REVIEW: “The Mortal Storm”

June 21, 2016 by Keith Garlington

The global political climate was dramatically changing in 1940 especially in Europe. The Nazi machine was already wrecking havoc and the United States was a little over one year away from entering World War 2. It was during this time that “The Mortal Storm” was released. When reading up on the film I learned that this was one of few openly anti-Nazi movies to be released prior to America’s entry into the war. The film and subsequently all other MGM movies were soon banned in Germany.

“The Mortal Storm” was directed by Frank Borzage, a filmmaker I was relatively unfamiliar with but who had a lot of success during the silent era and with early talkies. Here he tackles very potent and relevant topics of the time – Naziism, the rise of Adolph Hitler and the effects these things had on families and friendships. It’s a sincere and effective adaptation of Phyllis Bottome’s 1938 novel and it’s full of passion but also tragedy.

The film is set in 1933 and takes place in a small Bavarian town. The opening ten minutes cleverly sets up the gut punch we get later on. We’re introduced to a prominent science professor named Viktor Roth (Frank Morgan). It’s his birthday and we get a series of playful scenes revolving around that. At his home later that evening we sit in on his birthday dinner with his family and old family friend Martin (James Stewart). We see his daughter Freya (Margaret Sullivan) become engaged to the cordial and mannered Fritz (Robert Young). Everything is painted as happy and intimate.

But one radio broadcast changes that forever. During their meal it is reported that Hitler’s power has grown and the Nazi party has become the one German political party. In an instant the happy moments at the table turn tense and contentious. Fritz and Prof. Roth’s step-sons show their previously unseen support of the Nazi ideals. Martin and Prof. Roth show concern and hesitation over embracing Hitler and his direction for Germany. From there things only get worse and the once joyous and united household is torn apart by intolerance and strife.

The story takes several interesting turns including a romance angle that at first seems wantonly obvious. But the romance doesn’t smother the film’s bigger points and instead is used to serve them. It’s also interesting to see how the film tries to soften the edge of its message while still pounding it home with clarity. For example the term “Jew” is never used in the film, but Dr. Roth and others are called a “non-Aryan”. The implication is clearly there. Also the film rarely uses “German” or “Germany” in its dialogue and the setting is rarely discussed. But these things do nothing to dull the blade the film uses to cut into Naziism and a different sides of its influence.

One of the few difficulties I had was seeing the cast as German citizens. Think about it, Jimmy Stewart, not even attempting an accent, with that distinct voice of his being a German farmer. This really stood out to me. But that doesn’t mean the performances are bad. Quite the contrary, they are fantastic. Margaret Sullavan shines as the lovely and conflicted Freya and the seasoned Frank Morgan is the beating heart of the story. Also look for a young Robert Stack playing one of Prof. Roth’s sons. It was his second film performance.

This was the last of Stewart and Sullavan’s four movies together. Shortly after the film Stewart would enlist in the military and fight during World War 2. Sullavan made only five more movies before sadly being engulfed by personal issues. Still “The Mortal Storm” is a fine reminder of their beautiful chemistry. But it’s also a gutsy film with a much stronger message than people were accustomed to hearing. And even today the film stands strong as a testament to the persuasive power of the movies.

VERDICT – 4 STARS

REVIEW: “Meru”

May 1, 2016 by Keith Garlington

Nestled in the heart of India’s Garwhal Himalayas stands a beautiful yet ominous mountain called Meru Peak. Topping at an elevation of 21,850 feet, the mountain features three peaks, one being Meru Central which is considered by mountaineers as one of the world’s toughest climbs. Meru Central features a 4000 foot granite wall called the Shark’s Fin and the route around it has been tried and failed by the world’s best climbers.

This documentary tells the story of three climbers who first attempted to conquer the Shark’s Fin in 2008. The three determined men endure a major storm, harsh temperatures, and a shortage of supplies only to be forced back down a few feet away from conquering the peak. It’s disappointing and demoralizing for the team but it is nothing compared to the adversity each would individually face in the three years that followed.

Early into the film it’s easy to see these guys as nothing more than free-spirited adrenaline junkies. You would have to be a bit crazy to take the deadly risks they take and to put your body through the stress they do. But after the failed attempt to summit Meru, team leader and one the world’s best climbers Conrad Anker, his trusted partner Jimmy Chin (who also directed, co-produced, and shot the film), and young but trustworthy Renan Ozturk each experience personal tragedies or near-death experiences that completely alter their lives.

