REVIEW: “Pilgrimage” (2017)

August 15, 2017 by Keith Garlington

For those few folks needing more proof (assuming they still exist) that big budgets aren’t essential to good moviemaking, I present to you Brendan Muldowney’s “Pilgrimage”, a beautiful and propulsive medieval thriller anchored in 13th century European complexity and brutality. With a meager budget of just over $5 million, “Pilgrimage” looks and plays out better than many of its higher-priced counterparts.

The movie’s Crusade-era setting is an intriguing place in itself – a land filled with volatility and hostility. Just on the outskirts of the many conflicts we meet a small group of monks living on the western coast of Ireland. They are approached by Brother Geraldus (Stanley Weber), sent at the behest of the Pope to retrieve and escort back to Rome an ancient holy relic being guarded by the monks. This quest (subtly reminiscent of Peter Jackson’s “The Fellowship of the Ring”) becomes the centerpiece for Muldowney’s movie.

Four of the Irish monks are sent to escort Geraldus. Among those chosen is Brother Diarmuid (Tom Holland), a young novice who has never known life outside the monastery, the wise elder Brother Ciaran (John Lynch), and a mute (Jon Bernthal) who has faithfully served the monastery since mysteriously washing ashore a few years prior.

The group’s cross-country venture takes them through lands filled with factions hungry for control. They encounter one such faction led by Sir Raymond (Richard Armitage) a soldier and a loyalist to his king. At the urging of his father, Raymond and his men agree to escort the brothers and the relic across the treacherous island. What follows is an arduous and sometimes brutal pilgrimage that stretches each of these men to their limits.

“Pilgrimage” is more than a simple “quest movie”. Writer Jamie Hannigan’s story tests each character by fire – in many cases spiritually and in all cases physically. There is a steady examination of both the strength and weakness of faith, whether it be faith in God, faith in Rome, or faith in a king. And it’s fascinating to watch the film explore the contrasts between the natural and the supernatural, divine providence and unmitigated chance, men of the cloth and men of the sword. At times I wished it went deeper, but there was never a time when I wasn’t absorbed.

It isn’t just the historical setting that’s so potent. The way Muldowney and cinematographer Tom Comerford shoot the film is just as puissant. Ominous skies filled with boiling clouds and vast landscapes as beautiful as they are dangerous. And then you have the bursts of violence that gruesomely clash with the monks’ pursuit of piece and piety. They are brutal reflections of the real world outside of the monastery – a revelation of reality young Brother Diarmuid quickly becomes acquainted with.

And what a stellar cast. This is Holland’s story and he continues to define himself as one of our best young actors. Weber, Armitage and Lynch are all very good. But it’s Jon Bernthal who steals the show. He is mysterious and subdued (he actually took a vow of silence to prepare for the role of a mute). But there is also a blistering ferocity to his performance that that adds yet another layer to his character and the movie.

Made with a small budget and shot in thirty days, “Pilgrimage” sleekly maneuvers through its limitations instead of succumbing to them. One one side it’s a driving medieval action thriller. On the other side is a story that delves into the various shades of faith found within the spiritual (“We are not alone. We are never alone. Have faith”) and the carnal (“Before one can plant new flowers one must cut away the weeds”). I was caught up in it from start to finish and was surprised at how much it gave me to chew on. A second viewing only confirmed my enthusiasm.

VERDICT – 4.5 STARS

REVIEW: “Paterson”

February 21, 2017 by Keith Garlington

“Paterson”, the beguiling new film from Jim Jarmusch, is certain to be criticized by some as slow and mundane. They wouldn’t be wrong. But the great joy of the film lies in Jarmusch’s unfettered assurance in his story and in the way it should be told. And when a true craftsman is confident in what he’s creating, you can bet there is purpose and meaning hidden in the film’s every corner. So it becomes our duty to look deeper into the supposed minutia and see what he is trying to convey. That’s always been part of the allure of Jarmusch’s films.

