Eye in the Sky - Movie Review by Jeff Mitchell

'Eye in the Sky' reveals that the cost of war never changes  

Director: Gavin Hood

Writer: Guy Hibbert

Starring: Helen Mirren, Aaron Paul, Alan Rickman, Barkhad Abdi, and Phoebe Fox

“Eye in the Sky” (2016) - Director Gavin Hood created a film about modern warfare, and while watching his picture, I could not help but think of a very different movie, Stanley Kubrick’s “Paths of Glory” (1957).   “Paths of Glory” takes place in No Man’s Land during WWI where the hostilities between France and Germany became a sick and twisted mess.   The armies from both sides hunker down in trenches carved 12 feet or so into the soft earth, but inevitably, the apprehensive French soldiers rise from their own manmade ditch and scamper across the mud and crawl around barbed wire - while under a constant stream of whistling bombs - to somehow reach the Germans.  A nuclear blast could be the closest comparison to hell on Earth, but WWI trench warfare probably fits as a close second.

The setting of “Eye in the Sky” is not nearly as bombastic but still demonstrates the cost of war in a very effective way.   In 2016, a joint British/U.S. mission attempts to coordinate a drone attack in Nairobi to kill the numbers 2, 4 and 5 persons on a terrorist watch list.  From at least three different locations - including Creech Air Force Base in Nevada and the Permanent Joint Headquarters in London - military personal converge on a conference call to manage the 21^st century assault.

The armed drone - cruising thousands of feet above Nairobi’s surface - is piloted by Airmen Steve Watts (Aaron Paul) and Carrie Gershon (Phoebe Fox) just outside of Las Vegas while about 20 high-ranking personnel drink coffee and watch the events play out on computer screens and an undercover agent (Barkhad Abdi) captures events from the ground.  British Col. Katherine Powell (Helen Mirren) - also known as “Mom” - is running and singularly focusing on the coordinated operation while others - like her colleague Lt. Gen. Frank Benson (Alan Rickman) - help advise.

Screenwriter Guy Hibbert’s screenplay feels like a scaled-down, three-act play, as important strategic and emotional conversations, in both darkly lit and brightly lit rooms, routinely shift between London, Nevada, the events on the ground in Kenya, and (occasionally) Singapore and China as well.   The well-written script introduces the main players in benign, non-military-like ways, but they quickly “sober up” when the film places them in the deadly-serious circumstances of their jobs. Relying on intelligence, the piloted drone needs to first locate the terrorists and then kill them with minimal collateral damage.

Collateral damage, of course, refers to the death of innocent civilians, and although zero fatalities certainly are ideal and righteous, we start to believe the word “minimal” routinely factors into the equation.  The movie unquestionably conveys that this particular workday routine is not unlike any other day, as the culmination of weeks, months or years of dropping bombs from 30,000 feet and witnessing the collateral damage takes its toll in many forms.  Some internalize the emotional damage while others learn to dismiss it, and Hood and Hibbert offer different points of view from the collection of celluloid participants.

When officers and soldiers fight under the most brutal conditions in 1915 or use “surgical elimination” of one’s enemies in 2016, “Eye in the Sky” reminds us that - even with evolutionary leaps in technology - war has not evolved. (3.5/4 stars) 

The Bronze - Movie Review by Jeff Mitchell

‘The Bronze’ earns its dark comedy R-rating and a silver medal  

Director:  Bryan Buckley

Writers: Melissa and Winston Rauch

Starring: Melissa Rauch, Haley Lu Richardson, Gary Cole, and Thomas Middleditch

“The Bronze” (2016) - “Too many times women try to be competitive with each other.  We should help support each other, rather than try to be better than each other.”  - Katarina Witt, Olympic medal winner, 1984 and 1988 Winter Olympics

“My dad’s probably one of the kindest people in the world.  When I was younger that’s not how I was.  I was a little spoiled brat.”  - Leonardo DiCaprio

Named the Sandstone Center of the World, Amherst, Ohio sits 35 minutes west of Cleveland along the southern border of Lake Erie.  In “The Bronze”, Amherst – with a population of about 12,000 - is also home to Olympic bronze medal winner, Hope Ann Greggory (Melissa Rauch).   Hope won her medal in individual gymnastics at the 2004 Summer Games, and even though she placed third, she is still #1 in Amherst’s heart in 2016.

On the other hand, anyone actually liking Hope seems a bit of a mystery.   With a stature not quite five feet high, a Tonya Hardingesque blonde hairstyle and sporting a stars and stripes Olympic jumpsuit, Hope carries a permanent scowl while stomping around town looking for freebies at the local mall or soda shack.   Entitled and spoiled are good descriptors for Hope, as she lives sans employment and resides at her childhood home with her dad (Gary Cole), while he reads books in his spare time like, “Saying No – The Art to Raising a Responsible Adult”.   Hope petulantly and figuratively walks, jumps and springs all over him while constantly spewing the “seven words you cannot say on television” with the vitriol of a miserable reality TV show star.

Hope’s self-promotion rules the day as director Bryan Buckley serves up a deliciously devilish and mean-spirited black comedy written by Rauch and her husband Winston.  They successfully play up a heavy Americana-vibe from Hope’s diet of readily available pizza, Big Gulps and milkshakes to her birthday falling on the 4^th of July.   Buckley also introduces another tradition which has existed as long as humans have roamed the planet:  a younger protégé arrives on the scene who threatens the prideful shine of the current star.

Maggie Townsend (Haley Lu Richardson) is a teenage gymnast – also living in Amherst – who bursts with oodles of talent and virginal naivety.   She owns a squeaky-clean persona that would perfectly fit on a Disney Channel sitcom and loves God, her mom and gymnastics, and due to specific circumstances, Hope becomes her coach.   This odd couple pairing mixes an explosive potion of jealousy and sarcasm.  Maggie obediently listens to Hope’s deliberately bad advice (and even worse manners), as the coach bares certain and targeted ill-will.

Will Hope have a change of heart?   Buckley presents the plot devices and the antagonist/protagonist lines in familiar and unspectacular means, but the writing and presence of colorful characters are especially effective.  Rauch offers a highly entertaining performance as the colorfully-crass, fading superstar who discharges mean-spirited jabs that would make Andrew Dice Clay blush.

Hope can perfectly stick a vault landing but also give tactless motivational sayings like, “Early bird gets the sperm.”

Although the film revolves around women’s gymnastics, this is not a viewable flick for kids at all.   The language and the most comically-athletic sex scene in recent movie history absolutely earns an R-rating, so parents, leave your kids at home.  No matter how many years of gymnastics training they may have, nothing will prepare them for the tyrannical energy of Hope Ann Greggory.  I have been around the R-rated movie block for decades, but Hope caused more than a few “Oh my G*d, that’s horrible” mumbles underneath my breath.

Yes, the movie’s writing and lead performances are its main strengths, but Buckley also pulls off a beautifully-crafted shot during Maggie’s floor exercise which captures the essence of coach and student in a surprisingly magical way.   In a movie filled with purposeful bile, “The Bronze” also tenders a little bit of heart and earns a silver medal…and a free a slice a pizza.    (3/4 stars)

10 Cloverfield Lane - Movie Review by Monte Yazzie

10 Cloverfield Lane  

Director: Dan Trachtenberg

Starring: John Goodman, Mary Elizabeth Winstead, and John Gallagher Jr.

Paramount Pictures

103 Minutes

It’s hard to keep a secret these days. Somehow “10 Cloverfield Lane”, the follow-up to J.J. Abrams’ science fiction blockbuster “Cloverfield”, stayed relatively dormant and well off the radars of film fans until a few months ago. In today’s anticipation heavy movie industry, where films are planned out and detailed years in advance, it would seem a difficult task to maintain the secrecy of a film as big as this one. The lack of information and equally vague trailer was an interesting move for this mysterious offering, a move that after watching the film proves to have been a successful and calculated one. “Cloverfield” utilized the first-person perspective to give the film a frantic, for some stomach turning, experience, “10 Cloverfield Lane” relies on more traditional methods in building a tension filled mystery that watches two people waiting out the end of the world in a bunker dictated by a crazed doomsday survivalist.

Michelle (Mary Elizabeth Winstead) is frustrated with her relationship and in the process of leaving the city. While driving through the countryside, listening to her boyfriend apologize, her car is violently hit and thrown off the road. Michelle wakes up in a small room with a locked door, she is chained up to the wall. Howard (John Goodman) is the person who rescued her; not only from the car crash but the world disaster that he claims has poisoned the air. Howard has brought Michelle to his underground disaster bunker with another survivor named Emmett (John Gallagher Jr.), a bunker controlled menacingly by Howard.

For a film that runs 105 minutes long, it sure does make the most out of a simple premise. Here, the story is basically woman gets trapped then woman must escape. But director Dan Trachtenberg utilizes much of the waiting game to establish some clever moments of tension while slowly closing in the narrative walls to make the claustrophobic atmosphere even more unnerving. It works exceptionally well in the beginning, especially when the narrative and conventions play with the expectations of the audience, like in an early scene around the dinner table where the viewer is coaxed into guessing how everything will play out. While it does go on a bit too long in the end, the successful moments of tension and the threatening cat-and-mouse aspects help in holding attention throughout.

The unnerving aspects can be attributed to the meticulous pacing in the script, however its successful execution should be largely credited to the capable abilities of John Goodman who is menacing, intimidating, cracked, and any other word one would use to describe the quality of fear evoked by his character. Whether with an offhanded smirk, the emphasis of how he expresses certain sentences, or with purposeful and subtle mannerisms and gestures, Mr. Goodman nails every scene. Mary Elizabeth Winstead is also good, portraying a resilient and tough young woman, she stands toe-to-toe with Mr. Goodman in the quiet scenes and the violent ones.