The documentary takes a detour from climbing to look at these tragedies and show us the effects they had on these men. Tackling Meru was no longer important. Life had taken darker turns and each man was bearing his own heavy burden. Through this Anker, Chin, and Ozturk become more to us than adrenaline junkies. It grounds them on the most human levels. As a result we empathize with them when they decide to go back to Meru Central. We understand their personal motivations and we too see this as more than just a climb.

At times you may feel like your watching one big North Face advertisement. The logo seems to be in every shot. There are also moments where the narrative transitions are a little rocky. Other than that “Meru” hits every important note you want from a documentary. But it also has an intriguing structure that teases you to make negative assumptions before unveiling its deeper human component. That is when I knew “Meru” had a lot more going on under its surface. I ended up caring about these men, empathizing with their perspectives, and reflecting on my own viewpoints. I love it when a film is able to pull that kind of reaction out of me.

VERDICT – 4 STARS

REVIEW: “The Maze Runner”

February 16, 2016 by Keith Garlington

Fear not my friends, teen dystopian science fiction is still alive and well! Don’t believe me? Just check out the laundry list of films that fit the description. As we speak “The Hunger Games” and “Divergence” are two franchises currently going (or recently ended) that are based on popular teen books. Add to that list “The Maze Runner”, the first installment of the film adaptations of James Dashner’s popular 2009 book series.

“The Maze Runner” serves as one big introduction to the characters, the setting, and the circumstances. It functions specifically as the opening of a series and it does little to expand its identity beyond that. First time director Wes Ball follows a pretty bland blueprint in establishing his world. There are several cool elements at work and the entire premise is pretty intriguing. There are also several common shortcomings that plaque many of these types of films.

The story begins with a 16-year old boy (Dylan O’Brien) suddenly waking up in a moving service elevator. He is met at the top by a group of boys in a place called the Glade – a big grassy area completely surrounded by huge stone walls. The boy (who we later find out is named Thomas) doesn’t know who he is or how he got into the elevator. And obviously he has no idea what kind of world he has awoken to.

The boys of the Glade have built a social structure filled with several of the usually character types. Thomas and the audience learn about the world through scene after scene of exposition. For a while it seems like each character he meets has to stop a lay out another explanation of what this group of people does or of what that particular threat is. Very little is allowed to happen organically in the first half of the film.

But even amid some pretty generic table setting an intriguing foundation is laid and the second half of the film builds upon it. The walls around the Glade actually lead to a giant maze filled with a number of dangers. The group has given into the idea that they will never make it out of the Glade. Thomas defies that reasoning and sparks a movement to learn the maze and escape their captivity. But what is actually looming behind the maze? Don’t worry, you’ll have three whole movies to find out.

The suspense builds up pretty good in the second half and I was genuinely hungry to get some hints as to what was going on. Unfortunately “The Maze Runner” offers up very little in terms of answers. There also isn’t a big cliffhanger high. Instead it simply ends. It also leaves you with plenty of plot holes to ponder. I’m not talking about obvious storylines that we can expect to be answered in future installments. These are portions of the story that just doesn’t make sense.

You could point to other storytelling deficiencies and you could pick apart the performances of some of the young cast. Yet despite its pretty glaring flaws, “The Maze Runner” managed to do one of the most important things – it left me interested in seeing where the next film was going. I did find enough here to get me involved and I did find myself curious about the secrets being kept. And there are a few unorthodox angles that I did find pleasantly surprising. These are reasons I can slightly recommend “The Maze Runner”. At the same time it isn’t a film I’m anxious to see again and I can certainly understand why others would be even less enthusiastic.

VERDICT – 3 STARS

REVIEW: “Mistress America”

February 3, 2016 by Keith Garlington

Noah Baumbach has a unique fascination with telling stories of high-strung eccentric chatterboxes who aren’t always the most likable people to be around. Some are airy and naive. Others are astringent and self-absorbed. But despite each of their quirks, annoyances, or repellent personalities, I’ve always found myself fascinated with Baumbach’s strange and often self-destructive creations.

Enter “Mistress America”, an unusual amalgamation of all of the above. It features most of the normal Baumbach signatures – neurotic and/or insecure people, a ton of hip rapid-fire dialogue, and a bustling New York City backdrop. As with every other film of his, a big part of your reaction will be influenced by your opinions of the characters and your tolerance levels for them.