“Paterson” is no different. It’s a cinematic poem about a poet and the everyday life that inspires his poetry. To understand the film we must understand the man. And to understand the man we must understand his life. To do that Jarmusch takes us through seven ordinary days for a man named Paterson (played by a perfectly subdued Adam Driver), a bus driver from (poetically) Paterson, New Jersey.

Paterson’s life is one of routine. Each morning he wakes up around 6:15, snuggles with his wife Laura (Golshifteh Farahani), and eats a bowl of cereal before walking to work. When he gets home they have dinner then he walks their cantankerous English bulldog Marvin (an absolute scene-stealer). While out, he stops at a corner bar where he treats himself to one beer. We usually leave him staring into his half-empty or half-full mug, depending on how his day went. The next morning this creature of habit gets up and does it all over again.

But it’s the spaces in between this daily routine that give the film life – the collections of seemingly small things that make even the most ordinary day unique. Jarmusch fills these spaces with an assortment of the simplest conversations, observations, and interactions. He never feels compelled to manufacture melodrama or conflict. Instead he allows life to happen without any dramatic prodding. And it’s these modestly presented moments that give Paterson his identity.

With his soulful face, tempered emotions and unassuming presence, Driver couldn’t be better suited for Jarmusch’s low-key vision. His Paterson eases through life, accepting and embracing what it has to offer. That mindset feeds into his poetry which he pieces together during the quiet moments of his day. I’m not the guy to say whether his poems are good or not, but where they come from and what they reveal about Paterson is far more important than their quality. His poetry is a window into one of Jarmusch’s running themes – appreciation for the little things. I mean he wrote an entire poem about a box of matches.

Even his relationship with Laura reflects a gentle, relaxed perspective. They delightfully compliment one another despite their noticeable differences. Look no further than their creativity. Paterson’s poetry is personal, and he keeps it tucked away in his notebook. Laura’s creative ambitions are flaky but earnest, and she doesn’t mind sharing it with anyone. Paterson is dedicated to poetry despite his lack of confidence. Laura goes with her artistic flavor of the moment. It may be cupcakes, interior design, or country music guitar. Yet both are equally supportive of the other. Some of the film’s sweetest moments have Paterson taking in Laura’s excitement and then offering encouragement. Again, no spectacular artificial tension. Just life.

“Paterson” is indeed about appreciating the little things. It’s also about the convergence of art and everyday life. It’s even a tender story of love and contentment. As in his previous films, Jarmusch’s approach is minimalist yet subtly robust. His structure resembles stanzas of a poem, and they are filled with relaxed easygoing rhythms that sweep you through from start to finish. You’ll notice other Jarmusch signatures – his quiet off-beat sense of humor, his compelling use of location, and the fascinating mellow harmony with which he works. If you are a fan of his films like I am, “Paterson” will be an absolute delight.

VERDICT – 4.5 STARS

R.I.P. Nellie, an absolute scene-stealer as Marvin.

REVIEW: “Point Break” (2015)

November 16, 2016 by Keith Garlington

“Point Break” is a tough one to figure out. Putting aside the obvious answer (m-o-n-e-y), I’ve wondered why someone would even attempt to remake Kathryn Bigelow’s 1991 cult classic. Could a contemporary approach even capture the wacky ingredients which made the original such an over-the-top, fun movie of its time? In the case of this 2015 remake, not exactly.

Director Ericson Core and writer Kurt Wimmer take their version in a noticeably different direction. The outline is basically the same but with a much more dour and self-serious tone. Bigelow’s film had a subtle layer of humor which showed itself in the macho bromances, cheesy surfer banter, and of course Gary Busey. Core and Wimmer yank out all of that and the movie suffers for it.

