REVIEW: “Venom: The Last Dance” (2024)

October 26, 2024 by Keith Garlington

The first two Venom movies had all they needed to be great – a terrific character with an equally terrific history, the perfect actor, and the big budget backing of a major studio. And while 2018’s “Venom” and 2021’s “Venom: Let There Be Carnage” were financial successes, neither were particularly good movies. And that leads us to “Venom: The Last Dance”, the third and final Venom film that sadly falls into many of the same traps as its predecessors.

The overqualified Tom Hardy returns as Eddie Brock, an investigative journalist turned fugitive who is the host of a super-powered alien symbiote called Venom. The pair went on the run following the events of the previous film, eventually settling in Mexico. But when Eddie sees himself on the local news, the duo head out, turning “The Last Dance” into a buddy road-trip movie with the frazzled Eddie as the straight man and Venom as the incessant jokester.

**Image Courtesy of Sony Pictures Releasing**

As the two travel into the States, they’re pursued by a crack black-ops military unit led by Chiwetel Ejiofor’s General Strickland. But this time around Eddie and Venom find themselves hunted by a far more dangerous threat. The movie starts with a cold open where we’re (barely) introduced to Knull, an evil cosmic deity who created the symbiotes but has sense been imprisoned by his creations. In order to escape he needs something called a “Codex” that just happens to be inside of Venom. So Knull sends his creature army to fetch the Codex so he can break free.

Through several uninteresting turns we learn the only way for the Codex to be destroyed is if either Eddie or Venom dies. Once Strickland gets wind of it, he and his soldiers intensify their search for our protagonists. At the same time, Knull’s ravenous creatures find their way to earth leading to a not-so-epic showdown. Along the way several side characters appear who do little more than eat up screentime. Namely the symbiote-obsessed scientist, Dr. Teddy Payne (Juno Temple) and her assistant Dr. Sadie Christmas (Clark Backo). And a family of alien enthusiasts led by their hippie father, Martin (Rhys Ifans).

Kelly Marcel, the writer of the previous two Venom movies, takes on full screenwriting and directing duties this time around. She hits us with more of Eddie constantly sparring with his attached alien “buddy”. And as before, the goofy banter gets old pretty quick. We also get tons of CGI action, some of which is pretty entertaining, especially once we reach the decommissioned AREA 51. Unfortunately the narrative threads that hold it all together are paper-thin and finding anything to latch onto is a lot harder than it should be.

Tom Hardy has said this is his last run as Eddie/Venom and that’s a good thing. The 47-year-old Englishman is a powerhouse actor who can hopefully move on to more substantial projects. As for “The Last Dance”, it ends the already subpar series on a whimper. It’s plagued by an erratic script, a lack of emotional weight, shallow characters, and a handful of truly awful scenes (none worse than a laughably bad dance number to ABBA’s “Dancing Queen”). It still may muster up enough to satisfy the Venom die-hards (assuming they exist). But most everyone else will just be happy the series has come to an end.

VERDICT – 2 STARS

REVIEW: “Conclave” (2024)

October 25, 2024 by Keith Garlington

I was sold on seeing “Conclave” just by the sheer force of its cast. Ralph Fiennes, Stanley Tucci, John Lithgow, and Isabella Rossellini instantly put the film on my radar. But for me the biggest draw was Edward Berger, the director, co-writer, and producer of the 2022 Academy Award-winning masterpiece “All Quiet on the Western Front”. Whatever the acclaimed filmmaker delivered as his next feature would be an instant must-see.

“Conclave” is an absorbing thriller that’s fueled by powerhouse performances and driven by a filmmaker who maintains an assured grip until he loses it in the final ten minutes. The film is a mostly captivating experience, frustrated only by a curveball ending so out of left field that it derails the near perfection that came before it. It’s a wild final swing that is little more than an eleventh-hour plot device, desperately aiming to be provocative, but too underdeveloped to be anything other than outrageous.

