REVIEW: “Star Trek” (2009)

May 8, 2013 by Keith Garlington

The summer movie season is off and running and one of the year’s most talked about releases is due out in a few days. I’m talking about “Star Trek Into Darkness”, the J.J. Abrams sequel to his 2009 reboot of the franchise. With so much hype and anticipation swirling around the new movie I thought it would be a good time to go back and revisit the first installment, a much loved film that I had pretty mixed feelings about. Would a second viewing give me a better appreciation for what Abrams and company were able to accomplish or would it simply reaffirm my initial frustrations with the movie?

First off, attempting to relaunch or reboot the Star Trek franchise is a pretty hefty and gutsy task. Perhaps only Star Wars’ fan base eclipses the passion and devotion of the group affectionately known as “Trekkies”. Tinkering with and altering the beloved universe first created by the late great Gene Roddenberry would be the equivalent to playing with fire and one would assume this was high on the list of the filmmakers’ considerations. Well I’m no Trekkie and I’m not as well versed in Star Trek lore as many, but I have say I’m surprised that more diehard fans didn’t have issues with the liberties and modernizations we see here. More on that later.

“Star Trek” is constructed as a completely new franchise launcher. It creates its own world beginning with the origin stories of the popular Star Trek characters Captain Kirk and Spock and telling how they and the crew came together through Starfleet. The film actually begins with a bang. A flashback shows the federation starship USS Kelvin investigating a lightning storm anomaly when it encounters a huge Romulan mining vessel converted to a warship. A battle breaks out forcing the Kelvin’s first officer (Chris Hemsworth) to evacuate everyone from the ship including his pregnant wife. He then manually flies the Kelvin into the mammoth enemy vessel causing a distraction so the escape pods can get away. This hero’s name was George Samuel Kirk.

The USS Enterprise

The movie then fast-forwards and puts the spotlight on his son James T. Kirk (Chris Pine). He’s grown up to be a rebellious and rambunctious sort who is challenged to enter Starfleet by Christopher Pike (Bruce Greenwood), the Captain of the USS Enterprise who served with his father. While at the academy he befriends Leonard McCoy (Karl Urban), flirts with Uhuru (Zoe Saldana), and gets off on the wrong foot with Spock (Zachary Quinto). But in a familiar story turn that we’ve seen in everything from “Top Gun” to “Starship Troopers”, the cadets are forced into action when a distress call is made from Spock’s home planet of Vulcan. Through this we’re introduced to other familiar characters including Sulu (John Cho), Scotty (Simon Pegg), and Chekov (Anton Yelchin).

Eric Bana plays the rogue Romulan Nero who we see in the opening and who pops up later to serve as the main antagonist. He has a serious bone to pick with Spock and his revenge-fueled presence poses a major threat. Aside from the normal franchise origin stuff, this tiff between Nero and Spock is a big part of the story. There’s also the story of Jim’s evolution from an immature, self-centered hothead into a responsible, heroic member of Starfleet. All of these strands are woven together pretty nicely and the film moves through them with better pacing than I originally remembered. There are also some fantastic special effects and a cool new Enterprise with an impressive modernized bridge that I thought looked great.

The USS Enterprise crew

But there were some issues I originally had with “Star Trek” that unfortunately didn’t go away with a fresh viewing. First, I know this is a relaunching of the Star Trek franchise and some of it is aimed at the action-starved audiences of today. But to me there were times where this didn’t feel anything like a Star Trek movie. There were certain scenes that felt so jarringly out of place yet perfectly in tune with the film industries affection for ‘Hollywoodizing’ their big movies. Again, I understand that Abrams and company are showing their new vision but I wish they would have trusted or cared more for the Star Trek formula. But honestly, while it’s still an issue, it didn’t seem to bother me as much during this viewing.