Luke Bracey takes the Keanu Reeves role as Johnny Utah. He’s no longer an ex-college football star with a bum knee. Instead he is an extreme sports poly-athlete (still not sure what that means) driven to the FBI after a friend’s death. Edgar Ramírez (an actor I generally like) takes Patrick Swayze’s place as Bodhi, an extreme sportsman and environmentally conscience mystic who often waxes eloquently about his oneness with the planet (“We’re trying to save this place by becoming one with it.”)

Bodhi is a thrill-seeking Robin Hood who, along with his merry band of X Gamers, rob from corporations and spread their wealth to the poor. In between these illegal deeds Bodhi is attempting to complete the Ozaki 8 – a series of extreme challenges which honor the forces of nature. This is what puts Johnny on their trail. He goes undercover earning the trust of Bodhi and gaining sympathy for his cause. But as Keanu so elegantly put it in 1991 “I’m an FBI agent!” The same applies in this film which does complicate things a bit for Mr. Utah.

Unfortunately there isn’t much else to add. Storywise the new “Point Break” is pretty bare-bones. Hardly any time is spent trying to understand these eco-friendly renegades. All we get is goofy philosophizing meant to tap into their thinking. It doesn’t work. There are also plenty of brainless logic gaps that had me wondering how Bodhi’s crew had escaped capture for so long.

The same paper-thin treatment is given to the characters. In many ways they are never given a chance. Bracey’s brooding gets old and he’s rarely given a chance to do anything else. Ramírez tries his best to make Bodhi a mysterious and lively individual and at times he pulls it off. But the material never allows him to stretch the character past the scripts unfortunate limitations. We also get a wasted Ray Winstone performance. He takes on the Busey character minus any hint of humor. And get Teresa Palmer wedged in as the kinda, sorta love interest. Her character adds absolutely nothing to the story.

But while it lacks in story, its visual presentation exhilarates. The remake doesn’t strictly focus on surfing. And while I believe that hurts the story, it also offers a host of opportunities for Core to capture some truly incredible extreme stunts from around the world. From BASE jumping in the Swiss Alps to wall climbing next to Venezuela’s Angel Falls. These are some insanely extreme sequences in some of the planet’s most beautiful locales and they are visually astounding. Core’s background is in cinematography and you can certainly see it on display.

If only the story had been given that same level of care and detail. Instead little creative thought seemed to go into the actual story, and the changes they did make simply don’t work. I don’t need “Point Break” to be serious or thought-provoking. I want it to be fun, action-packed, and it must have a sense of humor. Nowhere beneath the remake’s pseudo-spirituality, philosophical babbling, and fake tattoos will you find the humor it desperately needs. It certainly looks incredible and that saves it from being a disaster. But that’s not enough to make it a good remake.

VERDICT – 2 STARS

REVIEW: “Pride and Prejudice and Zombies”

August 26, 2016 by Keith Garlington

I saw the trailer for “Pride and Prejudice and Zombies” several times in the theater. The responses from the audiences were always the same – completely quiet until the end when the title popped up. That’s when chuckles could be heard all through the crowd. How can you blame them? It is such an absurdly comical title. It’s also the main reason I was curious to see it.

It surprised me to find this was actually based on a 2009 book parodying Jane Austen’s classic 1813 novel. David O. Russell was originally slated to write and direct but dropped out for scheduling reasons. A carousel of directors would come and go before Burr Steers took the reins of this wacky project. It’s truly something strange to behold.

PPZ is impossible to categorize. It is a veritable smorgasbord of genres. It could be called several things – a comedy, a romance, a period drama, or a horror picture. As you can imagine some of it works better than others, but just watching Steers try to juggle so many components is entertaining in itself. And the fact that it gets as much right as it does is astonishing.

The story goes something like this: It has been a century since a zombie plague ravaged England and the war between folks and flesheaters rages on. Amid this chaotic 19th century world are the Bennet sisters. Living with their parents on the family estate, these five young ladies aren’t your typical prim and proper aristocrats. At their fathers urging, each girl has been extensively trained in the martial arts and in zombie killing. They are just as skilled at wielding a sword as a corset.