“Conclave” is based on the 2016 international best-selling novel of the same name by Robert Harris. For the majority of its time, screenwriter Peter Straughan’s adaptation plays like a high-stakes political thriller. It’s cloaked in mystery with several big reveals, some unexpected twists, and a lingering sense of paranoia. You can’t help but be sucked in by this ecclesiastical potboiler set within the hallowed halls of the Vatican.

The movie opens with Cardinal Thomas Lawrence (Ralph Fiennes) arriving at the Vatican after getting word the pope has suddenly died. After carrying out the ceremonial rites, the throne is officially declared vacant. From there, Father Lawrence is tasked with overseeing the papal conclave – a gathering in Rome of Cardinals from around the world for the purpose of electing a new pope.

From the first moment we meet him it’s obvious that Cardinal Lawrence isn’t thrilled with his responsibility. We learn he has recently struggled with a crisis of faith leading to his desire to resign from his position and leave Rome. At the same time, he also proves himself to be the most qualified and capable person to handle such a significant task. Fiennes commands the screen yet works with a necessary restraint. His weary eyes and burdened gaze gives us a good look into his tired and troubled soul.

Soon after the cardinals are sequestered and the process begins, four frontrunners arise. There’s Cardinal Bellini (Stanley Tucci), a staunch liberal pretending to be uninterested but with a clear desire for the papacy; Cardinal Tedesco (Sergio Castellitto), a conservative caricature with hardline views that some feel would set the church back decades; Cardinal Adeyemi (Lucian Msamati), a Nigerian archbishop who quickly emerges as the favorite; and Cardinal Tremblay (John Lithgow), a politically savvy American bishop whose every action is driven by his ambition to be the next pontiff.

After none receive the required two-thirds majority, a second vote is held followed by a third and a fourth. Tensions rise as the candidates posture for position, use internal politics to their advantage, and in some cases resort to underhanded tactics to compromise their competition. Caught in the middle is Cardinal Lawrence who must navigate the accusations and potential scandals to ensure the integrity of the process. And what’s with the arrival of Cardinal Benitez (Carlos Diehz), the archbishop of Kabul who was secretly appointed by the late pontiff?

Berger goes to great lengths to make his film look as authentic as possible, recreating with painstaking detail everything from the Vatican’s ornate interiors to the vibrant priestly regalia. Meanwhile Stéphane Fontaine’s cinematography and Volker Bertelmann’s score add think layers of tension as the story progresses. And it all builds our anticipation for what should be a rich and juicy finish. But instead “Conclave” ends with a whimper, throwing in a last-second twist that’s given no buildup and has no notable narrative or dramatic connection to anything that preceded it.

For 110 minutes “Conclave” is hands-down one of the year’s best movies. Unfortunately its final 10 minutes turns it into one of the year’s most frustrating misfires. The ensemble is top-notch, the production design is stellar, the behind the scenes wrangling is riveting, and Berger’s direction is methodical and propulsive. It makes the film’s unraveling all the more discouraging. Rather than ending with a bang, “Conclave” is given a lazy, patronizing finish built more on sanctimonious intentions than good moviemaking judgements.

VERDICT – 3.5 STARS

REVIEW: “Die Alone” (2024)

October 24, 2024 by Keith Garlington

On the surface, “Die Alone” has all the markings of a standard-issue zombie flick: a deadly virus, a global outbreak, a society in ruin, the dead coming back to life as ravenous flesh-eaters. But “Die Alone” is a different kind of zombie movie. Yes, it proudly embraces a number of familiar horror sub-genre tropes. But it puts its own spin on them resulting in a surprisingly fresh and creative feature.

In unveiling his earthen dystopia, Canadian writer-director Lowell Dean reveals many facets of his world that sparks our interest, yet he intentionally keeps several things vague. Beyond that, he does what many before him have done. Dean focuses on the living people in his world more than the walking dead. It’s those people who prove to be the rays of hope and the most ominous threats.

