La La Land - Movie Review by Kaely Monahan

‘La La Land’ brings back old Hollywood glamor

By Kaely Monahan

The real magic of La La Land is director Damien Chazelle’s ability to capture what made Hollywood movies so great during the golden age of film. Music, song, and dance seamlessly combined into sweet but compelling stories as foundational to Hollywood as palm trees are to Santa Monica.

However, the question for today’s audiences is can we stomach the old song and dance movie experience? The box office numbers give a resounding “yes.” And it shouldn’t come as a surprise.

La La Land dazzles with creativity on every level. Each scene is meticulously choreographed, either with dance or without. From the first opening number to the last, your toes will be tapping.

The story is fitting for a modern Hollywood musical, following in the traditions of Funny Face and An American in Paris. The girl meets a guy, but before sparks fly they verbally spar before falling in love. This time, however, instead of Audrey Hepburn and Fred Astaire, we have Emma Stone as Mia and Ryan Gosling as Sebastian.

She’s an aspiring actress and he a down on his luck but determined (and über diehard) jazz musician. Set in L.A. they fittingly meet in the midst of a traffic jam snaking its way into the heart of the city. It is but a fleeting moment where angry gestures are traded—a spark that eventually grows into something more as Mia and Sebastian continue to meet in odd situations.

The core of this film, though, are the songs and dance numbers. Perhaps it shouldn’t be a surprise that Stone effortless breaks into song. Her voice straddles sweet and pure to dusky and evocative, hiding what might otherwise be a weak voice. That’s not to say she can’t sing, but you can tell it’s not her forte.

The same goes with Gosling. Throughout the film you sense that he’s uncomfortable with singing and the dancing. He’s just a bit too stiff or hesitant—but he proves that he can bust a move, which makes one wish there were more movies like this one.

But despite any sort of lack on Stone’s and Gosling’s Broadway skills, which is very small, La La Land still whisks you into a feeling of sweetness and innocence—feelings that are like a balm after a year like 2016. The film is a feast for the eyes and ears and will be one of those films you’ll want to watch over and over because it’s simply that good.

   • Kaely Monahan is a journalist, graduate of City University London and the creator of Popcorn Fan Film Reviews. Follow her @PopcornFans and @KaelyMonahan.

La La Land - Movie Review by Monte Yazzie

La La Land

Director: Damien Chazelle

Starring: Emma Stone, Ryan Gosling, Rosemarie DeWitt, and J.K. Simmons

A Los Angeles freeway gridlocked with traffic is the beginning image for Damien Chazelle’s film “La La Land”. With the camera sweeping through and around the rows of vehicles, the commuting masses jump out of their vehicles and break into song and dance to a carefree, California personified tune called “Another Day in the Sun”. It isn’t until after the melodic spectacle that the film focuses on the characters that the viewer will follow for the remainder of the film. It’s a perfect introduction to a film as much influenced by musicals of the past and classic love stories as it is about the trials of being ambitious and being in love and the difficult choices that occupy each. It’s a whimsical, melancholy musical jaunt filled with delicate emotion and beautiful structure. Damien Chazelle has invigorated this musical and crafted a film that is simply intoxicating. 

Mia (Emma Stone) is a struggling actress working as a barista on the Warner Bros. backlot. Everything in her world is focused on getting that audition that will change her life. Sebastian (Ryan Gosling) is a struggling musician, a jazz pianist forced to play Christmas tunes in a restaurant and 80’s pop songs in a cover band though his true ambition of keeping the vanishing life of jazz music alive can be easily seen through his many concert posters and a stool that belonged to Hoagy Carmicheal. The paths of these two ambitious artists cross early and over the course of four distinguished seasons they experience a life-changing relationship that forces them to answer questions about their future as two people in love and two artists pursuing their dreams. 

Who doesn’t like a good musical? I’m sure a lot of people don’t but “La La Land” is a different kind of musical, one that doesn’t boast polished vocal performers but rather utilizes two strong actors to connect romantic emotions and then having them genuinely move through song and dance numbers. The musical moments are secondary, though a very strong secondary component, that accommodates the story of the two characters. 

With that said, the music is exceptional. A blend of dreamy ballads, personal melodies, and cheerful choruses; the music is it’s own character in the film, offering an identity to the world of the two heartfelt lovers. “City of Stars” is the piano-tinged song that becomes the definition of the story, a somber piece that displays at different moments touches of hope, despair, success, failure, confidence, and insecurity. It’s a perfect piece of music for the film from composer Justin Hurwitz.

The performances are impressive. Emma Stone is particularly great, adding moments that show the uncertainty of putting yourself in the spotlight. In one particular scene her character is asked during an audition to read a dramatic scene, the progression of emotions during this section is superb. Ryan Gosling is also great, giving a passionate performance that allows Mr. Gosling opportunity to mold the character naturally. Watching his reaction during a small moment where he is lost in a sea of emotions is outstanding. 

The film builds towards an interesting point, one that would be easily wrapped up in a nice bow if it weren’t for the confident hand of director Damien Chazelle who instead challenges the viewer and the characters in the film to look beyond the happy-go-lucky moments and the cheery musical movements and identify with the characters, their aspirations and their love for each other. “La La Land” is a film about the past and the future and how the decisions people make in the moment define their connection with both. It’s one of the best musicals of recent memory and one of the best movies of the year. 