Maintaining secrecy during production ultimately helped preserve the mystery found in “10 Cloverfield Lane”. There is nothing overly exceptional going on here, just simple techniques accommodating a simple story with satisfying results. While it may have taken a little too much time moving into its final act, the payoff during and in the end is worth the wait. For those looking for a big monster movie with action and explosions, you won’t find much of that here. For those looking for a calculated thriller with great performances, prepare to be entertained.

Monte’s Rating

3.75 out of 5.00

10 Cloverfield Lane - Movie Review by Jeff Mitchell

“10 Cloverfield Lane” is a spookier and quieter cousin of the 2008 original  

Director:  Dan Trachtenberg

Starring:  Mary Elizabeth Winstead, John Goodman and John Gallagher Jr.

“10 Cloverfield Lane” (2016) – If 1999’s “The Blair Witch Project” is the granddaddy of the found footage horror movie genre, then 2008’s “Cloverfield” is its badder and scarier grandson.   Instead of a remote, rural setting in which the snap of twigs - outside a tent in the middle of the night - gives the audience the chilling creeps, “Cloverfield” terrorizes with a monster attack – on a Godzilla-like scale - in the concrete jungle of New York City.   Hand-held cameras catch glimpses – and sometimes direct shots - of the creature and its demented spawn, while a group of 20-somethings scamper and dart around rubble and run over demolished streets.

J.J. Abrams’ 2008 picture truly is a stunner and arguably the best of the found footage films (although one could make a good case for 2007’s zombie picture, “[REC]”).   Well, for me, the title belongs to “Cloverfield”.   Needless to say, I was quite enthusiastic for a follow-up film, and after my 1 hour 43 minute movie theatre experience with “10 Cloverfield Lane”, I was happy and very satisfied, but this film is not exactly a sequel.   It also works on a much smaller scale in terms of geography and scope, as director Dan Trachtenberg’s movie is set in a small, Louisiana town.

The picture opens in New Orleans as Michelle (Mary Elizabeth Winstead) gazes out her apartment window and contemplates her immediate future.   She decides to leave her husband (or perhaps, fiancé), packs a bag, sets her diamond ring and house key on a table, and hops in her car towards anywhere but here.   Very soon, however, Michelle discovers that her life has become enormously more complicated – on a macro and micro level - at her destination of Anywhere.

In order to avoid giving away the main narrative, I’ll refrain from providing the details of her new and unexpected destination but will reveal that Michelle meets two men:  an older conspiracy theorist named Howard (John Goodman) and seemingly docile guy - about her age - named Emmett (John Gallagher Jr.).   Outside circumstances bring the three together, and these very different human beings make due, but Howard’s odd and demanding behavior creates tension for Emmett and Michelle, but especially for her.   Since Michelle is the only female in a group of three, the screenplay adds an unspoken and defensive anxiety to an already stressful situation for her.

Gallagher Jr. does a nice job, but Goodman and Winstead are the movie’s main players and deliver excellent performances which keep us off-balance and offer hope, respectively.

Goodman’s character volleys between good intentions and kooky weirdness, and the latter appears with an occasional, threatening utterance like, “My generosity only goes so far.”

Meanwhile, Winstead’s Michelle harvests an everlasting reservoir of ingenuity and strength.  She may have run from her partner without a face-to-face confrontation, but Michelle is no fool or coward.  She possesses an ideal mix of beauty, depth and creativity but coupled with an emotions-on-her-sleeve vulnerability, Michelle is instantly and magnetically likeable.  This strong protagonist is much needed and welcomed, and especially when the movie provides heavy doses of a psychological thriller and twisting expectations.

Again, do not expect “10 Cloverfield Lane” to reveal itself as a linear sequel to the 2008 film, and in fact, do not anticipate a found footage experience or even a horror film in the purest sense.  We do not hear breaking twigs or see massive metropolitan destruction to turn our blood cold.  Instead, expect a disturbing and highly interesting celluloid page-turner - led by two outstanding lead performances - which send us towards a surprising realization:  “10 Cloverfield Lane” is a spookier and quieter cousin of the 2008 original, and you know what they say about the quiet ones.  (3/4 stars)

Zootopia - Movie Review by Jeff Mitchell

‘Zootopia’ instinctively balances a detective story with joyous animation  

Directed by:  Byron Howard, Rich Moore and Jared Bush

Starring: Ginnifer Goodwin, Jason Bateman, J.K. Simmons, Idris Elba, Jenny Slate, Tommy Chong, Octavia Spencer

“Zootopia” (2016) – “One of the greatest regrets in life is being what others would want you to be, rather than being yourself.”  - Shannon L. Alder

“I don’t know when to quit.” – Judy Hopps

In the small town of Bunnyburrow, little Judy Hopps (Ginnifer Goodwin) does not aspire to work with her 275 brothers and sisters on her folks’ carrot farm.   She, instead, dreams of moving to the big city of Zootopia to become a police officer.   The problem is – in this alternative universe in which animals have evolved and walk, talk, work, and live like humans – no bunny has ever been a police officer.  It is simply unheard of, and Judy’s parents try to dissuade her by expressing that pursuing one’s dreams is a mistake, and there is no shame in settling.

Well, Judy might be small bunny, but she is very speedy, enterprising, intelligent, and determined, and about 15 minutes into the film, she arrives in Zootopia as the first bunny officer, amongst bigger and stronger elephant, rhino and hippo cops.  Directors Byron Howard, Rich Moore and Jared Bush navigate the audience through this very likeable rabbit’s sometimes-thorny journey but also showcase the eye-opening world of Zootopia from a physical environment and also melting pot perspectives.

Judy owns a wondrous image of Zootopia inside her head, and the animators do not disappoint in painting this picture.  From the thriving metropolis of Sahara Square to the nearby boroughs of snowy Tundratown and along the Cliffside forests, Zootopia provides a pleasing plethora of unique sights for the big screen, as 64 species of animals – big and small – dot the landscape as well.  In this world, gerbils – who sport business suits - walk in unison out of a banking center, slow-moving sloths work at the department of motor vehicles and polar bears are the muscle for one particular mob boss.  Like any city, Zootopia owns its share of problems, but the animals – prey and predators - live in general harmony.

The filmmakers do a very nice job of offering animated whimsy and laughs for the kids and adults alike.  The animals may be evolved, but they still hold their highly amusing, natural and individual traits, and Judy’s big blue eyes, expressive ears and occasional thumping foot raise her cuteness factor to 11.   Early in the story, she meets a sly fox named Nick Wilde (Jason Bateman), and Bateman is perfectly cast as a cynical street hustler, but for reasons which will not be mentioned in this review, they become partners to solve a mystery.   Fourteen mammals have gone missing!  Mayor Lionheart (J.K. Simmons) and Police Chief Bogo (Idris Elba) are baffled, but Judy and Nick try to crack the case as the narrative moves to an intriguing detective story.

At first, the police story seems a bit out of place for an animated picture.  Producer Clark Spencer mentions in a recent Phoenix Film Festival interview that Disney has not scribed an animated mystery since 1986’s “The Great Mouse Detective”.    My immediate concern was the film could miss opportunities to explore the visuals of this newly discovered world by instead focusing on small clues to satisfy the narrative.   On the other hand, Howard, Moore and Bush introduce some entertaining characters along Judy and Nick’s crime-solving ways, as the film successfully plays a delicate balance between genuine belly laughs, empathy, a real rooting interest for the protagonists, and some high drama within the cops/criminals story.   Plus, Judy is a police officer.  She is not a doctor, writer or business person, so the twisting tale of attempting to catch the lawbreakers fits.

At the heart of “Zootopia”, however, are the two leads, Judy and Nick, and the story works because of their good cop/misguided fast-talker relationship.   Ms. Hopps does not know when to quit, and here’s hoping that this bunny and fox team extend their cinematic stay in a future sequel.  (3.5/4 stars)

Interview with "Zootopia" producer Clark Spencer by Jeff Mitchell

Interview – “Zootopia” (2016) producer Clark Spencer  

“Zootopia” is a magical place in which 64 different species of animals live in a thriving, modern-day metropolis.  Judy Hopps (Ginnifer Goodwin) is an inspiring young bunny who becomes a police officer and befriends Nick Wilde (Jason Bateman), a street-wise fox, and together, they attempt to solve a mystery.  This is the premise of Disney’s new animated feature, and producer Clark Spencer kindly stopped by Phoenix to chat with the Phoenix Film Festival and three other critics/journalists (Brent Hankins, Nick Spake and Morgan Stradling) for a group interview.  Clark shared the studio’s huge efforts to make “Zootopia” a most unique place, the daunting technical challenges to include 9.2 million strands of fur on an animated giraffe and how the film contains shades of “Chinatown” (1974) and “The Maltese Falcon” (1941).   “Zootopia” opens on Friday, March 4.

PFF:  During the initial tour of “Zootopia”, the audience sees a forest, snow-covered mountains and a body of water, so the animated locale is geographically unique.  It is also a melting pot of animals as well.  What city or place does “Zootopia” best resemble? 

CS:  It is interesting, because we studied a lot of cities.  We actually went to New York City and (worked) with a historian.  (We wondered when immigrants) started to land on the island of Manhattan, and different ethnicities – Irish, Chinese, Italian, (etc.) – all came in, how did (their communities begin) to grow?  How do Chinatown and Little Italy sit next to each other?  How do the (communities) coexist? 