Another issue I still have is with the handling and redefining of some of the characters. I don’t know if it’s just an attempt to force in a fairly underwhelming romance or if it’s simply political correctness, but I wasn’t crazy about Uhuru as a bigger character while McCoy, an important character in the original series, is reserved for comic relief. Maybe it’s because the romance between Uhuru and a certain crew member feels shallow and tacked on. There’s nothing wrong with Saldana’s performance but her role is pretty flimsy. Karl Urban does some great work channelling his best DeForrest Kelley. Even though ‘Bones’ is written almost exclusively for humor, Urban is fantastic and it’s a shame he was given something meatier to work with.

Eric Bana is Nero

My revisit also verified one thing and clarified another. Zachary Quinto as Spock is by far the best bit of casting in the movie while Chris Pine left a better impression this time around than before. Quinto nicely sells Spock through his tone, mannerisms, and pitch-perfect deliveries. Pine ends much better than he begins. In the first half of the film he’s pretty hard to digest but as his material gets better so does his performance. In fact, overall I found him to be better than I remembered. I can’t really say the same for Pegg’s Scotty or Yelchin’s Chekov, but both of their issues dealt more closely with how their characters were written.

So now the big question. Did my time away from “Star Trek” change my perception of the film? Did this fresh look at the movie provide a better experience? I would have to say yes but only slightly. “Star Trek” is still a film with a handful of flaws. At times it tries to be too hip, too cute, and too modern at the expense of those proven elements that make “Star Trek” great. On the flip side, I did find myself enjoying and embracing more of what Abrams and company were doing. This was a better experience and my anticipation for the next movie has grown. I just hope for a more focused script with less corn and a little better handling of its characters. If that happens “Star Trek Into Darkness” could be a real treat.

VERDICT – 3.5 STARS

REVIEW: “Iron Man 3”

May 7, 2013 by Keith Garlington

IRON MAN 3 poster

Marvel Studies’ wildly successful 2012 film “The Avengers” confirmed several things. First, the amazing interconnected universe experiment that started all the way back in the first Iron Man film worked brilliantly. Another thing it did was establish Robert Downey Jr. and his Tony Stark character as the biggest draw of the group. Well now Downey Jr. returns for his third individual Iron Man flick in what’s sure to be another mammoth blockbuster hit. And while hordes of moviegoers and fanboys are sure to flock to it, can “Iron Man 3” continue to build on its already successful formula?

Let me say I loved “Iron Man” from 2008. And while its sequel “Iron Man 2” had its shortcomings, it was still a fun and entertaining entry into Marvel’s cinematic universe and a cool link into the Avengers project. I was really hoping that “Iron Man 3” would more closely resemble the franchise’s first film – a movie that I still think is one of the best superhero films period. But for me it more closely resembled the second picture, perhaps better but only slightly.

Gwyneth Paltrow in “Iron Man 3”

This is the first Marvel Studios film since “The Avengers” and we do get a few cool references to what took place in New York City. But by and large this is a separate story focused on Tony Stark more so than his metal man persona. The movie starts with a flashback to 1999 where Tony (Downey Jr.) and his best friend Happy (Jon Favreau) are partying it up at a science conference in Switzerland on New Years Eve. Tony, ever the womanizer back in the day, hooks up with a brilliant botanist named Maya Hansen (Rebecca Hall). At the party Tony pompously brushes off the wormy Aldrich Killian (Guy Pierce) who approaches Stark with an invitation to join his think tank Advanced Idea Mechanics (comic fans will most certainly recognize A.I.M.). This brief prologue introduces the beautiful Maya and the scorned Killian into the movie’s landscape.

From there the film moves to present day where Tony has found himself a nervous wreck since the alien invasion of New York City (ala “The Avengers”). Battling panic attacks and insomnia, he finds refuge in building Iron Man suits. Pepper (Gwyneth Paltrow), the cure to Tony’s past life of excess and carousing, begins to feel the effects of Tony’s emotional state. Aside from his personal troubles a Bin Laden-esque terrorist named The Mandarin (Ben Kingsley) has claimed responsibility for a series of deadly bombings. When Happy is seriously injured in one of those attacks an infuriated Tony calls The Mandarin out publicly. What follows leaves Tony alone, armorless, and presumed dead with only his brains, wits, and deductive skills to find The Mandarin and stop him.

