Author Archives: Keith Garlington

REVIEW: “Melancholia” (2011)

by

3

 

“Melancholia” is a solemn and unsettling examination of depression wrapped up in an end-of-the-world, sci-fi drama. It’s written and directed by the sometimes controversial Danish filmmaker Lars von Trier, and it’s been said that the picture was inspired by some of his own experiences with depression. In many ways it does feel deeply personal to the filmmaker and his treatment of the material is painfully real. But there are also a few instances where he forces his penchant for stylization and uniqueness onto the script. But even with the occasional lapse into self-indulgence, “Melancholia” is a lighter von Trier which for the most part really works. 

“Melancholia” has a very interesting structure. It starts with a brief prelude set to the beautifully haunting music of Richard Wagner. The prelude features a synoptic montage of stylistic imagery that we later find out is directly tied to events in the film. It’s a pretty no-nonsense, straight-forward approach by von Trier and it seems like an attempt to put the audience’s focus in the right place. On the other hand, it wasn’t until after I had finished the film that I really appreciated the prelude. It was then that I saw the brilliance of this clever device. 

The main story is broken into two parts and focuses on two sisters, Justine (Kirsten Dunst) and Claire (Charlotte Gainsbourg). The first half of the film is simply entitled “Justine”. It follows Justine and Michael (Alexander Skarsgard) and their lavish, high-priced wedding party thrown by Claire and her husband John (Kiefer Sutherland) at their luxurious home. Things start poorly when they arrive two hours late which clearly frustrates the cost-sensitive John. We’re then introduced to the sister’s immature and irresponsible father Dexter (John Hurt), their angry and cynical mother Gaby (Charlotte Rampling), and Justine’s self-absorbed boss Jack (Stellan Skarsgard). While at first everything seems perfect for her, we slowly see Justine swallowed up by her genuine inner struggles with frustration, uncertainty, and depression. We watch as her happy bride facade crumbles, and she becomes more and more detached. It’s painful and heart-breaking yet exquisite and utterly mesmerizing. 

The second half of the film, titled “Claire”,  jumps ahead in time and takes a drastic change of direction. Justine is brought back to live with Claire and John after succumbing to severe depression.  But we begin to see that Claire has struggles of her own. She is battling fear and anxiety brought on by the possible destruction of the earth by an approaching rogue planet called “Melancholia”. It’s hinted at in the first half of the film, but we learn that most scientists believe the planet will pass by earth. John, who is enthralled with the astrological phenomenon, tries to ease Claire’s mind, but differing internet theories fuel her despair. It’s sad to watch both sister’s fall victim to their own mental frailties and the planetary threat, while real, is a subtle but agonizing metaphor. 

“Melancholia” is a gripping, meditative film that’s delivered like an operatic mood piece. While sometimes slow and deliberate, the film moves at a measured pace that’s fairly effective even though the second half of the film does require some patience. The movie occasionally flirts with being ostentatious but von Trier manages to keep things reined in. But there are some exceptions. There are a few scenes that seemed forced upon the story and served no other purpose than to be provocative or erotic. These speed bumps pulled me out of the movie which hurts a picture that depends on our deep involvement in the story.  

Despite the movie’s few flaws, there is no denying the strength of Kirsten Dunst’s performance. You almost feel yourself being pulled into her collapsing world as she delivers what may be one of the most authentic portrayals of depression and it’s devastating effects. But to be honest, there isn’t a bad performance. Gainsbourg is fantastic as the complex Claire. Early in the film I was disgusted by her only to be completely sympathetic towards the character later. And it’s great to see Kiefer Sutherland once again in a role of substance. He nails ever scene he’s in and never sells his character short. 

“Melancholia” is sure to be heralded by many to be a great film and in many ways it is. For my money a more tempered Lars von Trier is better, and that’s what we get for most of the movie. He maintains a steady and solemn tone which doesn’t always make for happy viewing, but it works considering the subject matter. He also steps back and lets his really talented actors go. He uses some striking visuals but never overdoes them. They move poetically and almost hypnotically throughout the picture, and I couldn’t take my eyes off each strategically placed sequence.  But he did yank me out of his picture with a few self-indulgent scenes that should have been left on the cutting room floor. It’s here where von Trier seems to be putting style over substance, and the story suffers for it. But the movie is carried by the performances. I never doubted any of the characters or their individual plights.