We looked at Paris.  Paris is a city where everything spirals out, (and in Zootopia,) we have a downtown area, and everything is going to come out from that.  We even looked at Disneyland and the Magic Kingdom down in Orlando, and there is a castle (with different) lands that go around it. 

We really started to think about that aspect, but the most important thing that we learned was: it all needs to start from a watering hole.  Even though we do not say it in the film, in the central part of town, there is a watering hole where the fountains are.   That is where all of the animals gather.  To us, that was the origin of Zootopia, and everything is built from there, which is how all cities start.  They usually start with a body of water.  That was our way of thinking about how the city (should be) built. 

Also, how could these different (physical) environments exist?  We met with a really important expert who talked about air-conditioning units, and there is a huge wall that divides Tundra Town, the cold area from Sahara Square.  You see the wall in the film, and the train goes through it.  It is an air-conditioning unit.  The expert said that if you have enough money and could build a big air-conditioning unit, that all units do the same thing:  blow out hot air on the outside and blow out cold air on the inside.  Cold air creates Tundra Town.  Hot air creates Sahara Square, and then the melt off from Tundra Town creates the Rain Forest District.  There is true logic to how these environments sit next to (one) other in a way that could “technically” – as the expert said, if there was enough money and wherewithal – create that kind of world.

PFF:   The best Disney films have managed to be perennial while also keeping up with modern times, and “Zootopia” is no exception.  How do you think that Disney manages to stay consistently timeless and timely? 

CS:  It’s hard.  It’s really, really hard, and I have to be honest, I feel very lucky.  Many of the films that I have worked on have taken place in the modern world.  I produced “Lilo & Stich” (2002), “Bolt” (2008), “Wreck-It Ralph” (2012), and now “Zootopia”, and they all take place in the (modern) world.  Even if it is an all-animal world, it still is a modern, evolved world.  I have not done a fairy tale.  As a result, I get the great luxury of having artists that think about how to create that world and have fun in it, where it is very timely, but also hopefully timeless.   The story, characters and theme have to be timeless in some ways. 

Some of the ideas can be timely.   We have ads in the film and have a carrot on the back of a phone instead of an apple.  I feel very fortunate, (because) I get to work with teams that are just having fun thinking about: what else can we do?  How do we put the animal-spin on something that allows it to be relevant and relatable for us?  Ultimately, it allows the audience also to have fun, especially for the adults.  We are trying to create movies for everyone.  We do not want it to be (only) for parents who have kids.  We really want it to be for teenagers, for the date crowd and for the people who do not have children to come and (experience) these kinds of entertaining stories.   This allows us to do that and have it play at two different levels for kids and adults. 

PFF:   This movie is for all ages, and I saw a lot of happy faces – young and old – leaving the theatre.  How do you balance the whimsy of an animated tale with a detective story which is more targeted to adults?   

CS:   It’s not easy, and I’ll talk about two things.   One, we are always trying to figure out how (to make a movie) for people of all ages. 

Ultimately, it is not science, meaning that you cannot sit there and say, “Well, we must have 50 percent of the jokes for parents and 50 percent for kids, and we know that this will play for a 14 year-old, and we know that will play for a 3 year-old.”  

You cannot do it.  There is no science for it, but at the end of the day, we have to look and say, “What makes us laugh?” 

(We also) hope that it makes the kids laugh, because it cannot be too esoteric.  It cannot be too deep.  So, when we look at a (moment) like the DMV scene (in which a naturally slow sloth works there), we know that it will play great for adults, because they probably had that experience.   Now, the kids haven’t yet, but they are going to think that the sloth looks and sounds funny, and because he talks slowly.   We hope that they can both enjoy that scene together. 

When it came to the police procedural and having a mystery, a really interesting thing came up early on in terms of the pitch.  The writer and directors (suggested to) put a mystery into this film.  We have not done a mystery in a long time.  “The Great Mouse Detective” (1986) was really the last one, but (the mystery in “Zootopia”) was really complex.  

I will tell you that there were times when we said, “Should we lose the mystery?” 

The mystery would get so complex that you would get lost in trying to figure it out and forget about the themes, stories or characters, because we really have many different themes weaved into this film.  I am so thankful that the directors never let that idea go. 

They really fought hard and said, “Well no, our job is to figure out how do we get the mystery to be interesting enough that we are caught up in it and simple enough where we can understand it.” 

We had to test the film many times.  Ultimately, we wanted to see – with an audience – are they tracking the mystery?   So, it was one of those things where we had deep conversations about it, but now, I am so proud (that) the mystery is in there, because I think it is one of the layers that is unexpected.   I think that people will come in and (expect to) see an all-talking animal film, and they have one expectation.   They think that they are going to laugh, and hopefully, they will have emotion, but they are not expecting a mystery to (be) layered in there.  They are not expecting a buddy-cop comedy. 

PFF:  You refer to the movie as a police procedural, and it certainly falls into that category.  “Zootopia” has a film noir-feel too.  It has shades of “Chinatown” (1974) and “The Maltese Falcon” (1941) as well, and it adds an additional layer for adults.  Were there specific movie influences that you drew from for this film? 

CS:  Absolutely.  We looked at those two (movies) in particular, and we looked at Frank Capraesque films for Judy’s character.   We looked at great films to give us inspiration.  When we talk about the police procedural, the artists said that they would love to have a film noir-feel to it.  It is a very interesting genre, and to your point, it gives another layer into the film.  It allows you to see those elements from (other) amazing movies.   

PFF:  So, for each animated film, there is one big technical hurdle that you have to overcome.   For “Tangled” (2010), it was hair.  For “Frozen” (2013), it was snow.  What was the technical hurdle in this film?

CS:  The big one for us – and it has multiple levels – was fur.  Fur was a huge one for us, because when we do characters with hair, everyone has the same hair.   In other words, once we create one strand of hair, you can put it on any character.  Give it a curl, give it a different color, make it straight, and you can create variety.  Animal fur is different for every different species of animal, and there are 64 different species of animals in this film.  So, we studied those 64 species of fur under a microscope to understand what is different about each one. 

A polar bear’s fur is actually clear.  It is not white, and the light that goes through it creates a reflection that makes the fur appear to be white.  A fox’s fur is dark at the root, and it gets light as it goes to the tip.  Sheep’s fur is so thick that it gets filled with dirt and twigs, so if you look at any sheep in the movie, they will have dirt and twigs.  An artic shrew’s fur is very soft, and an otter has a little bit of oil on its skin, so we had to create technology that would allow us to create each one of those different types of strands of fur.  

A giraffe has 9.2 million fur strands on it in our film.  Judy has 2.6 million strands on her, and 2 million are on Nick.  You start exponentially thinking about how you can go in and do all that, and then we have to create “shader”.  We needed to create a new shader technology that will allow the lighting system to understand how it is supposed to react to those different types of fur.  It is going to react differently to a sheep’s fur that’s very thick (as opposed) to the softness of a shrew.  It just kept layering on top of layering, and then we put clothes on the animals.  The clothes have to move in a way that feels realistic. 

We (need) an elephant to be as tall as a real elephant, and a mouse to be as small as a real mouse, so (the fur) is going to move differently on something very tiny and something very large.  It really is just exponentially built, but it all started with one key thing:  we wanted the fur to look realistic.  We did not want to use human hair, which is what we have always done.  If you watch the movie “Bolt” (2008), that is human hair made to look like – to the best of our abilities – animal fur.  In this case, we wanted it to truly be the actual strands of fur for those 64 species. 

PFF:   About a year ago, you made a shift to assign Judy as the main protagonist instead of Nick.  Can you talk about that shift and what the film was like before, with Nick as the protagonist? 

CS:  Sure, the original version had Nick as the main (protagonist), (but) he is a cynical character.  To us, there was something fun about going into the world with a cynical character, especially with Jason Bateman narrating him.  We started to realize, (however), that even though Nick is super funny, people were not rooting for him, because he is cynical.  It is very hard to get the audience to want to root for a cynical character.  We tell the audience – much later in the film – why he is cynical, but it is too late. 

It is very late in the film for you to suddenly say, “Now I am rooting for this person”, so we had a big screening where we talked deeply about (switching the lead characters).  

Two things came out.  One, it was easier to root for Judy.  She is a small rabbit wanting this dream, and it would be easier for the audience to want to root for her.   (Second), we are going to love the world of Zootopia more.  If we learn about Zootopia through the eyes of a cynical character, we start to think the world is already broken from the beginning of the film, from the first few lines. 

(The city has) Tundra Town and Sahara Square, and (this) is the most magical place in the world, and yet your main character is telling you, “It’s broken.” 

If you start from (Judy’s perspective), and we see what she is seeing, over the course of time, we will realize that the world is actually not that perfect.   There are chinks in the armor, and we are going to discover them through her eyes.  So we changed the movie in this big way, but we knew that we had to do it, and that was about a year ago. 

PFF:  This film seems to come out at a very prophetic time because of the subject matter and what we are seeing in our current political climate.  It feels like this movie could not be coming out at a better point to really have its message be impactful.  Obviously, the development cycle in a movie like this is a bit longer, but at one point did you realize that you have something that could hit harder than you anticipated?

CS: The project started five years ago by director Byron Howard, and at that time, he did not even have the theme.  He just said that we’ll have an all-mammal world, where animals have evolved and use technology.  In doing the research – when we went out to Africa - we learned this incredible statistic which is 90 percent of the animals in the natural world are prey animals and 10 percent are predators.   We never thought about that as an idea or even as a thought, but it makes sense: more prey animals than predators.  We thought about a really interesting dynamic where you have one really large group and one really small group, and they have to figure out how to coexist. 