Robert Downey Jr. as Tony Stark

Shane Black directs and co-writes the story that tosses a lot at the audience. Killian pops back into picture in a much better physical condition than when we first see him. We also see Maya again and even though its a pretty small role she holds some rather important bits of information. Don Cheadle gets plenty of screen time as “Rhodey” who dons the more politically sensitive Iron Patriot armor. But everything comes back to Tony Stark and the movie really focuses on the man outside of the Iron Man suit. To some degree I enjoyed that and many have responded to the movie because it tries to look more at the man than the superhero. He’s forced to resort more to his inventive ingenuity much like in the early scenes of the first film.

But if I’m honest I have to say that I don’t know if that’s what I want from an Iron Man superhero movie. Don’t misunderstand me, I love the idea of giving the character some depth. The first film did that well. But considering how much time is spent with Tony outside of the armor, I didn’t feel his character was expanded that much. Downey Jr. certainly gives us another solid performance and I love him in this role. And while the more desperate tone did lessen the number of quick quips and smart-alecky jests, he still pulls in some good laughs especially when partnering with a precocious young boy (Ty Simpkins) who otherwise serves no other purpose than to play his cliched temporary sidekick.

The film does have strong moments and it delivers some pretty hefty payoffs. The tension surrounding The Mandarin really works for most of the movie and there are some big time action sequences that visually blew my socks off. I also loved the work of Guy Pearce in a performance that he himself viewed as “experimental” in a sense. Rebecca Hall was also very good and she had me craving more screen time for her. In fact, the entire cast gives us some really good performances and even when the dialogue occasionally trips over itself they still impress.

Ben Kingsley as The Mandarin

But I keep coming back to one thing, something stemming from a conscious choice of Shane Black. I wanted to see more of Iron Man in his armor and while the buddy cop elements with Rhodey and the super sleuth angle in small town Tennessee didn’t equal bad cinema, it did leave me anxious for a superhero film that I’m not sure ever came. I don’t want to leave the impression that we never see the armor, but even then many of those moments aren’t Tony Stark at all (I’ll leave it at that). Even with the number of wild explosions and hair-raising action scenes which I thoroughly enjoyed, the movie still didn’t feel quite like the second phase of Marvel’s movie universe.

And I can’t help myself, I have to mention another thing. This film takes Tony Stark and his Iron Man story far away from its comic book source material, farther than either of the other films. For many this is a non-issue, but for a fanboy who sees the original material as better, well let’s just say it’s a shame. And it’s not just the Tony Stark character who is altered. There’s a huge reveal in the second half of the film that obliterates a major part of Iron Man’s history. It’s pushed by some pretty lame attempts at comedy and it drains the film of one of its strongest story angles. Frankly, it didn’t work for me. Black and co-writer Drew Pearce’s choice for a twist combined with several plot holes and the typical maniacal world domination story was a surprising letdown.

Yes, that’s Pepper Potts

I’m still conflicted about “Iron Man 3” and it’s a film I think I need to rewatch before I can truly cement my overall rating. But I don’t want my gripes to overshadow the fact that I had a lot of fun with the movie. The performances are wonderful and I’m surprised to say that they are what kept me enthralled more so than the action or drama. But the action sequences are for the most part outstanding. There are a few cheesy effects but there are also some of the most jaw-dropping visual sequences yet to come out of Marvel Studios.

So is this just a case of enormous expectations or was I expecting a different movie altogether? Well, a little of both I think. In the end “Iron Man 3” does deliver but it’s certainly not the ‘blow you away’ flick both the fanboy and superhero fan in me was hoping for. Black had a decent vision for this film and he certainly had a wonderful cast. But his overall story direction is lacking and his shredding of key source material took away from what he did right. I’m afraid that’s what is keeping me from fully embracing this movie. It’s certainly a fun time, but in a way it was a little disappointing.