Baumbach’s favorite muse and girlfriend Greta Gerwig co-wrote the story and gets top billing, but the film is really about a girl named Tracy struggling to find her niche during her freshman year at college. She’s played by Lola Kirke who was very good in last year’s “Gone Girl”. Tracy feels like an outcast and can’t fit in with any of the typical college groups. Even the nerdy intellectuals pay her no attention except for a fellow writer named Tony (Matthew Shear). But even that relationship isn’t without its complexities.

Sensing her daughter’s melancholy, Tracy’s mom (Kathryn Erbe) encourages her to call up and connect with her soon-to-be stepsister Brooke (Gerwig). Tracy is instantly smitten with Brooke’s panache and lively New York City lifestyle (stating in one scene “I can’t imagine the city without you”). Brooke talks a good game and seems to have her toe dipped in many of the city’s coolest waters. But as with many of these characters, there is reason for us to wonder if her life is truly all sunshine and roses.

For the most part “Mistress America” succeeds on the exact same level as most of Baumbach’s pictures. The characters are interesting even in their peculiar states and the story could be called a simple platform for their idiosyncratic philosophizing, witty banter, and self reflections. Dialogue is always a focus and most of it works as quirky intellectual comedy and drama. But this also feeds into a couple of the film’s issues. There are moments where the back-and-forths between characters feel too scripted. Other exchanges work noticeably hard to be intellectually cool. I’m also not sold on some of the comedy angles we get later in the film.

Embracing Noah Baumbach means dealing with certain blemishes and minor frustrations. At the same time his unique characters, rich dialogue, and sharp wit is more than enough to make up for them. This particular dive into the fashionable problems of big city millennials may not measure up with Baumbach’s best. Yet it still manages to capture what I enjoy about his films and the uniqueness of his formula is always satisfying.

VERDICT – 3.5 STARS

REVIEW: “The Martian”

October 11, 2015 by Keith Garlington

Ridley Scott’s filmography has been pretty amazing. A quick scan shows it to be littered with cult classics, blockbuster favorites, and Oscar winners. But over the last several years many have hit Scott’s films pretty hard. Personally I have disagreed with the many. I loved the slower, character-driven approach to “Robin Hood”. I don’t think “Prometheus” was nearly as bad as many do. And despite its noticeable flaws, I thought “Exodus” was a pretty grand spectacle.

But now the 77 year-old Scott has once again caught the attention of his critics with “The Martian”, a brainy and somewhat observational science fiction flick based on Andy Weir’s 2011 novel. Scott has long enjoyed delving into the science fiction realm, yet with “The Martian” he has managed to create something unique. This entertaining mixture of striking visuals and patient, methodical narrative has little in common with Scott’s past sci-fi experiences. “The Martian” is a much different movie but it still spotlights Scott’s talents as a filmmaker even though it may not sit among his best.

“The Martian” plays out like some type of love letter to science and space exploration. There are A TON of science-heavy back-and-forths between the film’s large cast of characters and science is the centerpiece for nearly every scene. In many ways it was captivating to watch and listen to these people speak 10 light years over my head – bouncing around theories, equations, and analyzing data. At the same time it left two-thirds of the film feeling too emotionally dry. Drew Goddard’s script nails down the science but sometimes misses the human element.

The story hops into gear quickly when the Aries III Mars mission is hit by a brutal storm. They are forced to prematurely leave the surface and in the process astronaut and team botanist Mark Watney (Matt Damon) is presumed killed and left behind. Actually though, Mark miraculously survived and wakes up to find himself alone and stranded on the red planet. Armed with more scientific knowledge than a stack of college textbooks, Mark determines to use his science knowhow to survive. That starts by figuring out a way to communicate back to Earth.

For me Matt Damon is the epitome of the ‘reliable actor’. He is always solid and you know what you’re going to get. Here he handles his alone scenes well often talking to only himself of a computer screen. Many scenes require him to carry them ala Tom Hanks in “Cast Away”. He doesn’t exhibit the charisma or charm of Hanks but he more than gets the job done and you never doubt him or his predicaments.