**Image Courtesy of Quiver Distribution**

In “Die Alone”, the planet has been decimated by a plant-based virus. It not only kills those infected but reanimates them into deadly flesh-munching zombies who over time become more plant than people. We never get a full explanation of the virus, what caused it, or if there is any sign of a cure. But Dean does throw in some compelling hints in the form of conspiracy theories and hypotheses. One idea is that it’s nature purging itself of the destructive parasite known as mankind.

It’s in this world that we meet Ethan (Douglas Smith) and his girlfriend Emma (Kimberly-Sue Murray) who are driving to their remote lakeside cabin in hopes of waiting out the global catastrophe. But on their way they have a violent car wreck. When Ethan wakes up he discovers Emma is gone. Blood stains show signs of injury, but she’s nowhere to be found. So the injured yet determined Ethan sets out to find her.

As Ethan searches the husk of a vacant town, he’s attacked by a group of armed ruffians. But he’s saved by a mysterious survivor named Mae (a terrific Carrie-Anne Moss) who takes him to her remote farmhouse. It’s revealed than Ethan has amnesia and struggles to remember anything other than the car crash and Emma. He’s haunted by fragmented memories of her that compels him to continue his search. But Mae seems determined to keep him from leaving.

As the story progresses is becomes clearer that “Die Alone” has interests that extend beyond the normal zombie fare. Dean uses the cryptic relationship between the younger addled Ethan and the older enigmatic Mae to dig into some of his meatier themes (I’ll let you discover them in order to avoid spoilers). Along the way they encounter a number of people who help define their relationship including a band of dubious drifters, a single mother and her son, and even Frank Grillo playing a protective husband and father.

“Die Alone” steadily builds itself towards a walloping twist that immediately encourages a second viewing. It’s a turn that causes us to reevaluate much of what we have seen and heard while sending the film towards an unexpected conclusion. And that’s what makes “Die Alone” stand out. It may seem somewhat conventional at first, but Dean patiently begins to chip away at our expectations before landing his refreshingly subversive ending. “Die Alone” is now available on VOD.

VERDICT – 3.5 STARS

REVIEW: “Rumours” (2024)

October 23, 2024 by Keith Garlington

Cate Blanchett continues her eclectic big screen run with “Rumours”, a movie that can’t possibly be categorized in any single genre. Directed by the filmmaking trio of Guy Maddin, Evan Johnson, and Galen Johnson, “Rumours” is a black comedy and a biting political satire set within a story that subtly mixes end-of-the-world science fiction with classic horror. It’s sometimes surreal, other times absurd, and proudly free of any creative constraints.

While all of that is amazing, “Rumours” is as puzzling as it is entertaining. This is a movie that poses more questions than it cares to answer. It throws in some outlandish twists which (probably) have allegorical purposes but I’ve yet to figure them out. And its melding of the real-world with the fantastical can be more confounding than insightful. At the same time, it’s beguiling in all the right ways and ultimately the cause of the chaos we witness takes a back seat to the bungling response from the seven world leaders we spend our time with.

The story takes place during a G7 summit – an annual gathering where leaders from the world’s wealthiest open democracies (Canada, France, Germany, Italy, Japan, England, and the United States) convene to discuss the globe’s biggest issues. For screenwriter Evan Johnson, this was fertile ground to satirize the inefficacy of world leadership especially in times of crisis. And the punchline to his biggest joke comes with the end credits and the realization that these characters haven’t accomplished a thing. And that’s the whole point.

Maddin and the two Johnsons put together a pitch-perfect cast who seem to be having a ball from the opening moments to the final frame. Chief among them is Cate Blanchett who plays German Chancellor Hilda Ortmann. She’s hosting the G7 Summit at a rural castle in Dankerode, Germany where seven stuffy world power-players come together to discuss an unspecified global crisis.