VERDICT – 3.5 STARS

REVIEW: “MEEK’S CUTOFF” (2010)

by

0

To call “Meek’s Cutoff” a unique film would be an understatement. It’s a historical western of sorts from director Kelly Reichardt that follows three families and their guide as they travel on the Oregon Trail. Reichardt certainly doesn’t romanticize the American frontier life, instead creating one of the most genuine portrayals of the hardships and struggles that faced the settlers in the new territory. But while the movie draws you in with it’s visual beauty, nice performances, and high stakes, it ultimately falls victim to its unsatisfying ending..

The film takes place in 1845 as the Tetherow, Gately, and White families follow the lead of Stephen Meek, a shaggy and rugged mountain-man hired to guide them over the Cascade Mountains. He claims to know a shortcut, but as the trip grows longer and the water starts running out, the families begin to question Meek. After running across a Native American and uncertain of his motives, they capture him much to the dismay of Meek who would rather just kill him. Eventually they’re faced with a dilemma. Do they continue to follow Meek who by all indications seems lost or do the follow the Native American who they can’t communicate with but may be able to lead them to some much needed water?

“Meek’s Cutoff” is an incredibly slow developing picture which is sure to turn off some people. It does require a good deal of patience, but it wasn’t long until I was thoroughly involved in the story. Reichardt does an incredible job giving the story an authentic look and feel. The cinematography is wonderful, and there some truly beautiful shots scattered throughout. There are also some solid performances particularly from Michelle Williams, Will Patton, and Paul Greenwood who completely loses himself in the Meek character.

But while it flirts with greatness, it ends up falling short mainly due to an ending that left me feeling frustrated and shortchanged. Now I have no problem with ambiguity, leaving things open for interpretation, or allowing the audience to come up with their own conclusions. But this ending is terribly abrupt and features nothing that would cause me to come to my own conclusion about anything. To be honest, it felt unfinished and I couldn’t help but feel letdown.

It’s tough to watch a picture that does so many things right but fails to stick its finish. It’s easy to talk about what all Reichardt accomplishes in her film. It’s a brilliant and arresting movie that had me sold right up to the very end. This one glaring black eye took so much away from my experience. I understand this was a creative decision and many people have been satisfied with it. But for me, not only did “Meek’s Cutoff” not offer any real conclusion, but it gave me nothing to build mine upon. It felt a little cheap and ultimately made a potentially great film just a good one.

VERDICT – 3 STARS

REVIEW – “Hugo”

by

0

Martin Scorsese has proven himself to be a fantastic filmmaker, creating some of the industries most memorable films. The Oscar winning director is responsible for such movies as “Taxi Driver”, “Gangs of New York”, “The Departed”, and most recently “Shutter Island”. But out of all the movies on Scorsese’s resume, none are quite like “Hugo”. It’s his first foray into the more family friendly genre and his first film shot in 3D. But’s it’s also a stellar example of what a master craftsman can do with a great story, large budget, and the latest technology.  Based on the Brian Selznick’s novel “The Invention of Hugo Cabret”, “Hugo” is a movie that resonates on nearly every emotional level while also offering one of the most visually stunning experiences you’ll have in a theater. It’s a near masterpiece.

“Hugo” is the story of a young orphan living within the walls of a Paris train station. Hugo (Asa Butterfield) spends time swiping parts from around the train station in order to fix a broken automaton left behind by his deceased father. Desperate and lonely, Hugo hopes that hidden inside of the automaton is a message from his father. He is befriended by an adventurous young girl named Isabelle (Chloe Grace Moretz) but runs afoul of her godfather Georges (Ben Kingsley). We also spend time with several wonderful characters from around the train station. There’s the station inspector (Sacha Baron Cohen), a florist (Emily Mortimer), a book store owner (Christopher Lee), and more. These characters not only give the station life and vibrancy, but each have there own little role to play in Hugo’s story.

While the story is beautifully crafted, it’s the performances that drive it. Butterfield is very convincing as Hugo and he really amazed me with his emotional range. Even more impressive was Moretz. She’s energetic, charming, and lights up the screen. Kingsley gives another brilliant performance that deserves serious Oscar consideration and Cohen offers plenty of laughs while also showing a sad, pitiful side to his character. There is not one bad performance in the picture and Scorsese manages his actors with precision. These performances are perfect compliments to his directing style.

While this isn’t the sort of material you would usually relate to Scorsese, he handles it with the exact same care and detail as any of his other pictures. Even with it’s big imagination and sometimes fantasy feel, this is a story that seems deeply personal to the director and he pours out affection on every scene. His vision of 1930s Paris grabbed me from it first gorgeous sprawling shot and through every intricate detail found in the architecture, wardrobes, dialogue, and mannerisms. Scorsese’s use of the camera and his ability to set up shots is impeccable and the way he use’s 3D gives me hope for the technology. It’s worth noting that this is a movie you should see in 3D. With so many cheap conversions and cash grabs out there, Scorsese gives us the most visually engaging use of 3D since Avatar. It’s at times subtle and other time jaw-dropping but always pleasing to the eye and immersive.