VERDICT – 2.5 STARS

REVIEW: “This Means War”

May 2, 2013 by Keith Garlington

WAR POSTER

“This Means War” is a shining example of how you can put together a good, talented cast and still end up with totally crappy movie. Hollywood is filled with wonderful actresses and actors who blow us away with their acting chops. But I’m a firm believer that you’re only as good as your material. Of course we’ve seen good actors that actually rise above the material but great films are never made on performances alone. Well, I don’t care how good the cast is, there is no actor or actress, living or dead, who could save this monstrosity of a movie.

I love Tom Hardy. He’s one of my favorite actors and he has really made a name for himself over the past few years. I’m also a fan of Reese Witherspoon, an actress who is better than some of her role choices. Why these two, especially Hardy, would sign on for this project is beyond me. McG directs this action/romantic comedy that may not be as awful as his “Charlie’s Angels” films but it’s not far off. It’s said that the script had been shopped around for over ten years and had been turned down by a number of actors during that time. That should have been a bad sign but 20th Century Fox went ahead and okayed this $65 million mess. So we have wasted talent and wasted money. Wonderful.

WAR1

The story itself is pretty corny. FDR (Chris Pine) and Tuck (Hardy) are two CIA field agents who are also best of friends. By sheer circumstance the two find out they’re dating the same woman, a beautiful product tester named Lauren (Witherspoon). They make a gentleman’s agreement to let the best man win while never telling Lauren that they know each other. Predictably their feelings for her grow and their friendly competition evolves into a full blown war. They use everything at their disposal including their CIA technology to win the girl’s heart while sabotaging the other’s dates. So the question becomes who will come out on top and will their friendship remained intact. Yawn!

I think somewhere in here lies a decent idea for a movie. Unfortunately things get so preposterous to the point of being hard to watch. Sitting through Hardy, Witherspoon, and Pine struggling to make vapid, dopey, and unfunny material enjoyable is as entertaining as getting a root canal. There isn’t a single funny scene nor is there a single funny line. And in its struggle to get a laugh it’s forced to resort to cheap antics such as crotch shots and animal slapstick. And it doesn’t help that the movie strays so far from reality that it’s impossible to buy into any of the characters or romances.

WAR2

There are also several other things that for me resulted in one facepalm after another. First, this may be the most idiotic depiction of the Central Intelligence Agency I have ever seen. Tuck and FDR abuse the system for their benefit with seemingly no obstacles or safeguards to stop them. Angela Bassett (in a complete throwaway role) plays their boss but she certainly doesn’t do enough to even notice their open insubordination. We also get a totally uninteresting action plot about an underdeveloped and frankly pointless crime boss (Til Schweiger) who wants revenge on our bosom buddies for killing his thuggish brother. It’s unnecessary and does more to show how poorly conceived the story is.

I could go on. I could mention Lauren’s annoying best fiend Trish (Chelsea Handler) – a stupid and contrived character devoid of any moral value. I could go into more detail about the film’s utter lack of identity. But frankly, I’m just tired of talking about it. “This Means War” pretty much ends up being a disaster. The cast should be given credit for trying to make this work but they should also be questioned as to why they even jumped onboard with this thing. The movie never comes close to hitting the action, romance, and comedy targets it aims for so the audience is left twiddling our thumbs, checking our watches, and waiting for the end. That’s not exactly my idea of enjoying a movie!

VERDICT – 1.5 STARS

“The Seven Year Itch” – 4 STARS

May 1, 2013 by Keith Garlington

Acclaimed director Billy Wilder’s “The Seven Year Itch” was a movie that at the time drove the Motion Picture Production Code enforcers crazy. As risqué and seductive as the film was, it’s based on a much edgier play by George Axelrod. Wilder co-wrote the screenplay with Axelrod and ended up making several changes to satisfy the censors. But these alterations did nothing to hurt the picture. “The Seven Year Itch” is a smart and funny romantic comedy – exactly the kind of movie you would expect to get from Billy Wilder.

The story is set during a hot Manhattan summer when wives and children leave the city for cooler vacation sites leaving behind the men to work. This exodus, which resembles a massive animal migration, leaves a nerdy, insecure business executive named Richard Sherman (Tom Ewell) alone while his wife and son head off to Maine. It doesn’t take long to see that Richard is a bit eccentric and unsure about himself. He also has a vivid imagination and often times finds himself daydreaming about things that feed his insecurities. He spends a lot of time carrying on conversations with himself, discussing his wife’s skepticism over his ladies man status as well as his unquestioned faithfulness to his wife while she’s away. While other husbands may be out catting around, not Richard Sherman. There will be no drinking, smoking, or womanizing for him.