Since they have evolved past eating each (one another), now the question is:  Do (the prey animals) actually believe that they are completely safe?  Will the prey animals worry deep down inside?   That is where the themes started to come in, about a year later.  To your question, it was not until the last nine months that this incredibly interesting idea – which started five years ago – is starting to feel like it is coming in a (timely) moment in time.   Now, we always knew - thematically - that this idea would be universal, because it is just a universal thing, but in terms of where we are at right now, it is incredibly profound.  We could have never timed it.   It is just a weird confluence of events that all lined up. 

Monte Yazzie's Oscar Predictions

Monte Yazzie’s Oscar Predictions  

Picking who will win an Oscar is always a problematic task for me. I find it very difficult to separate the picks made from the head and the ones made from the heart. Yet every year I still fill out my ballot and anxiously wait to see how many I get right. I absolutely loved “Mad Max” and “Ex Machina” but those films aren’t represented heavily in the big performance categories this year. However, in the acting categories I seem to be in favor of the majority consensus. Hopefully 2016 is the year that I get a perfect Oscar prediction score. Here is a list of the top categories and who I think will win, who should win, and who should have been nominated. Enjoy the Oscar’s.

Best Supporting Actress:

Who will win: Kate Winslet (“Steve Jobs”)

Who should win: Rooney Mara (“Carol”)

Who should have been nominated: Alicia Vikander (“Ex Machina”)

Best Supporting Actor:

Who will win: Sylvester Stallone (“Creed”)

Who should win: Sylvester Stallone (“Creed”)

Who should have been nominated: Jacob Tremblay (“Room”) and Michael Keaton (“Spotlight”)

Best Actress:

Who will win: Brie Larson (“Room”)

Who should win: Brie Larson (“Room”)

Who should have been nominated: Helen Mirren (“Woman in Gold”) and Charlize Theron (“Mad Max: Fury Road”)

Best Actor:

Who will win: Leonardo DiCaprio (“The Revenant”)

Who should win: Leonardo DiCaprio (“The Revenant”)

Who should have been nominated: Will Smith (“Concussion”) and Johnny Depp (“Black Mass”)

Best Director:

Who will win: Alejandro G. Inarritu (“The Revenant”)

Who should win: George Miller (“Mad Max: Fury Road”)

Who should have been nominated: Alex Garland (“Ex Machina”), Quentin Tarantino (“Hateful Eight”), and Spike Lee (“Chi-Raq”)

Best Picture:

What will win: “The Revenant”

What should win: “Mad Max: Fury Road”

What should have been nominated: “Ex Machina” and “Sicario”

Eddie the Eagle - Movie Review by Monte Yazzie

Eddie the Eagle  

Director: Dexter Fletcher

Starring: Taron Egerton, Hugh Jackman, Jo Hartley, Keith Allen, Iris Berben, Jim Broadbent, and Christopher Walken

105 Minutes

20^th Century Fox

The 1988 Winter Olympics in Calgary made a overnight superstar out of Michael “Eddie” Edwards, a British ski jumper well out of his league but undeterred in his efforts to become an Olympian. This underdog story is a familiar one, the odds are stacked high as usual and the obstacles come one right after another. However, unlike some other cinematic sports stories, Eddie’s success doesn’t come from his excellent athletic prowess but rather his determination to never giving up, in fact Eddie’s performance in the Winter Olympics was far from a display of excellence. That puts “Eddie the Eagle” in the category of sports films like “Rudy” or “Cool Runnings”, the later being another film inspired from real events at the 1988 Winter Games. The producing team behind last years pleasant surprise “Kingsman: The Secret Service” bring a satisfying charm peaked with feel-good moments to “Eddie the Eagle”.

Eddie (Taron Egerton) has always wanted to be an Olympian. From an early age, overcoming the obstacle of having leg braces, Eddie tried numerous sports looking for the one that would take him to the Olympics, his box of broken eyeglasses will tell you just how many times he tried and failed at a sport. Still, Eddie will not be swayed by anyone even his parents. Eddie’s father (Keith Allen) wants him to follow in the family business while his mother (Jo Hartley) is more understanding of his dream. Opportunity comes in the form of loophole, as Great Britain doesn’t have an Olympic ski jumper, making Eddie a default choice.

There are no surprises here, absolutely none. You’ve seen this kind of film many times, in many different forms. However, this doesn’t make the film any less charming. One of the main reasons for this quality is the choice of cast, specifically the two lead characters of Eddie and his coach Bronson Peary (Hugh Jackman). Taron Egerton gives a spot-on performance as Eddie partly because of the uncanny resemblance the actor has with the real character but also because Mr. Egerton embraces the defining motivation of Eddie, a mantra that proclaims that winning isn’t everything. Hugh Jackman composes the struggling Bronson Peary with variations of other tough yet sentimental characters he has played before; it fits and works quite well here. At first the mentoring character has a “Wolverine” type attitude, stiff drink and all. But slowly it turns into one of renewal, a second chance for a disgraced athlete to help someone reach the goal he never could. Mr. Jackman brings an enthusiastic and earnest quality to the character, while also building great chemistry with Mr. Egerton.

Things fall into place fairly quickly, familiarity taking over to an extent that the film doesn’t quite build towards the dramatic climax or maintain the suspense that it should. Throughout the film the lack of originality in telling this sports story stalls the film in a few moments. However, director Dexter Fletcher keeps pushing the easy-going attributes in a way that makes you wholly aware of what is coming but somehow keeps you engaged in the story if only to see if the writers decided to succumb to their structure and provide Eddie with the heroic Olympian ending. Again, nothing is new here.

“Eddie the Eagle” can be an uplifting film in moments, especially when Eddie is soaring through the air on course with either a bone shattering crash or landing with complete control.  Who would have thought that a film filled with clichés, about a character who finishes in last place, would evoke cheers from an audience? Well, at the screening that I went to this film did. It proves that a great character can go along way.

Monte’s Rating

3.50 out of 5.00

Gods of Egypt - Movie Review by Jeff Mitchell

“Gods of Egypt” does not answer our movie prayers  

Directed by: Alex Proyas

Starring: Gerald Butler, Brenton Thwaites, Nikolaj Coster-Waldau, Bryan Brown, and Elodie Yung

“Gods of Egypt” (2016) – I am not a student of Egyptian mythology, but 10 minutes into “Gods of Egypt” - from a pure moviegoer’s perspective - two observations became clear.  One, the filmmakers cooked up oceans of CGI to recreate an ancient, North African desert setting.   Two, the movie incorporates a Shakespearean bent and lifts its central conflict from 1994’s “The Lion King”.  The latter truly makes the overall story arc predictable, so the movie needs to rely on its performances, action sequences and general entertainment value in order to work.

Unfortunately, the “Gods” do not answer our prayers.

Director Alex Proyas’ film - set thousands of years ago - opens with a brief, difficult-to-follow narration but leads to a beautiful, ceremonial public space with packed stadium seating and laced with gold statues.  Possibly 100,000 Egyptians eagerly anticipate the crowning of a new God-king, Horus (Nikolaj Coster-Waldau), the son of Osiris (Bryan Brown), when suddenly, Set (Gerard Butler) arrives fashionably late.   Set – Osiris’ brother - demonstrates a more than forceful claim to the throne (i.e. my previously-mentioned “The Lion King” comparison) which sends Horus away on a winding journey to find himself and fulfill his destiny.  Accompanied by a trusty young mortal named Bek (Brenton Thwaites), Horus and his young protégé travel over Egypt and through (seemingly) dozens and dozens of odd-looking, alchemistic locales this side of “Jupiter Ascending” (2015) meets “The Mummy” (1999).

Although ambitious visual and special effects teams probably poured “1,000 years of effort” into manufacturing incredibly detailed environments - including a brooding underworld, a gateway to the afterlife and a wildly-developed metropolis - it all feels synthetic.  Filmed in Australia, Proyas may have shot on location in the Australian desert, but it does not appear that way.  Instead, the entire picture seems be filmed in front of surrounding green screens at every turn with no escape hatch into anything palpable.  Sure, when one’s picture features gods who stand 10 feet high, transform into alter-egos of eagles or bulls and fight across mythical societies which existed 4,000 years ago, one certainly needs to rely on special effects.

On the other hand, director George Miller shot “Max Mad: Fury Road” (2015) in the Australian desert, and the chase and fight scenes that transpired on actual sand, dirt and rock dramatically added to the cinematic experience and authenticity of a futuristic, post-apocalyptic time.  I am not suggesting the “Gods of Egypt” filmmakers needed to build massive ancient sets in barren deserts, but its characters taking some tiptoes through actual sand in the great outdoors (or at least appearing to) could have gone a long way.

As distracting as the special effects are, the movie’s general narrative feels clunky and uninspired.  First of all, Horus is not a very likable character.  Even though he looks the hero-part, Horus is gruff, self-loathing and beaten down through most of the picture.  We do root for his eventual rise to regain his self-respect, but his progress moves very slowly, like a Friday evening traffic jam.  Thus, his sluggish transformation to “good guy” behavior frustrates the audience (or at least me).  Meanwhile he shares absolutely zero chemistry or affection with his supposed, lifelong love interest Hathor (Elodie Yung), and his comedic exchanges with Bek appear more mean-spirited than they should.