“Hugo” is a film that should strike a chord with any true movie lover. Not only is it expert storytelling and a visual master work, but it’s a tip of the hat to everything that makes movies such a great art form. Scorsese takes us back to the early days of silent cinema and shows the power and influence of film. There’s no way you can watch the second half of this movie and not have a stronger appreciation for motion pictures and the way it’s incorporated into Hugo’s story is practically flawless.

“Hugo” is a family friendly drama and a celebration of cinema all wrapped into one. It’s a movie for both adults and children yet it never caters specifically to either. It’s an intelligent and earnest picture that earns our tears at the end through it’s genuine sincerity and tenderness. It’s a visual marvel with the same signature camera work we’ve seen throughout Scorsese’s career and a dazzling use of 3D that gives the technology the shot in the arm it desperately needs. “Hugo” left me with one of the most satisfying experiences I have had in the theater. This may be Scorsese’s first dive into this new sandbox, but the result is one of the best films of 2011.

VERDICT – 4.5 STARS

4.5 STARS

REVIEW: “Mission Impossible: Ghost Protocol”

by

0

“Mission Impossible: Ghost Protocol” is the fourth installment in Tom Cruise’s action spy series and it’s also the best of the bunch. It’s a fast paced summer-styled popcorn picture that is perfectly constructed and moves from one big action set piece to another with an almost rhythmic and poetic flow. I wasn’t surprised that I liked the film. But I was surprised at how polished and effective this Mission Impossible movie was.

Director Brad Bird, best known for his Oscar winning work in animated films such as “The Incredibles” and “Ratatouille”, makes his live action debut and one of my biggest questions was how he would make the transition. Bird is to be commended for his handling of material that necessitates moving from location to location and not allowing the audience to spend too much time thinking about plot details. He melds together those fun elements from high octane action movies and clever spy pictures and the result is an energetic, globetrotting, gadget-filled piece of robust entertainment.

Tom Cruise returns as Ethan Hunt and he is in true movie star form. He and his team is framed for a terrorist attack on the Kremlin which leads the President to execute “Ghost Protocol”, the complete disavowing of the IMF. On their own and with limited resources, the team seeks to track down the individual responsible for the bombing, a dangerous mystery man who works under the name of “Cobalt” played beautifully by Michael Nyqvist. Cruise continues to be a perfect fit as Ethan Hunt and he’s certainly comfortable in the role. Simon Pegg returns as the team’s tech geek and comic relief and Paula Patton is a field agent with information on the bombing. But the best addition to the team is Jeremy Renner as William Brandt, and IMF analyst with a few secrets of his own. Renner gives a more reserved performance than what we have seen from him in films such as “The Hurt Locker” and “The Town”. This role required a bit more subtlety and Renner nails it.

The story moves all over the globe stopping at locations such as Moscow, Dubai, and India. The movie captures each location with energy and vibrancy and I was completely engaged. The action scenes are huge and sometimes jaw-dropping and Bird’s visual style makes it easy to overlook the sheer unbelievability of some of the sequences. The Dubai skyscraper scene alone is worth the ticket price. The gadgetry is as futuristic and outlandish as anything we’ve seen in the series but who cares? It works perfectly in this picture. I could go on and on but simply put, “Ghost Protocol” is technically flawless. Now just imagine it in IMAX.

As with the other Mission Impossible films, the plot does fall together a little too neatly and sometimes you just have to take things at face value. But the film moves along at such a fast pace that you’re never left to dwell on it. To be honest, I didn’t care that everything fell together so smoothly. I was having too much fun. Even at over two hours the film never lost me. “Mission Impossible: Ghost Protocol” is getting a lot of critical praise even though it’s not the type of movie that would get awards buzz. But I judge a good movie by many things and one of them is how much fun I have watching it. Based on that, “Ghost Protocol” is surprisingly one of the better movies of 2011.

VERDICT – 4 STARS

“THE HELP” – 3.5 STARS

by

0

Perhaps the biggest box office surprise of 2011 was “The Help”. The Civil Rights era drama dominated movie theaters to the tune of over $200 million. Based on the immensely popular novel by Kathryn Stockett, “The Help” was adapted for the big screen and directed by the relatively unknown Tate Taylor who was born in raised in Jackson, Mississippi, the deep south city where the film takes place. The movie nicely recaptures that time period and setting both through the look and feel of the picture. You do get a genuine sense of familiarity from the director and it shows onscreen.