The film’s second setting is on Earth. Upon discovering that Mark is alive, NASA sets out to find a feasible rescue plan. To accomplish this the movie introduces us to a host of characters many of which function solely to toss around their own scientific solutions. An interesting ensemble is put together for the NASA scenes. On the better side of the group is the rock-solid Chiwetel Ejiofor who plays Mars Mission Director Vincent Kapoor. In much more curious casting, Kristen Wiig feels terribly out of place as NASA’s chief spokesperson. And while Jeff Daniels certainly wasn’t “bad”, he was a bit hard to believe as the “Head of NASA”.

But there is a third setting and I would argue that it contains the more compelling and entertaining characters. It takes place aboard the Hermes where Mark’s crew is making the long trip back to Earth after losing one of their own. Or so they think. It’s here that the film gives us a better mix of science and human emotion. The casting is also stronger featuring Jessica Chastain, a reserved Michael Peña, Sebastian Stan, Kate Mara, and Aksel Hennie. I loved spending time with this group.

“The Martian” has wonderful visuals but not strictly in the way you might expect. There aren’t a lot of eye-popping visual spectacles. It’s more subtle and calculated, concentrating on gorgeous, slow-moving panoramic shots and unique, strategic camera angles that highlight the spectacular space settings. The storytelling is somewhat similar, at least until the last act. Most of the movie has the feel of a smaller more intimate picture despite its grand size and scale. I really appreciated that. It lasts right up until the finale. The ending felt much more studio polished and traditional.

Many people are heralding “The Martian” as a return to form for Ridley Scott. I would argue that he never lost his form but that is another discussion. Instead I’ll just say “The Martian” is another fine movie on a truly great filmmaker’s filmography. It’s not without its flaws. There is some questionable casting and some characters are woefully underdeveloped. Some of the humor doesn’t quite land (including a 70’s disco gag which never ends), and the ending was a bit too by-the-books. But none of these things keep “The Martian” from being a standout motion picture experience. It does several things we aren’t used to seeing from blockbustery type movies and it does them really well. And for me it is another reason why Ridley Scott remains a top-tier filmmaker.

VERDICT – 4 STARS

REVIEW: “Mortdecai”

September 9, 2015 by Keith Garlington

Life is full of important questions. Does Donald Trump really think his hair looks good? Will Tom Cruise ever age? Do people actually watch “Keeping Up with the Kardashians”? But perhaps the most perplexing question is this – what has happened to Johnny Depp? And to go a bit further, what is driving him to pick such wretched projects these days? Over the years Depp has chosen a wide variety of weird and eccentric roles. But since his last “Pirates” movie, several of his choices have been…well…suspect.

Simply put, “Mortdecai” is his worst yet. It’s an appallingly unfunny action comedy fueled by lazy humor, juvenile gags, and its absurdly creepy main character. The film is based on a book series by English novelist Kyril Bonfiglioli. There were several books in the series which makes me think there was some decent material there. But screenwriter Eric Aronson doesn’t capture anything interesting or entertaining.

Mortdecai (Depp) is a shady art dealer and charlatan who, along with his high maintenance wife JoHanna (Gwyneth Paltrow), is financially strapped due to heavy tax debt. Inspector and old college acquaintance Alistair Martland (Ewan McGregor) comes to Mortdecai to help find a stolen rare Goya painting in exchange for settling his tax debt with the government. Along with his trusted manservant Jock (Paul Bettany), Mortdecai globetrots around the world, encounters a variety of uninteresting people, and faces plenty of dangers. Whatever.

Yep, that's the face you'll have as the final credits roll

Yep, that’s the face you’ll have as the credits roll

I’ve already mentioned how terribly unfunny the film is. You can only handle so much of Depp’s measly voice and bizarre gap-toothed smile. Humor focused on vomit, dry heaving, and body parts gets old quick. It also doesn’t help that the entire stolen painting mystery is sleep-inducing. It’s dull, lifeless, and smothered out by all of the vain attempts at humor. The movie tries to liven things up by injecting a few comedy-laced action sequences, but they are just as uninspired and forgettable.

I feel as though “Mortdecai” revolves around a continuous inside joke that I was never let in on. Surely a comedy can’t be this anemic, lame, and humorless. I sat stone-faced the entire time watching a talented and wasted cast flounder around with some of the worst material of the year. It could be said that this is a new low for Johnny Depp. The guy has talent. We have seen it in the past. But you see none of it in “Mortdecai”. Instead you get Depp at his most annoying and you have to wonder how much more of this nonsense can his career take?