Chadwick Boseman and Geoffrey Rush offer some gravitas in their supporting roles, and Butler undoubtedly carries some good moments as a chief villain, but Thwaites’ naivety-act runs thin after about 60 seconds, and regrettably, his character spends much more time on-screen than one minute.

I’ll say this, the “Gods of Egypt” thankfully does not take itself too seriously and adds some surprising, but well-intended comedic moments along the way.  As I mentioned, I’m not a historian, but perhaps the Ancient Egyptian gods and mortals had great senses of humor.  Well, as I sat in my theatre seat for 2 hours and 7 minutes, I certainly needed it. (1.5/4 stars) 

Jeff Mitchell's Oscar Predictions

Jeff Mitchell’s Oscar Predictions  

Well, my crystal ball usually contains a cloudy haze, and my fortune teller skills cannot find – let alone read – a life line, but I do love movies and outstanding performances.   During this Oscar season, rather than only offer my picks for the 2016 Academy Awards’ top categories, I included who “should” win and who “should” have been nominated (in my humble opinion, of course).    Enjoy the Oscars!

Best Supporting Actress:

Who will win: Kate Winslet (“Steve Jobs”)

Who should win: Alicia Vikander (“The Danish Girl”)

Who should have been nominated: Alicia Vikander (“Ex Machina”)

Best Supporting Actor:

Who will win: Sylvester Stallone (“Creed”)

Who should win: Sylvester Stallone (“Creed”)

Who should have been nominated: Richard Jenkins (“Bone Tomahawk”)

Best Actress:

Who will win: Brie Larson (“Room”)

Who should win: Brie Larson (“Room”)

Who should have been nominated: Charlize Theron (“Mad Max: Fury Road”)

Best Actor:

Who will win: Leonardo DiCaprio (“The Revenant”)

Who should win: Michael Fassbender (“Steve Jobs”)

Who should have been nominated: Mark Ruffalo (“Infinitely Polar Bear”) and Ben Mendelsohn (“Mississippi Grind”)

Best Director:

Who will win: Alejandro G. Inarritu (“The Revenant”)

Who should win: George Miller (“Mad Max: Fury Road”)

Who should have been nominated: Alex Garland (“Ex Machina”) and David Robert Mitchell (“It Follows”)

Best Picture:

What will win: “The Revenant”

What should win: “Spotlight”

What should have been nominated: “Ex Machina”, “It Follows” and “Me and Earl and the Dying Girl”

The Witch - Movie Review by Monte Yazzie

The Witch  

Director: Robert Eggers

Starring: Anya Taylor-Joy, Ralph Ineson, Kate Dickie, Harvey Scrimshaw, Ellie Grainger, and Lucas Dawson

The horror genre has seen all variety of evil beings throughout its illustrious history. The living dead, vengeful spirits, stalking slashers, and giant monsters have all had their day to scare. But there is one monster that consistently holds a place in nightmares, the witch. There are more than a few people who were creeped out as kids by the cackling green wicked witch and the decrepit, cloaked witch offering an apple. While the mythology behind witches has become restrained by kid friendly renditions seen in the Harry Potter franchise, the reality is that the historical nature of the witch is far more dark and malicious. “The Witch” is an impressive directorial debut from Robert Eggers, it takes folklore and turns it into a mature examination of fear on numerous levels, fashioning one of the most stunning and unsettling horror films of the last decade.

It’s 1630, William (Ralph Ineson), Katherine (Kate Dickie) and their three children are forced to leave their New England community over religious indifferences. William leads his tight-knit family to a remote territory at the edge of the forest, hoping to sustain his family by living off the land and things slowly begin to go terribly wrong. Thomasin (Anya Taylor-Joy) is the eldest child; she has many responsibilities around their new home including helping her mom care for the newborn baby. Under Thomasin’s care the newborn is snatched away during a playful game of peek-a-boo. This is the beginning of the family’s dismantling by evil forces living in the forest.

There have been some exceptional horror films that have come out over the past years, “The Babadook”, “It Follows”, and “The Conjuring” are a few that come to mind. What separates good horror from mediocre horror, and this applies to most films, is an understanding of the genre and how the use of convention and the structure of story accommodate one another best and most effectively. It’s not only about jump scares and gore, it’s about building an atmosphere that pulls the viewer into the world and establishes an identity that can be manipulated by the characteristics familiar to the genre.

“The Witch” does all of this exceptionally well. The setup is a 1630’s Puritan foundation in the New World. The community is steeped in religious fundamentalism, controlled by a doctrine influenced by fear and motivated by judgment and repentance. Take these elements and inject evil doings like witchcraft and black magic and the story becomes a struggle of dark overtaking light. But director Robert Eggers understands that there is more to the composition than just these elements, from this starting point Mr. Eggers introduces the struggle of a family leaving the familiar and moving into the unknown, from the departure with their homeland in England and the banishment from their religious community in the New World, this family is experiencing immense change. They are quickly recognized as outsiders in a new society, forced to survive by any means necessary. And survival, as seen in many cinematic affairs, has a way of changing people, of making them see the world in different, threatening ways. These narrative elements help create interesting dynamics when applied to aspects of family, faith, and fear.

The minimalistic qualities within the film are exceptionally rendered. The photography, which is shot as if the clouds are slowly capturing the sky, composes imagery that is beautiful in both its subdued and terrifying moments. Most of the photography is shot within natural settings creating an environment on the verge of darkness many times, the score is often touched with silence saving big sound for the big payoffs of shock.

The family is a fascinating mix. A father whose biggest foe is his pride, a mother racked with guilt and sorrow, and two maturing children dealing with new emotions. Thomasin, played splendidly by Anya Taylor-Joy, matures consistently throughout the course of the film. Her timid demeanor transitions into one that is resolute and confident, all the while everything around her unravels in the worst possible way. Is her maturation a calling to the forces that lurk in the woods? Her progression is influenced by characters like Suzy Bannion from “Susperia” or even Carrie White from “Carrie”. Caleb, the intense yet delicate Harvey Scrimshaw, is also experiencing a rush of feelings. Whether the inherent role during this time of men embodying protector and provider characteristics or the sexual curiosity of a young man at the crossing line of puberty, Caleb is enticed in numerous ways. Mr. Eggers utilizes these characters in creative ways, allowing the dramatic elements to float slowly to the surface as the dread mounts.

Dread may not come close to describing the sensation the “The Witch” produces. It’s something more, something darker and more authentic than the term embodies. It’s a nightmare that you can’t wake up from, one that lures you into the world and then forces you to keep going when you want to turn back. “The Witch” is simply impressive filmmaking that crafts a relentlessly tormenting horror film.

Monte’s Rating

5.00 out of 5.00

Race - Movie Review by Jeff Mitchell

‘Race’ is a bronze-worthy film about a solid gold hero  

Directed by: Stephen Hopkins

Starring:  Stephan James, Jason Sudeikis, Shanice Banton, Jeremy Irons, William Hurt

“Race” (2016) – The 2016 Summer Olympics Games in Rio de Janeiro are less than six months away, and an unknown group of future Olympic legends will earn gold.   Eighty years ago, an American legend earned gold in the most precarious of settings.  Under the brooding uprising of the Nazi Party, Berlin hosted the 1936 Olympics during a religiously and racially-oppressive time, but Jesse Owens spoiled Hitler’s Aryan celebration and – in the process - became one of the most beloved United States athletes of all-time.

In “Race”, director Stephen Hopkins guides Owens’ story, beginning with his time at Ohio State University through his famous moments in Germany in a memorable – but flawed - biopic which attempts to cover a few layers, including racial tensions on international and individual levels.  Not all of the movie’s threads completely work, but Stephan James is good as Owens.  He delivers a believable performance by showcasing the sprinter’s strong moral center, athletic gifts and battle with racial hostility long before he competed in Europe.   Even though Columbus, Ohio sits above the Mason-Dixon Line, Ohio State football players verbally hit Owens below the belt with numerous, eye-opening ethnic slurs, but his sometimes cantankerous coach Larry Snyder – nicely played by Jason Sudeikis – helps defend and support him.

The narrative places pressure on itself as well, as the movie volleys between Owens’ personal journey and the larger ramifications of the host country’s political beliefs.  With an impressive supporting cast, including acting heavyweights Jeremy Irons and William Hurt, they cover America’s internal struggle to send an Olympic squad to the 1936 games.  “Race” brings some visibility to the difficult decision to boycott or not boycott the Olympics and introduces Avery Brundage (Irons) as an interesting, key player in that choice.

Cinematographer Peter Levy made good decisions by successfully suspending our disbelief and pulling us into a magical time warp of the 1930s, when - during the Great Depression - magic was in short supply.  The movie’s most stunning visual - by a mile - is Owens’ entrance into Berlin’s Olympic Stadium in which thousands of spectators deliver a collective Nazi salute to Hitler with a very famous aircraft floating overhead.   Admittedly, however, some of the stadium scenes shot from above look a bit cartoonish via CGI, whether the structures sit in Ann Arbor, Columbus or Berlin.   The opening scene, actually, in which Owens jogs in a modest Cleveland neighborhood, looks terribly fake as well, but these are smaller quibbles.

At the end of the day, “Race” is about Owens, and the film works best in a couple key places.   First, any semi-student of history knows the overall race outcomes, but the film explores the drama behind them, including the bond between German jumper Carl ‘Luz’ Long (David Kross) and Owens.  Interestingly enough, since Owens ran short races, the on-screen capture of his events sometimes do not completely translate into a celebratory, cinematic way.  He finishes his races within a small number of seconds, and unfortunately, the drama sometimes does not take root.