Their father (Charles Dance) wants his daughters to be more in tune with weaponry than the kitchen. Their mother (Sally Phillips) wants to quickly marry them off to the most eligible and wealthy bachelors. The oldest daughter Elizabeth (Lily James of Downton Abbey fame) wants nothing to do with marriage but her sisters are intrigued especially when a handsome young suitor named Charles Bingley (Douglas Booth) moves into the neighborhood.

Elizabeth is the centerpiece particularly her relationships with two very different Englishmen. Her refreshing independence butts head with the mannish arrogance of Mr. Darcy (Sam Riley). Then you have the handsome and noble Wickham (Jack Huston), a soldier who woos Elizabeth with his honesty and charm. It surprised me how much time was spent on this romantic triangle.

All of this makes for pretty good high society drama and it nails its distinctly English period flavor. In fact it would easily pass for a straight-laced Austen adaptation if not for those other two ingredients – the comedy and horror. There are a few laughs but for the most part the humor is restricted to the absurdity of what you’re seeing and in many ways it and the horror go hand-in-hand.

As for the zombies, they aren’t really a focus and they certainly aren’t scary. They mainly serve as part of the setting. When they do bleed over into the story the movie takes a bit of a dive. We get several scattered injections of zombie violence that is wacky enough to be funny at first but it eventually loses its effect. That is a problem because the film goes to that well too many times.

PPZ is a peculiar movie that reaches out in so many different directions. Sometimes its vision pays off while other times not as much. The Austen-esque drama is surprisingly good in large part because of the well written characters and solid performances. It’s the other stuff that causes the film to stumble. At times it seems unsure about what it wants to be – serious or parody, and eventually the novelty of the clashing tones wears off. By the end it’s simply too wacky for its own good. But don’t be fooled (by my criticisms or the goofy title). This isn’t a throwaway movie. Despite its issues, it is still fun and manages to be more entertaining than it had any right to be.

VERDICT – 3 STARS

REVIEW: “The Purge: Election Year”

July 7, 2016 by Keith Garlington

There wasn’t much subtlety in the political messaging of the first two Purge movies. There isn’t a hint of it in the third installment “The Purge: Election Year”. In fact this film is so laughably direct from the start that it’s tough to take any of its characters or dramatic moments seriously.

I’ll admit, I do consider the Purge movies guilty pleasures while also fully admitting their mediocrity. Yes, the concept is preposterous, but each of the first two films did interesting things with it before flying off the rails in their own way. “Election Year” never fully gets on the rails. It does tap into some of the things the other films did right, but it never completely gets its footing.

Writer and director James DeMonaco returns and gives us his most heavy-handed critique of everything he dislikes about America. Leaving nothing to the imagination, DeMonaco vilifies every right-leaning persuasion, baits every like-minded group, and beats his class warfare drum at deafening levels. Yet among his smothering lecturing is a fairly interesting story that desperately needed more room to breathe.

In the not to distant future America is preparing for the 23rd annual Purge. For those not familiar, the Purge is one designated night of the year where all crime is legal including murder. Its stated purpose is to lower the crime rate, but Purge detractors believe it is meant to target low-income and minority citizens. With elections on the horizon, Senator Charlie Roan (Elizabeth Mitchell) has pledged to end the barbaric Purge if she is voted in.

The establishment isn’t happy with the outspoken Senator. The New Founding Fathers of America party (a group of evil suit and tie wearing white guys) have control of the government and decide to use the Purge to kill their political threat. Against the wishes of her head of security Leo Barnes (a returning Frank Grillo), Roan determines to stay in her unsecured Washington DC home on Purge night. That proves to be a bad idea and soon Leo and Roan are on the streets running for their lives.

