It’s an example of smart and capable filmmaking that can make you laugh as well as tug at your heartstrings. Yes it’s sometimes a bit showy and yes it sometimes plays to the masses, but I could care less. As long as it’s a good film I’m fine with it.

Check out my review of another solid French drama, “Girl on the Bridge“.

5 Phenomenal Directorial Debuts

by

50

PHENOM 5

Sometimes it takes a director a few movies to really hit their stride. On the other hand sometimes directors knock it out of the park on their first try. This week I’m looking at five phenomenal directorial debuts. Now I have to admit as I was doing research for this list I was really surprised at some of the first efforts of some of the directors I came across. Many were extraordinary, others not so much. But one thing’s for sure, with so many directorial debuts throughout film history this certainly isn’t the definitive list. But after seeing these five directorial debuts, I can boldly say that they’re absolutely phenomenal.

#5 – “THE 400 BLOWS” – Francois Truffaut

400 blows
Acclaimed director François Truffaut’s first film is arguably his very best. “The 400 Blows” is a 1959 French drama that was a pillar of the French New Wave movement. It was such a key film in defining a movement that was steering away from the traditional moviemaking of the time. Truffaut not only directed the film but wrote this semi-autobiographical story of a young boy’s hard life growing up in early 1950s Paris. Even with the movie’s sometimes heartbreaking subject matter, “The 400 Blows” is a beautiful film and it’s clearly a deeply personal work from Truffaut. I can’t say enough about this picture and it’s amazing that such an accomplishment could be a director’s first effort.

#4 – “BLOOD SIMPLE” – The Coen Brothers

Blood Simple
While Joel Coen was listed as director and Ethan Coen as producer we now know how the Coen brothers work. “Blood Simple” was the brilliant directorial debut from arguably the best directing team of our time. The Coens also wrote this modern-day film noir that gave us a new way of looking at crime thrillers. We get our first look at several of the reoccurring themes that the brothers would revisit in their following films as well as their own quirky sense of dark humor and unique style. Overall this is a fabulous movie and a great debut for the Coen brothers. It certainly set the table for the many wonderful pictures the Coens have given us since.

#3 – “NIGHT OF THE LIVING DEAD” – George Romero

night-of-the-living-dead
My favorite horror movie of all time is “Night of the Living Dead” from director George Romero. I’ve always been impressed with how the film used a minuscule budget and no-name performers to create such a wonderfully eerie atmosphere around a groundbreaking story. Even more impressive is the fact that this was Romero’s directorial debut. There are so many director’s touches that make this such a classic movie. But it’s really cool that Romero’s first film essentially launched the zombie craze that is still going strong today. “Night of the Living Dead” is a fascinating bit of filmmaking and an incredible first effort from George Romero.

#2 – “CITIZEN KANE” – Orson Welles

CITIZEN KANE
You know it’s an amazing accomplishment when a director’s first film is considered by many to be the greatest movie of all time. Such is the case with Orson Welles and the phenomenal “Citizen Kane”. The movie underwhelmed at the box office but critics adored it and over time both it and Welles’ stellar direction have received well deserved praise. Welles also produced, co-wrote, and starred in the film. “Citizen Kane” had its share of controversy and obstacles while it was being made, but the finished product is an absolute masterpiece and it’s a master class on strong and visionary directing. It’s a true cinema classic.

#1 – “THE MALTESE FALCON” – John Huston

Maltese-Falcon
Being such a huge fan of Humphrey Bogart I knew a lot of cool tidbits about one of his biggest movies “The Maltese Falcon”. Yet one big and well known fact escaped me until a few years ago. This was the directorial debut for the brilliant John Huston. He also wrote the screenplay for this fantastic film noir that remains one of the greatest films of all time. It’s said Huston had envisioned and setup in his mind the entire film frame by frame before he ever started shooting. His intense preperation and incredible detail enabled him to shoot the entire film in order. The result was a seamless and fluid movie filled with great characters and some brilliant camera work. Huston would go on to make several more classic films but his career started here with the search for the “stuff that dreams are made of”.

And there they are, 5 Phenomenal Directorial Debuts. I know there are several that could have made the list. What are you thoughts? Feel free to leave your comments and share your favorites.