Joining Hilda is the embattled yet laughably stoic Canadian Prime Minister, Maxime Laplace (Roy Dupuis); the intensely focused British Prime Minister, Cardosa Dewindt (Nikki Amuka-Bird); the overly pragmatic United States President, Edison Walcott (Charles Dance), the chatterbox French President, Sylvain Broulez (Denis Ménochet), the jittery pacifistic Prime Minister of Italy, Antonio Lamorte (Rolando Ravello), and Japan’s Prime Minister, Tatsuro Iwasaki (Takehiro Hira) who the movie seems to forget about until the final 20 minutes.

After a few goofy photo ops, our seven dignitaries settle around a table in a newly built gazebo. There they begin putting together their provisional statement – an illusion of multilateral accomplishment to be shared with the entire world. But things turn upside down after the group discovers they’ve been abandoned. There are no staff members, no security, no cellphone service. To make matters weirder, they find themselves cut off from the castle by zombie-like “bog men” with muddy gelatinous bodies and some pretty twisted habits.

From there we follow our seven petrified leaders as they reveal how poor they are at world crisis management through how horribly they mismanage their own. It becomes evident that these aren’t the sharpest knives in the drawer, and in many ways they are personifications of their individual nations – something Maddin, Johnson, and Johnson have a field day with.

“Rumours” is littered with funny details including Dance’s intact British accent, the seemingly endless supply of cured meat in Antonio’s pocket, the group’s crazy obsession with finishing their provisional statement despite a looming apocalypse, and a hysterical third act bit involving an AI chatbot.

It also has its share of head-scratching inclusions. For instance, the sudden appearance of Alicia Vikander whose scenario never makes sense. And what’s with the pink squishy brain the size of a Volkswagen Beetle plopped in the middle of the forest? But if you’re seeking answers to the zaniness you’re already on the wrong track.

“Rumours” is a mannered slice of absurdism that can understandably frustrate with its slow build towards nothing. But if you can get onboard with its audacious approach, it’s hard not to enjoy the pomposity, platitudes and pantsuits. And with such a stellar all-star cast in on the joke, it makes the movie’s blunt-force message not just timely, but often laugh-out-loud hilarious. “Rumours” is now available on VOD.

VERDICT – 3.5 STARS

REVIEW: “Super/Man: The Christopher Reeve Story” (2024)

October 22, 2024 by Keith Garlington

There was a day when superhero movies were actually a rarity. There were no big blockbuster franchises or sprawling cinematic universes. Perhaps that’s one reason 1978’s “Superman: The Movie” was such a critical and box office success. Another reason was the film’s lead, a young relatively unknown Christopher Reeve. It was a star-making role for the Juilliard alumni that over time became both a blessing and a curse.

With “Super/Man: The Christopher Reeve Story”, co-directors Ian Bonhôte and Peter Ettedgui examine the man behind the pop culture myth, exposing our penchant for idolizing characters while emphasizing what it means to be a true hero. For some, the documentary has the potential be a stirring introduction while others will see it as a moving reminder of what Christopher Reeve accomplished, endured, and overcame.

**Image Courtesy of Warner Bros. Pictures**

Bonhôte and Ettedgui tell Reeve’s story through interviews with his children, Will Reeve, Matthew Reeve, and Alexandra Reeve Givens. They also include some of Reeve’s acting contemporaries such as Susan Sarandon, Glen Close, and Jeff Daniels. The doc includes a wealth of archived footage and clips from old home movies. But ultimately it’s the heartfelt testimonies that offer the most insight and that give the movie its emotional weight.

“Super/Man” attempts to balance Reeve’s professional and personal lives, digging into his complicated family history while highlighting his near overnight ascent to global movie star status. With so much to cover, not everything gets the attention it needs. But Bonhôte and Ettedgui give us enough to get to picture. They tell us about his troubled relationship with his parents, mostly with his unsupportive father. We hear how he met Gae Exton, the mother of Matthew and Alexandra. We learn that five months after leaving her he met his future wife, Dana.