At it’s core, “The Help” is a story about racism and the obstacles that the black community faced during the early 1960′s. It particularly focuses on maids, women hired to do everything from cook meals to raise the children of well-to-do white people. These women, simply referred to as the help, earn next to nothing while facing all sorts of embarrassments and humiliations. This is potentially heavy material and the film gives us several strong, emotionally charged moments that you can’t help but be effected by. But the film also dabbles in caricatures, lapses into occasional shallowness, and spends a little too much time away from the truly powerful central story.

The film’s biggest strengths can be found in the mesmerizing performances of Viola Jones and Octavia Spencer. Jones’ Aibileen and Spencer’s Minny are both quite unique and layered characters. They are fascinating individuals and the movie is at it’s best when they are on the screen. I found myself particularly drawn to Spencer. She takes a character that could have been an over the top cliche and beautifully portrays her through a controlled and measured performance. Emma Stone is also good as Skeeter, a young writer returning home after graduating from Ole Miss. After seeing the treatment of the help by some of her town “friends”, Skeeter sets out to convince Aibileen and Minny to let her write about their experiences. There are also several fun but smaller roles featuring Jessica Chastain, Sissy Spacek, Mary Steenburgen, and Cicely Tyson.

While “The Help” works well in many areas, it also hits a few speed bumps. The most notable problem with the film is it’s almost cartoonish portrayal of several of the upper-class white woman. Bryce Dallas Howard plays the proverbial villain (for lack of a better term) and her character is so exaggerated that I could never take her seriously. I’m not sure if it’s her acting or the way her character is written but I tend to think it’s a little of both. We get glimpses of this from several other women but not on the same scale as Howard’s Hilly character. I don’t deny for one second that this type of racism existed or that it was a real obstacle that these African American women faced. But I would have loved to see these white women portrayed in a much more believable and sincere fashion.

I always say that you can’t compare a movie with the book it’s based on. A movie is in a different universe with an entirely different set of limitations. Tate does a good job of keeping the main thrust of the story in tact and spends most of the film focused on what makes this a good movie, the story of Skeeter, Aibileen, and Minny. But the movie does wander off into several more uninteresting directions that do more to take away from the central story than add anything to it. Whether it’s Skeeter’s underplayed and irrelevant romance or Celia’s failed pregnancies and rags-to-riches story, “The Help” sometimes tries to cram too much into too little of a space which leaves the film feeling a little bloated.

Even with a few flaws, “The Help” is a movie that manages to deliver some gripping and powerful scenes. It’s impossible to not be drawn to the main characters and the perfomances from Viola Jones and Octavia Spencer are stunning. The movie manages to maintain the strength of it’s central message even though it could have been stronger with more balanced and believable portrayals of certain characters. But I was moved by “The Help” and although it’s not the most polished and steady film of the year, it certainly deserves the money it has made and the attention it has garnered.

“MONEYBALL” – 4 STARS

by

0

I’m a sucker for a good baseball movie and “Moneyball” is a good baseball movie. But it’s not a traditional baseball movie. Based off of Michael Lewis’ book, “Moneyball” is the story of Oakland Athletics general manager Billy Beane and the team’s 2002 baseball season. In much the same way as “The Social Network” was a successful movie about Facebook, “Moneyball” takes sabermetrics, something that doesn’t seem like movie material, and creates a thoroughly engaging film around it.

At it’s core, “Moneyball” is a film about old versus new. It’s about winning or losing. It’s about adapting or dying. It’s a baseball movie but there is so much more going on underneath the surface. It’s an intelligent film that lives off of it’s clever and often witty script instead of the “stand up and cheer” moments that you usually get in sports movies. Another positive is that this isn’t a movie just for baseball fans. Obviously it will resonate with those familiar with the game but there is plenty of great character work to please anyone who appreciates good films.

This movie would never work without the strong performance from Brad Pitt. I’m certainly not the biggest Brad Pitt fan, but here he gives steady and somewhat restrained performance. He never overdoes it and his Billy Beane character feels natural and authentic. Pitt is hindered by a script that doesn’t allow for much emotion from the main character. With the exception of a couple of brief angry outbursts we rarely see what Billy is like inside. I would love to see Pitt flesh out this particular character a little more.

“Moneyball” may not sound like your cup of tea but there’s plenty to like here and it’s merits are hard to deny. Pitt shows that he is a solid actor and when he reigns in his performance he can deliver something memorable. He effortlessly handles the slick and polished dialogue while submerging himself into a character that’s thoroughly engaging. “Moneyball” is a fun and memorable experience that not only satisfies the baseball fan in me but also the fan of great storytelling.