Well that may be easier said than done, especially when he bumps into the new tenant in his apartment building. Now this is no ordinary tenant. The a gorgeous blonde bombshell is played by Marilyn Monroe. Apparently that says all you need to know because we never get her name (which may give us an indication of where Richard’s mind is at). She’s simply credited as The Girl. As you might expect, Richard is smitten with his beautiful neighbor and regardless of his best efforts and outspoken arguments with himself, he places himself right in the path of temptation.

SEVEN YEAR1

Richard’s array of flirtatious errors begins with inviting ‘the girl’ to his apartment for a drink. Bad move. The girl’s ditzy, playful, and seductive charm is more alluring than Richard imagined and soon he finds himself in too deep. A little fib here and a poor decision there has the already paranoid Richard a little on edge. The question becomes will he go too far and irreparably harm his marriage or will he come to his senses? On the other hand, does he even have any senses to come back to?

Tom Ewell was never what you would call a leading man. The consummate character actor, Ewell had a familiar face for film fans but his biggest career successes came on Broadway. His greatest recognition came with his lead performance in the stage version of “The Seven Year Itch”. He would play the role for three years, eventually winning a Tony Award. So Ewell was the natural choice to reprise his role of Richard Baxter in the film version. While the material was altered between stage and screen, Ewell handles it well and his common, everyday man persona works perfectly within Wilder’s film. In fact, my wife has said that Ewell’s portrayal of Richard’s neurosis is so convincing that it makes her antsy.

SEVEN YEAR2 And then there’s Marilyn Monroe lighting up every scene with her radiance. While Ewell was clearly the lead character, it was Marilyn who received top billing. In 1955 Monroe was a hot property and it was her name that would serve as the biggest draw. She’s fantastic in this film. It’s easy to dismiss her character as another air-headed blonde but I think there’s more here than that. She certainly has her ditzy moments but its also feasible that she knows what she’s doing. Marilyn sells both sides and when combined with her obvious beauty and undeniable sexiness, she gives us one of her better cinema performances.

“The Seven Year Itch” has earned it’s place as an appreciated movie and many call it a true classic. There are several things about the film that is etched in pop culture history. Of course nothing more so than the iconic scene with Marilyn standing on the subway grating. The subway zips by underneath, the beautiful white dress of hers billowing from the air blowing up. But “The Seven Year Itch” has also been called an overly simplistic movie that at times feels too much like a play. I think that’s a fair criticism but one that doesn’t subtract too much from film. It’s witty and intelligent and ultimately unforgettable. The story never grows dull and the performances are a blast. While this may not be Billy Wilder’s best film it’s still a fun picture and a nice part of his amazing résumé.

The Keith & the Movies Valhalla Induction

April 26, 2013 by Keith Garlington

K&M VALHALLA

The Keith & the Movies Valhalla is a place of tribute for those movies that I hold in the highest regard. These are films that embody everything that is great about motion pictures. These are the best of the best – movies that I truly love and that stand above the rest. There are many great movies that won’t find their way into these sacred halls. But here you will find those films that I believe personify brilliance in filmmaking, storytelling, and entertainment. These glorious 5 star accomplishments are worthy of special recognition as the very best. Ok, enough of the high drama! In other words, these are my favorite movies of all time, ok?

______________________________________________________________________________

ONCE UPON A TIME IN THE WEST (1968) – I’ve always been picky when it comes to westerns. I grew up around them but I never latched onto them. That was before Sergio Leone showed me what a western could be. His monumental work “Once Upon a Time in the West” from 1968 is hands down my favorite western. Everything from Leone’s gritty signature style and brilliant camerawork to Ennio Morricone’s entrancing score works to perfection.