Coach Synder and Owens’ relationship does take root, and Sudeikis and James share terrific rapport and deliver the most meaningful human relationship within the picture.  One could easily argue that Owens’ marriage to Ruth (Shanice Banton) is the most important, but the film never deeply dives into their connection.  The movie also covers Joseph Goebbels’ conflicts with filmmaker Leni Riefenstahl (Carice van Houten) and Brundage.  The additional themes attempt to bring a broader scope to the film but do feel unnecessary.  The added stories seem to hover outside the lanes in this bronze medal-worthy movie about an important, gold medal-winning hero.   (2.5/4 stars)

Risen - Movie Review by Monte Yazzie

Risen  

Director: Kevin Reynolds

Starring: Joseph Fiennes, Tom Felton, Peter Firth, and Cliff Curtis

In my college religion class the instructor once showed representations of biblical stories and characters in mainstream media, after a slew of images from film and television productions the instructor turned the television off and declared, “They will never get it right”.  Biblical stories have seen few successes and many failures. Movies like the epic “The Ten Commandments” and the standout “The Passion of the Christ” find much of their influence and direction from the bible, staying fairly accurate to the biblical presentation along the way. Still, it’s a very difficult sort of film to make; one that walks the fine line of portraying religious truth or taking advantage of the freedom of dramatic interpretation. “Risen” tries to live in both worlds, offering a story of Jesus that starts moments after he was crucified and adding an outlook from a character not represented in the bible. Unfortunately this proves a constant hindrance to the structure of the narrative even when it garners some good moments; this makes “Risen” only a commendable attempt of mixing source material with original ideas.

Yeshua (Cliff Curtis), the Hebrew name of Jesus, has been crucified, his body still hanging upon the cross. Pilate (Peter Firth), who ordered the crucifixion, is struggling with the possible political ramifications of killing a man many claimed to be the Messiah. Pilate calls upon his tribune Clavius (Joseph Fiennes) to expedite the process and make sure Yeshua, who proclaimed he would rise from death after three days, is actually dead.

From this starting point the film shifts gears into a sort of biblical crime procedural as the body of Yeshua vanishes from the tomb, which was sealed personally by Clavius. It’s an interesting change of pace, introducing a new angle with a new character to accommodate the story found in the bible. The script, written by Paul Aiello and Kevin Reynolds, builds nicely during this portion even though it never strays too far away from the source material. Those familiar with the bible story know exactly what is to come, but seeing it from the perspective of a character not in the literature offers a dramatic touch that works quite well in certain scenes within the film, unfortunately this doesn’t consistently happen.

Clavius is a non-believer, a soldier who trusts in what he can see and easily comprehend. Adding this character to the structure of the story provides a contrast of faith versus disbelief, especially when it comes to believing the direction of a man who Clavius witnessed dying. But this only works initially because of the clunky arrangement of the script and the poor dialog that evokes unwanted laughter in moments when the story is aiming for enlightenment. Joseph Fiennes may seem like a good choice as Clavius but he never completely fit the emotional composition of the character, the over stoic soldier type that Mr. Fiennes portrays never seems to connect the sentiment that he is truly affected by the divine experience.

“Risen” tells the recognizable biblical story through the eyes of a new perspective, implementing a clever narrative design that regrettably never completely hides the many lingering deficiencies within the script. While the film should find approval from the faith-based community it may not have the intervening effect, a clear aim of the film, which it does for the Roman solider Clavius.

Monte’s Rating

2.75 out of 5.00

How to Be Single - Movie Review by Monte Yazzie

How To Be Single  

Director: Christian Ditter

Starring: Dakota Johnson, Rebel Wilson, Leslie Mann, Alison Brie, Nicholas Braun, Anders Holm, and Damon Wayans Jr.

The red hearts are everywhere, the flowers are ready to be delivered, and the chocolates are available in vast assortments. For those not in a romantic relationship this upcoming Valentine’s Day weekend, prepare for every possible reminder that you are single. Call up your single friends and cast those Valentine’s Day worries aside because “How To Be Single” will give you a reason to go to the movies. Whether or not this film will provide the desired distractions is completely up to you. “How To Be Single” is a romantic comedy, offering quite a few funny moments, that barely escapes the trappings that have faltered many like it before.

Alice (Dakota Johnson) is a newcomer to New York City, just graduated and taking a break from her college boyfriend to find her identity as a single person. Alice is introduced to singlehood by Robin (Rebel Wilson), a bawdy and promiscuous partier who breaks down the rules of hookups and offers quick remedies for hangovers. Alice lives with her sister Meg (Leslie Mann), a self-absorbed obstetrician who doesn’t want a relationship but wants a baby. Add an indulgent womanizing bartender (Anders Holm) and a statistic focused Internet dater (Alison Brie) and the rugged roads on the journey to a relationship city are set.

Focusing a narrative on interweaving stories has potential to shorthand character development or general cohesiveness along the way. For the most part “How To Be Single” avoids these trappings, instead utilizing the familiar conventions to take advantage of a well-timed joke. However, it still falters when needing to wrap everything up nicely with a bow or when in the process of deciding how much the female characters should stand on their own two feet instead of relying on men to influence their resolution. The film pushes the two-hour mark, which is noticeable in the third act when the film slows to a crawl as the women and accompanying men conclude their stories. Leading up to this point you can feel the film slowly unraveling as confusions of being a single person in the big city and the woes of establishing a relationship are portrayed initially funny and amusing only to become repetitiously tedious.

Dakota Johnson leads the group and is the tie that holds the film together. Ms. Johnson’s naïve and innocent character composition allows her journey of maturation to feel more substantial than it otherwise would have been. Rebel Wilson is utilized in the same way audiences have seen her before, foul mouthed and looking to have a good time. It would have been a welcome design to see her character traverse the relationship spectrum like the other characters; instead she consistently plays the same note over and over. Leslie Mann also plays another variation of past characters, but like Ms. Wilson she is good at making the most out of the familiar role.

“How To Be Single” is an average romantic comedy, but that’s saying quite a bit considering the recent quality of these sort of films. The cast keeps the film on track and the narrative does a decent job of keeping the laughs, awkwardness, and sincere qualities consistent. It may not be as sweet as Valentine’s Day candy but it will suit those looking for a tame date movie or those seeking a reason to skip the greeting card company’s favorite day.

Monte’s Rating

2.75 out of 5.00

Deadpool - Movie Review by Monte Yazzie

Deadpool  

Director: Tim Miller

Starring: Ryan Reynolds, Ed Skrein, Morena Baccarin, Gina Carano, and T.J. Miller

20^th Century Fox

100 Minutes

He wears a mask, but he’s not Batman. He wears a red suit, but he’s not Spiderman. He has regenerative powers, but he’s not Wolverine. He is Deadpool. You know that guy that we’ve all encountered at some point in our lives, the guy that says whatever he wants, is charming yet a jerk at the same time, can make the entire room laugh without so much as a hint of effort, that’s Deadpool. The comic book world knows him best as “the Merc with the Mouth”. Actor Ryan Reynolds has been lobbying for a standalone Deadpool movie for some time, it wasn’t until the Internet caught glimpse of some leaked test footage that the clamor began. First time director Tim Miller helms “Deadpool” and impressively crafts a film that is a mix of near perfect comic self-awareness, gruesome violence, and vulgarity that matches much of the tone that defines the character. On top of all of this, Ryan Reynolds was made to play this role and he completely owns the film.

Wade Wilson (Ryan Reynolds) is a former Special Forces operative working as a mercenary; he is a smart aleck with a soft side for helping those who can’t help themselves. Wade meets Vanessa (Morena Baccarin) and falls in love; everything is going good until he finds out that he has terminal cancer. Looking for a cure Wade is lead to an experimental treatment, one that basically tortures him, disfigures him, and turns him into a reluctant superhero seeking simple revenge.

The narrative is structured through a series of flashbacks, basically an origin story woven into an action sequence. While this method has potential in creating some pacing issues, Mr. Miller does a fine job of keeping the film moving with purpose, keeping everything quick, and utilizing the time to play out the best scenarios in each scene. Everything within this film is completely self-aware; it understands the world of the superhero films that have already been established but also the reality of the people starring in the films. I don’t want to spoil the fun by revealing too much of this aspect, but when the “sexiest man alive” cover featuring Ryan Reynolds floats across the screen you know you’re in for a good time. Mr. Miller keeps this aspect consistently amusing throughout most of the film, though it is slightly overdone especially when the film needs to find its footing in the finale.

Ryan Reynolds does a fantastic job of utilizing his natural charm to find a comfortable balance between being comically self-deprecating and wittily brash.  The performance is very similar to some of Mr. Reynolds early work in films like “Van Wilder” and “Waiting…”. The supporting cast is good as well; T.J. Miller is a great sidekick of sorts to Deadpool and Morena Baccarin builds a sexually charged dynamic with Mr. Reynolds as the perfect love interest for this kind of film. Unfortunately the villains aren’t as good. Ed Skrein plays Ajax, a mutant villain who never seems to be a significant match for Deadpool. Mr. Skrein is overshadowed in most of the scenes, though this is not the fault of Mr. Skrein’s performance but rather an issue with the script that never seems too concerned with building a proper foe for Deadpool.