At the same time we get the story of an inner city deli owner named Joe (Mykelti Williamson), his helper Marcos (Joseph Julian Soria), and a tough as nails EMT named Laney (Betty Gabriel). In a clever bit of writing their story intersects with Leo and Roan and the two groups are forced to depend on each other to survive against purgers and the FFA’s white supremacist hit squad (conveniently sporting swastika, white power, and confederate flag patches to keep us from missing the point).

While advertised as a horror movie it really isn’t. The horror is confined to a handful of cheap jump scares and the lightly creepy masks worn by some of the purgers. This is an action thriller with a lot of bullets and blood. In fact DeMonaco sometimes undercuts his message when his gunplay and violence goes beyond satire.

The cast definitely gives it their all and they often keep the film afloat. That’s no easy job. They are frequently tasked with delivering some of silliest, most on-the-nose lines you will hear. Grillo’s tough, businesslike approach to literally everything is a lot of fun, and Mitchell is earnest and authentic. A few other characters tend to be likable but flimsy and you know exactly how their stories will play out. They need and deserve more thought.

And once again that brings me back to the writing. Whether DeMonaco is visualizing a reflection of our current condition or providing a cautionary tale, his dependency on his high-minded message ultimately drowns out the drama. It could even be said he is sometimes careless, irresponsible, and borderline militant in his exploitation. I’m not delusional. I know America is a nation with problems and I don’t mind movies that address them. In fact I often love films that intelligently challenge society within the framework of a good story. DeMonaco’s cynicism isn’t implied. It isn’t subtle. It isn’t cleverly implemented. It’s just there smothering out everything else the film tries to do.

VERDICT – 2 STARS

REVIEW: “Poltergeist” (2015)

June 8, 2016 by Keith Garlington

The popular practice of remaking movies, all kinda of movies, has proven to be more than a fad. That’s unfortunate. There doesn’t seem to be movie that modern filmmakers won’t try to remake. The horror genre has been particularly fond of this fairly unoriginal practice. “Halloween”, “Texas Chainsaw Massacre”, “A Nightmare on Elm Street”, and “Friday the 13th” are just some to receive a modern (and inferior) redo. So why not “Poltergeist”?

Normally I would automatically dismiss a movie like this but several things intrigued me, namely an interesting trailer, Sam Raimi’s attachment as co-producer, and the casting of the always likable Sam Rockwell. Unfortunately the movie itself isn’t nearly as intriguing as the trailer. Raimi’s fingerprints are nowhere to be found. Rockwell feels terribly out of place.

After losing his job Eric (Rockwell) and wife Amy (Rosemarie DeWitt) are forced to move their three children to a more affordable home. Unfortunately they pick a housing development built on an old cemetery. Talk about a terrible idea. Soon the family begins to notice a series a spooky occurances, many linked to the house’s lights and electronics. Obviously in the age of flat screens, tablets, and iPhones that is a bad thing.

But things get dramatically worse and even more unexplainable. Unable to go to the cops, the family seeks help from paranormal specialists who discover the house is haunted by angry and violent poltergeists. The bumps come more often, the screams get louder, and ultimately the danger escalates as Eric and Amy try to protect and save their children.

Minus a couple of the performances, there is nothing inherently awful about “Poltergeist”. But at the same time there is nothing new, unique, or innovative to make it stand out from the run-of-the-mill horror flicks we get by the dozens. In fact its greatest sin may be its blandness. Much like the majority of the modern PG-13 horror flicks, “Poltergeist” plays it safe and depends on too many traditional and predictable scares. I never jumped, squirmed, or was caught off guard.

So I’m left with a question I have asked numerous times. Why did we need a “Poltergeist” remake? This version is very swift and easy to watch. It has some good moments and there are a few fun nostalgic winks. But it doesn’t do anything new or exciting. It follows the same tired blueprint and fails to capitalize on its potential. Even though it’s not a bad movie, it’s not one that you will ever remember past its first viewing. That’s a shame.