“Holy Motors” – 2 STARS

by

24

Holy Motors posterHow on earth do you begin to review “Holy Motors”. To be perfectly honest, it’s a movie that I had to think about for a few days before even attempting to review it. Now in some ways that could be considered a good thing. It usually means that the film is original and that it prompts thought and reflection. This film certainly does that. But I kept battling with a key question : What is “Holy Motors?” Is it science fiction? Is it experimental? Is it allegorical? What is it that “Holy Motors” wants to be? I’ve yet to be able to even vaguely answer this. Now to be clear, it’s not an issue of knowing all the details and having everything about the movie figured out. It’s about a movie that came across as jarring and disjointed to the point of incoherency and in the end I couldn’t connect with it despite its impressive artistry.

My pal Ruth over at Flixchatter accurately points out that the nature of experimental cinema is that it’s often incoherent. She’s exactly right and for me this was the case with “Holy Motors” (you can find Ruth’s fantastic review here). I don’t doubt for a moment that writer and director Leos Carax has cryptic themes and underlying commentary hidden throughout this film. But to be honest I found the focus on bizarreness and lunacy to be distracting to the point of subverting any intended point or message. And then there’s the possibility that there isn’t meant to be a profound and provocative message at all. Maybe the entire seemingly plotless exercise is more of an attempt at artistic expression. If that’s the case the movie does work on some levels. But even that’s undone but some of the wildly outlandish concoctions that Carax puts together.

HOLY1

As I hinted at we get little in terms of story. The movie follows a man known only as Oscar (Denis Lavant). He’s driven around Paris in a white stretch limo by Céline (Édith Scob). She takes him to different “assignments” scattered throughout the city. While traveling from place to place, Oscar is given a file and then, with a crazy assortment of makeup, prosthetics, and costumes undergoes a physical transformation in preparation for the next “assignment”. Throughout the night he takes on the appearance of a motion capture performer, a streetwise gangster, a sickly elderly man, and a maniacal flower eating leprechaun to name a few. We watch each of these “assignments” play out, some which are pretty intriguing and others that completely turned me off.

Contributing to the confusion is the fact that there’s no real connection between any of these individual “assignments”. It’s essentially a handful of shorts and if you like that sort of thing you’ll like “Holy Motors”, that is assuming all of these “shorts” work for you. Well, experimental cinema isn’t my favorite and several of these shorts didn’t work for me so obviously “Holy Motors” didn’t either. And I could never shake the feeling that Carax was simply trying to be as weird as possible during certain moments of the film. Now this led to a few mildly amusing moments but it also led to moments where I found myself drifting further away from the film. And then there are times when it moves from being absurd to borderline offensive. But considering how difficult it is to understand what Carax is doing, it’s hard to judge.

Holy2

I don’t want to end this without giving the movie credit for some things it does well. First off Denis Lavant is fantastic. Carax wrote the part with him and only him in mind and you can see why. He’s a multi-talented performer and he’s also a strong actor. Some of the film’s best scenes are the conversations between him and Scob. The film also looks fantastic. The camera work and the slick editing give it an amazing visual appeal. There were also two of the “assignments” that I found to be quite effective. One involves him posing as an elderly man on his deathbed. Another sees him involved in a rooftop musical number with pop star Kylie Minogue. And speaking of music, perhaps my favorite scene in the entire film has Oscar and a band of other musicians performing an accordion jam while walking around the inside of a cathedral. It’s absolutely amazing even though I have no clue where it fits in with everything else.

As I scoured the different reviews for this film I kept seeing descriptive words such as strange, deranged, bonkers, bizarre, gross, madness, weird, frustrating, and soulless and these were all from the positive reviews. Again, if you’re into this you’ll probably have fun with “Holy Motors”. If characters and plot are important ingredients for you, then you’ll probably start checking out before the halfway mark. In the end I guess I can see where some people would enjoy “Holy Motors” and I definitely see where critics would fall all over themselves praising it. But I found it to be a self-indulgent, intentionally strange and incoherent picture that wastes some really good talent. For every one moment where I was impressed with the film there are three or four that had me rolling my eyes or scratching my head. Personally, that’s not the moviegoing experience I’m looking for. But who knows, maybe a second viewing would clear some things up for me.