The action is violent and bloody here, a definite surprise for those only familiar with “The Avengers” or “X-Men” films. It’s a comedic roast of the identity that accompanies superhero films, an interesting direction that doesn’t fall into the family-friendly formula that Marvel has typified with their summer blockbusters. “Deadpool” is a hard R-rated film targeted for mature viewers and fans; it’s a welcome addition to the superhero catalog.  “Deadpool” is bound to become a franchise of its own; this introduction is a great foundation for the future. It’s funny, gory, and completely self-aware…the Deadpool that fans have been waiting for.

Monte’s Rating

4.25 out of 5.00

Zoolander 2 - Movie Review by Jeff Mitchell

‘Zoolander 2’ tries too hard to be dumb  

Directed by: Ben Stiller

Starring:  Ben Stiller, Owen Wilson, Penelope Cruz

“Zoolander 2” (2016) - “Stupid is as stupid does.”  - Forrest Gump

“Life will throw everything in your path, and then it will throw the kitchen sink.”  - Andre Agassi

Admittedly, I am probably the only movie critic in America who never saw “Zoolander” (2001).  I really do not own a good reason for missing it, but I am keenly aware of its basic premise and viewed a portion of the infamous “gas station scene” on YouTube’s WatchMojo.com.   That and three dollars will buy me a Grande Americano at Starbucks!  Luckily, the opening of “Zoolander 2” provided a montage of news clips from 2001 to 2016 which offered some needed background on our hero and brought the audience up-to-date regarding the last 15 years of Derek Zoolander’s (Ben Stiller) life.

Without revealing many details, CPS estranged Derek from his son, and the spikey-haired, male model decided to go into hiding and become a “hermit crab”.   His crab days found an end, however, when fashion icon Alexanya Atoz (Kristen Wiig) calls Derek and his (former) best friend Hansel (Owen Wilson) to the runway, and both models find themselves in the public eye again.  Meanwhile, someone has been murdering the world’s biggest popstars, and Interpol agent Valentina (Penelope Cruz) asks Derek to help solve the series of crimes, while he also tries to connect with his son.

The premise makes perfect sense, right?   Well, the movie’s threads certainly do not seem the least bit plausible, but that is not the point, as director Ben Stiller throws every ridiculous gag, cameo, running joke, surprise, and the kitchen sink into this sequel.   Indeed, the over-the-top narratives are purposely-filled with bizarre visuals, circumstances and conversations, and many of the ideas do spawn belly laughs.  For example, a famous Saturday Night Live alum’s face is cinematically placed on an 11-year-old’s body, only for the sole purpose of showing off a weird onscreen image, and later, the film “treats” us to a flashback of Derek’s “Aqua Vitae” commercial which will haunt your soul with its warped Greek mythology and highly sexual references.

Many of these creative flybys do work – and keep a consistent tone - within the construct of the haphazard narrative but become tiresome by the beginning of the film’s third act.   The fashion criminal Mugatu (Will Ferrell) makes a return, and while he spouts off nonsensical utterances regarding his evil plan – while surrounded by molten lava - I waited for sharks with lasers – carrying Dr. Evil – to arrive on the frustrating scene. Like the character in the title, the movie is purposely stupid, but some key movie ingredients do not have to be.  First of all, the main storyline – concerning Derek Jr. (Cyrus Arnold) - truly does not make any sense, and the script does not really give Arnold anything interesting to do.  Cruz’s talents are wasted as well, as she plays her Interpol role straight with no curves with one exception: the story asks her to show off her “curves”.   The movie does bathe in a liberal use of cameos, and many of them (which I will not reveal) are effective, but again, by the time the third act rolls around, the last barrage of celebrity appearances just feels like lazy filmmaking.

On the plus-side, the comedic chemistry between Stiller and Wilson is spot-on and several of their combative and friendly sequences are well-written.  As spoken by a rock legend (another cameo) in the movie, male models are just like rock stars minus talent and intelligence, and Stiller and Wilson play up their characters’ inherent dense nature to the stratosphere.   I certainly laughed in many places in “Zoolander 2” while I also wished for a smarter movie.  (2/4 stars)

Where to Invade Next - Movie Review by Jeff Mitchell

Moore’s ‘Where to Invade Next’ leads a thoughtful, educational offensive  

Directed and narrated by:  Michael Moore

“Where to Invade Next” (2016) - In one of the most politically-divisive times in United States history, Michael Moore is arguably the nation’s most polarizing filmmaker.  The man certainly garners opposing reactions from the two “pillars” of American political beliefs, but love him or hate him, there is no denying that Moore makes smart and thought-provoking documentaries.   Walking into “Where to Invade Next”, I naturally believed that his latest movie was about the military-industrial complex and the trillions of dollars in war machine money spent since WWII.   After about five minutes of screen time, however, one discovers that “Where to Invade Next” carries a very different premise which is pleasant and eye-opening but also simultaneously discouraging and encouraging.

Lest anyone feels disappointed that the word, “invade” in the film’s title is false advertising, because Moore himself actually invades a serious of European countries (and one from Northern Africa) to listen and to take one great idea from each nation to bring back to the U.S. in order to make America a happier place.   Although barking against military spending is a thorny concept worth exploring, this movie’s dive into ingenious ideas from other countries brings a welcome and warm experience to the screen.  The unfortunate byproduct – at least to American audiences - is that these great solutions to complex issues are simply not operating in the U.S. today.

The narrative works like “Sicko” (2007) – a film which compares health care from other countries to the U.S. system - except rather than solely focusing on one issue, Moore explores a multitude of topics including schooling, vacation time and the role of women in the work place.    By simply walking into a school, a corporate headquarters or (in one case) a presidential office, he – armed with an American flag and a camouflaged Detroit Tigers baseball cap – interviews leaders and regular folks from different countries to hilarious and revealing effects.

For instance, we meet an attractive - but financially ordinary – 30-something, Italian couple.   They seem genuinely happy, and Moore asks about their vacations (or holidays), and they explain that they enjoy eight weeks every year, plus national holidays.  In addition, the pair casually mentions that they are paid for an extra month of wages – a 13^th month - in December, so they can afford to go away on holiday.  That’s right.  Eight weeks of vacation plus an extra month of pay!  Next, Moore meets Dukati CEO Claudio Domenicali, and he embraces long vacations for his Italian employees.  He explains - from a corporate strategy perspective - that happy workers are also more productive workers.

The film then travels from country to country, as Moore listens to ingenious, out-of-the-box ideas, plants his trusty American flag and promises to take these “ways of doing things” back to the U.S.   Now, the concepts are coming from (mainly) socialist European nations, so the chances that the U.S. will implement them on a wide scale are remote, but each visit certainly offers good food for thought.

“Where to Invade Next” successfully stirs disbelief and wonder for the audience, as we see other communities that discovered smarter ways to live. In addition, the picture also captures plenty of humor while Moore presents his interviewees’ reactions to how Americans live.   To great comedic effect, several times, the same general look of astonishment appears on the faces of our friends from Italy, Germany, etc., and Moore cleverly continues to leave his camera running to further engage their general bewilderment in silence.   Hence, the amazement of this new knowledge falls in both directions: onto the audience and the foreign hosts.

Although the documentary fills the theatre with so many good ideas, it sometimes does lecture, but mainly it attempts to just inform.  As Moore states that the United States was “born out of genocide and built on the backs of slaves”, he presents a series of thoughts which could improve our country, and the origin of most of the presented foreign ideas will surprise you.   Perhaps, the end-results of “Where to Invade Next” will leave Michael Moore as a much less polarizing figure.  Then again, this is 2016, an election year.  (3/4 stars)

Hail, Caesar! - Movie Review by Monte Yazzie

Hail, Caesar!  

Director: Joel and Ethan Coen

Starring: Josh Brolin, George Clooney, Alden Ehrenreich, Ralph Fiennes, Scarlett Johansson, Channing Tatum, Jonah Hill, Tilda Swinton, Frances McDormand, and Fisher Stevens

Universal Pictures

105 Minutes

The Coen Brothers film catalog is a mix of stories of people searching and struggling to find their place and purpose in this world. Whether the opportunity of two gym employees to escape the restrictions of their lives in “Burn After Reading” or the decision of a married couple to steal a child to finally make their family dreams come true in “Raising Arizona”, it’s easy to see that these two directors like to watch their conflicted characters trudge through the cruel decisions and landscapes of life. And there is arguably none more cruel an environment than the journey through Hollywood, a character on its own and skewered once already by the artistic siblings in their film “Barton Fink”. “Hail, Caesar!” falls in the same place as the films mentioned already, a none-to-serious measure of wit and style that cleverly pokes fun of the Hollywood system while providing some memorable characters to walk through the fire and flames on their own journey.

Eddie Mannix (Josh Brolin) is a film studio executive working in Hollywood in the 1950’s. Eddie’s job with Capitol Pictures is maintaining film schedules and working with the talent for the numerous productions operating simultaneous at the studio, but his primary job is making problems disappear before they happen. On this particular day in the life of Eddie Mannix his headaches come one right after another, like preventing scandals from making their appearance on the front page of the gossip column, keeping directors happy and unaware with their production concerns, or finding kidnapped star Baird Whitlock (George Clooney) before the their expensive religious epic crumbles.

The Coen Brothers build an impressive aesthetic quality here, commanding an atmosphere that feels and operates like a vintage Hollywood production complete with a variety of genres on display in the 1950’s. There is a highly choreographed water acrobatics scene featuring Scarlett Johansson, a strutting horse and singing cowboy moment with a scene stealing Alden Ehrenreich, and a big budget epic in the vein of “Ben-Hur” featuring George Clooney in full sword and sandal attire. But most memorable is a dancing sailor number featuring the talents of Channing Tatum. These are all amusing scenes that just sort of happen throughout the film, it’s not surprising though considering the Coen Brothers penchant for randomness. The cast is impeccable here, most playing their moments with a quirky seriousness that completely works for the film.