There are so many memorable scenes in “Once Upon a Time in the West”. From the masterfully conceived train station opening to the intense and anticipated final showdown, the film is filled with one fantastic scene after another. And of course how can I talk about this movie and not mention the cast. A young Charles Bronson plays the mysterious stranger who everybody is trying to figure out. Jason Robards gives the best performance of his career as a scruffy bandit ringleader. Then there’s the breathtakingly beautiful Claudia Cardinale who holds her own with all the tough guys. But it’s Henry Fonda who steals the movie as one of the most detestable villains you’ll find. It’s a role unlike anything Fonda had played at the time which made his performance all the more spectacular. If you haven’t seen this film you should. If you don’t like westerns, it doesn’t matter. A great movie is a great movie and this is a great movie.

“Once Upon a Time in the West” is the fifth inductee into the Keith & the Movies Valhalla. But there are more amazing movies to come in the near future so stay tuned. What are your thoughts on this Sergio Leone classic? Is it worth the accolades it’s received or is it an overrated picture? You now know my opinion. I’d love to hear yours. Take time to share your comments below.

REVIEW: “House at the End of the Street”

April 25, 2013 by Keith Garlington

Am I starting to sense a trend here? Have you noticed that after getting some serious critical acclaim a number of young actresses are immediately running out to do soft PG-13 horror pictures? After really finding her way onto the critics radar with “Martha Marcy May Marlene”, Elizabeth Olsen quickly followed it up with “Silent House”. After making a huge splash in 2011 and giving what may end up being an Oscar-winning performance in 2012’s “Zero Dark Thirty”, Jessica Chastain started off 2013 with “Mama”. And then there’s “House at the End of the Street”. Jennifer Lawrence first wowed critics with “Winters Bone” and then blew up the box office with “The Hunger Games”. She followed it by dipping her toes into the horror genre with a film that’s decent enough and relatively harmless, but that still feels like a quick money draw from her recent success.

Lawrence plays Elissa Cassidy, a high school student who moves to a small wooded town with her recently divorced mother Sarah (Elisabeth Shue). They get a great deal on a beautiful home and they later find out why. It seems the property values have gone down following the gruesome murders of a couple in the house next door. Elissa and Sarah begin to find out more about the murders from the locals. But there is the question of what is fact and what is just gossip? They learn that the couple’s son Ryan (Max Thieriot) is living alone in the house. He’s been ostracized by many in the community and he’s the subject of so many rumors and speculations. He becomes the centerpiece of much of the film’s mystery.

Obviously Jennifer Lawrence is the real draw here and as you would expect she does a good job. But I have to say this isn’t challenging material. She does a lot of the same old stuff that you would expect from a movie like this. About the only opportunity she gets to flex her acting muscles are in the scenes with Shue. Elissa and Sarah don’t have the best relationship and the film’s better dramatic moments are when these two are hashing it out. Unfortunately we don’t get to much of it. As good as these moments are, they’re just thrown in here and there and they feel like an afterthought.

While “House at the End of the Street” is advertised as a horror movie and it does have its moments of standard horror fare, in many ways it feels more like a thriller – not a great one, but a thriller nonetheless. Other than a couple of sudden blasts of loud music, the film doesn’t have any genuine scares. And it never really succeeds in creating the tense and creepy atmosphere it shoots for. But this isn’t a terrible movie. I actually found myself interested in the secrets and twists surrounding the murders in the house next door. The story also remains entertaining despite some obvious plot holes and unintentional silliness. I was never bored and I appreciated some of what the filmmakers were trying to do.

I think the biggest problem with “House at the End of the Road” is that it’s an aggressively average movie. There’s not one thing that it does exceptionally. On the other hand there are very few egregious and crippling flaws. It’s not a horrible movie but it doesn’t do anything to set itself apart. That’s why it’s a decent movie to check out on DVD on a rainy day. But expect to have forgotten all about it the next day. It’s a ‘one-and-done’ film in my book but it’s a fairly entertaining one. It just has no staying power and it won’t challenge you with anything bold and new. It turns out to be more of the same and that’s a shame.

VERDICT – 2.5 STARS