Professionally, we get snippets of his life as an off-Broadway actor and his eventual call to audition for the role of Superman where he beat out the likes of Arnold Schwarzenegger, Bruce Jenner, and Neil Diamond (!!!). We see Reeves catapulted to super stardom with the success of “Superman: The Movie” and later desperate to get out from under its shadow. And there’s the tragedy that struck on May 27, 1995 when Reeve’s suffered a spinal injury that left him paralyzed from the neck down.

Much of the documentary focuses on the injury, its impact on Reeve and his family, and the resilience he showed to not only keep living but to use his situation as a means to promote disability awareness. Along the way, it stresses Dana’s unwavering care and support for her husband. She’s an essential part of Reeve’s story and a hero of an entirely different kind.

Bonhôte and Ettedgui have definitely done their homework and their movie’s overarching message is easy to grasp. But not all of their choices pan out. For example, their frequent bouncing back-and-forth on Reeve’s timeline hinders more than helps. But it doesn’t lessen the heartbreak or inspiration found of this real-life Superman story. “Super/Man: The Christopher Reeve Story” is now showing in select theaters.

VERDICT – 3.5 STARS

REVIEW: “We Live in Time” (2024)

October 21, 2024 by Keith Garlington

Andrew Garfield and Florence Pugh shine and carry “We Live in Time”, a romantic drama built upon and sustained by the sparkling chemistry of its two leads. The film is directed by John Crowley and is more in sync with his terrific “Brooklyn” (2015) than his lesser “The Goldfinch” (2019). Despite being low on theatrics, it’s still a little soapy around the edges. Yet Crowley and screenwriter Nick Payne succeed in telling a modern love story with an earnest classical tenor.

“We Live in Time” is very much an actor’s movie, and no matter where the story goes, it’s Garfield and Pugh who keep its gears turning. There’s nothing here we haven’t seen before and it’s a testament to their acting savvy that we care for their characters as much as we do. It’s fair to say that without them “We Live in Time” could easily fall apart and be tossed in a pile with so many other movies of its kind.

Crowley begins his film by telling us exactly where it’s going. We’re introduced to Almut (Pugh) and Tobias (Garfield), a young couple who we see fall in love, have a child, and receive tragic news, all in the first few minutes. The bad news is that Almut has stage 3 ovarian cancer. From there the movie bounces back-and-forth between different points in their relationship, often with no discernible rhythm. It’s a choice that feels unnecessary, but at the same time helps divert our attention away from the conventional aspects of the story.

We do learn quite a bit about the two characters. Almut is an accomplished chef and restaurant owner. Tobias is an IT technician for Weetabix (a British breakfast cereal – I had to look it up). Both have their own strengths, quirks, and insecurities. But they share a connection that’s evident from the first moment they meet. And that happens after Tobias wanders into the street and is struck by Almut’s car. After he heals up, Tobias visits Almut’s restaurant. They begin dating and after a short time-hop they move in together.

Further down their timeline we see the couple deciding to have a child, struggling to get pregnant, and finally giving birth to their darling daughter Ella. And even further down we watch Almut and Tobias forced to make some painful decisions following her cancer diagnosis. As the movie oscillates between the different stages of their relationship, Pugh and Garfield navigate the small intimacies and seismic shifts with an artful precision.

Crowley’s choice to reveal his hand early is a bold one, but it does shortchange some of the drama. And when you peel back the nonlinear devices you find the makings of a pretty standard tearjerker. Yet the movie works because Crowley knows what he has in Garfield and Pugh. And Payne’s script provides plenty of serious-minded and grounded material for the actors to work with.

Reactions to “We Live in Time” are sure to vary. Some may have a hard time getting past its obvious conventions. Others may dismiss it for its delicacy and unwillingness to run its audience through the emotional wringer. But it doesn’t take much effort to look beyond those complaints to see an empathetic and authentic drama that explores life, death, and the intrinsic value of human connection. “We Live in Time” is in theaters now.