The narrative operates with many moving parts, loosely holding focus on a primary theme while feeling frequently like a bunch of short stories strung together with characters vying for their small piece of screen time. While this may not be too far off from the early Hollywood style of filmmaking, here it makes the film function more sporadic than coherent. Still, it’s strange that throughout a majority of the film this clutter of storylines never seems to play as distracting but instead composes a sly playfulness and off kilter comedic quality that showcases the motion-picture industry with all its self-imposed prestige and self-inflicted flaws. The primary story, a kidnapping plot, brings about a mysterious organization called “The Future” which allows the Coen Brothers opportunity to find their unorthodox stride late in the film.

The film belongs to Josh Brolin who always seems at his best and most comfortable in the care of the Coen Brothers. His character Eddie Mannix again falls in line with the theme of characters trying to find their place and purpose in this world, as he must choose between what is easy and what is right. It’s a simple premise played on multiple levels with numerous characters amidst an exercise of style and humor. “Hail, Caesar!” is a seemingly unrestrained effort from two of cinemas most unique voices.

Monte’s Rating

3.75 out of 5.00

The Choice - Movie Review by Jeff Mitchell

Walker and Palmer’s likeability vs. familiar clichés make ‘The Choice’ a hard one  

Directed by:  Ross Katz

Starring:  Benjamin Walker, Teresa Palmer, Tom Wilkinson, Tom Welling, Maggie Smith

“The Choice”  (2016) – Wrightsville Beach, NC is a sparkling, little community and complete with blue skies, boat rides, lush green lawns, barbeques, and friendly neighbors.   It carries a real Bedford Falls (the town in “It’s a Wonderful Life” (1946)) feel, but with much nicer weather.   Travis (Benjamin Walker) enjoys all that Wrightsville has to offer, as he celebrates his bachelorhood with the aforementioned boat rides, barbeques and friendly neighbors in the specific form of attractive women.   Travis is quite the ladies’ man, but he falls hard for his brand-new, next-door neighbor, Gabby (Teresa Palmer), who is a smart and beautiful doctor completing her residency at a nearby hospital.

Director Ross Katz provides a sweet and light environment in a film adaptation of the 2007 Nicholas Sparks novel, and it seems to bathe in confectionary sugar and place pleasant ornaments around the leading couple, Travis and Gabby.   For example, Travis’ friends are a collection of good-looking young people with bright smiles, 6-packs of beer and steaks for the grill.  Supportive family members also lend their cheerful help, and brand new puppies even make an appearance.  Fun times do not only appear in Travis’ backyard, as the nearby county fair contains a plethora of sights, sounds and opportunities to win plush stuffed animals.  Even a random motorcycle ride on a rain-soaked, country road offers an opportunity for potential romance.  When I think about it, Bedford Falls does not hold a candle to Wrightsville.  Pack my bags, because I’m moving!

With a massive effort to make the film’s setting an agreeable one, it certainly delivers good vibes for the audience, even for the most curmudgeon-like among us.   On the other hand, the movie connects because of Walker and Palmer and their on-screen chemistry.   The two bring instant likeability to Travis and Gabby and win over the audience’s affections for their affections.   Travis might be proudly single, but he also has a southern and respectful charm with just enough humor and playfulness, while Gabby offers classic good looks, a sharp intellect and a feisty independence.   The characters and the actors match very well and successfully convey a relationship in deep need of pursuing.

Now, regardless of the movie’s good, organic feelings, “The Choice” conversely becomes tremendously populated with love story clichés.   Not to walk through all of them, but here are a few:

Gabby’s boyfriend, Ryan (Tom Welling), needs to leave town for a few weeks at nearly the same time that she moves in next door to Travis.   Travis’ perceptive sister (Maggie Grace) repeatedly warns him that he “is in so much trouble”, and when the Travis-Gabby-Ryan conflict hits some high notes, Ryan, of course, punches out our hero.

The movie simply feels very, very familiar.  It also feels rushed, because it’s a tricky business to capture the essence of a book’s love story in just under two hours.   Interestingly enough, Sparks said in a recent interview that he is currently writing for a 10-episode show for HBO.  I believe a longer medium would be better place for his material, as the story will have time to develop and grow, instead of shoehorning it within a feature film.

Well, despite the deliberately-sweetened small town affects with all the love story boxes properly checked, the movie does emotionally grab you, and the main two reasons are Benjamin Walker and Teresa Palmer.   Some smaller reasons are nice supporting performances by Welling, Grace and Tom Wilkinson.   No, “The Choice” does not break any new barriers in the genre and in fact, recycles heaps of old material, but it does offer a taste of life in Wrightsville Beach, and it’s not a bad place to stay for 1 hour and 51 minutes.  (2/4 stars)

Pride and Prejudice and Zombies - Movie Review by Jeff Mitchell

‘Pride and Prejudice and Zombies’ brings life to a crazy genre  

Directed by: Burr Steers

Starring:  Lily James, Sam Riley, Douglas Booth, Charles Dance, Jack Huston, Matt Smith

“Pride and Prejudice and Zombies” (2016) - Four years ago, Hollywood released “Abraham Lincoln: Vampire Hunter”.  If you have not seen it, yes, the movie is as ridiculous as the title suggests.   Even with a bright cast and some fun action sequences, watching the 16^th President of the United States slaying the undead not only does not suspend one’s disbelief, this movie pulls back the curtain and gives it a front row seat.

Well, except I should mention one colleague actually (and seriously) asked me if “Abraham Lincoln: Vampire Hunter” was based upon a true story, but I digress.

After the lingering effects of the previously mentioned film, I surely felt a bit skeptical about “Pride and Prejudice and Zombies”.   Admittedly, I am lukewarm to both genres (Jane Austen and zombies) and combining them seems a bit like cinematic déjà vu from my previous experience in 2012, but I am happy to report that this movie does surprise and is an entertaining flick.   Set in the 1800s, England is ravaged by zombies, and as the narrator puts it, the French were probably behind it.  Writer/director Burr Steers is the man behind this film, as he cleverly plays up a Jane Austin-like world in which mothers spend every waking moment desperately trying to marry off their daughters, formal dances are important social gatherings of the highest order, invitations for tea are always welcomed, and yes, a looming, murderous threat of the undead is ever-present.

For the Bennet family, they maintain a happy and comfortable abode in safe quarters behind the Great Barrier - built in 1710 around London - and raised four girls who are now are women at marrying ages.   The Bennet women are great catches, as they are knowledgeable about worldly events and completely well-mannered and dressed, but they are also trained in martial arts for the sole purpose of killing zombies.  A couple of the film’s funniest and most surreal moments are when all the girls simultaneously draw their swords or point their rifles, like an 18^th Century cry for Girl Power!

Elizabeth (Lily James) is “2^nd most beautiful” Bennet (according to her mother), but she is the fiercest.   Curiously, when Col. Darcy (Sam Riley) first glances at Elizabeth, he remarks that she looks “tolerable”, but once he sees her fight, he falls in love instantly.  The problem for Darcy is a woman never forgets, and Elizabeth still hears the word “tolerable” from his lips and keeps her distance.   The movie frolics with their love/hate relationship throughout the runtime while also dealing with the zombie war.

The zombie infection somehow sneaks inside the Great Barrier, and Col. Darcy, Elizabeth, and many others chop, stomp, slash, and smash the undead with the efficiency of a pour of tea at 3 p.m. sharp.   The other threat, however, is a legion of zombies outside the Great Barrier who begin to mobilize, and the only standing bridge between humans and the undead (the Hingham Bridge) may soon be under siege.

From a cinematic perspective, the blend of 19^th Century British pleasantries and hand-to-hand zombie combat works beautifully and feels oddly natural.  Much credit goes to Seth Grahame-Smith’s original material and Steers’ screenplay.  All of the characters in this alternative universe refrain from playfully winking to the audience, and their collective conviction brings a welcomed and intended comedic effect to the concept’s silliness.  The end result is the writing and performances do suspend our disbelief which was a key element missing in “Abraham Lincoln: Vampire Hunter”.   The movie’s humor is not only implied but directly written into the script as well with the Bennet girls’ cousin, Mr. Collins (Matt Smith), becoming the butt of many jokes.

While this movie-blend experiment organically succeeds, the film falls short from a functional perspective.   The narrative itself gets a little confusing between Col. Darcy and a potential antagonist named George Wickham (Jack Huston).   Darcy and Wickham each explained their backstory quarrel a couple times – and despite listening very closely – I could not quite understand why they disliked one another.  Unfortunately, their disagreement from many moons ago is a main thread of the story, but I also could not follow exactly where the characters physically existed during much of the film either.   As mentioned earlier, the Great Barrier keeps the zombies out, but sometimes our heroes were in No-Man’s Zombie-Land in a place called the In-Between, and other times they traveled back to safe harbors.  Despite the occasional on-screen presence of a map, I was a bit lost.

From a pure horror movie viewpoint, “Pride and Prejudice and Zombies” was not particularly scary either.   Although our living 19^th Century friends were routinely placed in danger, I never felt a fraction of the tension they experienced on-screen.  Maybe that’s not the point, because rather than becoming frightened, I spent the entire time transfixed on an effective film mash-up.  Sure, I hope that “Andrew Johnson: Vampire Hunter” does not see the light of day, but “Pride and Prejudice and Zombies 2” could be fun.  (3/4 stars)