Monte’s Rating

5.00 out of 5.00

Rogue One: A Star Wars Story - Movie Review by Monte Yazzie

Rogue One: A Star Wars Story

Director: Gareth Edwards

Starring: Felicity Jones, Diego Luna, Alan Tudyk, Donnie Yen, Forest Whitaker, Wen Jiang, Ben Mendelsohn, Riz Ahmed, and Mads Mikkelsen

Last December one of the most anticipated movie events took place, “Star Wars: The Force Awakens” was released into theaters. People waited in lines, online ticket sales broke websites, it shattered box office records; it was a film that provided Star Wars fans with every emotion they wanted to feel from a new film. It was an invitation back to safe/familiar territory for fans worried that the results would echo the sentiments felt after “Star Wars: Episode I - The Phantom Menace”, but also a new story for newcomers to invest themselves in like so many did back in 1977.

“Rogue One: A Star Wars Story” is not a continuation of the events seen in “The Force Awakens”, it’s a new story that takes place somewhere in the saga that is the Star Wars universe. Introducing new characters into the familiar stomping grounds of Darth Vader, Luke Skywalker, and Rey is ingenious, it offers an opportunity to explore different elements not directly related to the heroes everyone knows. The characters here are lesser heroes, a group of individuals doing the groundwork with smaller victories that eventually lead to bigger victories.

To explain the details of the story may spoil the fun for some fans, the quick details are that a group of rebels lead by a woman named Jyn Erso (Felicity Jones) are tasked with stealing secret plans to provide an upper hand against forces threatening to conquer the galaxy. Change a few key words in this description and the story could easily describe a western or a war film; though it shouldn’t surprise anyone familiar with Star Wars that both of these specific genres have played significant influence in the development of the universe with this franchise.

The films have always functioned as tales of good versus evil, war versus peace, and it isn’t much different with “Rogue One”. While these story components have been told in imaginative, provocative ways in the past, this Star Wars story feels content with providing safe and simple moments to keep fans happy. While some will say that “The Force Awakens” did the same thing, which would be true, “Rogue One” doesn’t have the luxury of having familiar characters with rich histories to accompany the new characters. This unfortunately makes the film feel somewhat mediocre rather than completely memorable. Still, there are many moments here that will make any fan of “Star Wars” feel excited, one in particular is something this fan has been waiting for since seeing the first film.

It’s a shame that more emphasis wasn’t provided to developing the characters in this film in which there are some very talented actors who give very good performances, specifically Felicity Jones and Ben Mendelsohn. There are good pieces introduced that look to provide direction towards some great conflict with some of the characters, Jyn and her father Galen have an interesting dynamic that could have been explored to provide more emotional substance, even the ambition of making a “Star Wars” influenced film actually feel like a war movie has potential to display so many aspects associated with purpose and reason why people make the decision to fight or take a side. There is also a blind martial artist and a militant extremist rebel who aren’t offered much more than a quick setup and thenquickly thrown into the mix. While each of these characters have their moments to shine, they still feel underutilized. Again, this is a film about war and the sacrifice that these rebels are making to change the state of the world they are living in. The potential for some of the characters in this Star Wars tale to become truly memorable is there but the script only hints at these directions, instead it lingers in a space that never combines the heart and heroics of the situation in an effective way.

Still, the moments when this story connects with the past and the moments just after the end credits rolled left me happy and excited about what I saw. It wasn’t until some contemplation that the holes in the script and the deficiencies of the characters became glaringly obvious. Whether this happens to you will probably depend on what your expectations are and howpassionate of a Star Wars fan you are. “Rogue One: A Star Wars Story” is a suitable film that plays just an okay supporting role to the much bigger primary Star Wars story.

Monte’s Rating

3.25 out of 5.0

The Eyes of My Mother - Movie Review by Jeff Mitchell

‘The Eyes of My Mother’ effectively drives you to look away

Written/Directed by:  Nicolas Pesce

Starring:  Kika Magalhaes, Diana Agostini, Olivia Bond, Will Brill, and Paul Nazak

“The Eyes of My Mother” – “Loneliness can do strange things to the mind.”

Mother (Diana Agostini) tells a story about St. Francis to her young daughter, Francisca (Olivia Bond), and closes the tale with the above quote.  Little does the girl realize the supreme accuracy of her mom’s statement.  Not only does “The Eyes of My Mother” prove that loneliness can do strange things to the mind, but it can also drive twisted and depraved ones as well, in the one of the most unforgettable films of 2016.  

Presented in black and white and set in – what looks to be – the 1950s, an innocent-looking farm house sits in the rolling hills of, possibly, the rural Midwest. 

Small town America.  Quiet.  Peaceful. 

A place where a casual conversation might be pleasantly drowned out by the chirping of the surrounding crickets. 

Oddly, Mother, who looks more like a grandmother with decades of angst and stress carried in her face, cuts open a cow’s eyeball at the kitchen table and explains its anatomy to Francisca, who hangs on every word.   Later that day, a strange man approaches the house, and unfortunately, Mother and Francisca do not heed the classic warning, “Don’t talk to strangers.”

Rather than solely focus on the events of that day, 26-year-old writer/director Nicolas Pesce’s film presents that aforementioned, fateful moment as a seedy seed planted into the mind of a future killer, and the audience witnesses its aftereffects on a grownup Francisca (Kika Magalhaes). Short, demure and slight, Francisca would be hard pressed to physically intimidate anyone.  If a stiff gust of wind huffed by, there is a better than average chance that it would knock her over.  On the other hand, with dark hair, black eyes and chalky-white skin, she also comfortably carries a vampire-like look, and with her soft-spoken demeanor, she can easily create a false sense of trust.  

Trust me when I state that Francisca is immensely dangerous, and Pesce’s camera skillfully captures her exploits with – sometimes - a minimalist approach.   For instance, the audience may witness an act of violence from a noticeably distant point of view or just out of frame.  In one scene, we only see the aftermath of bloodshed during an “ordinary” moment of cleanup, due to the mess that was just enacted off camera.  Generally speaking, murderous close ups are not particularly necessary in an effective use of “less is more” in the horror genre, and I applaud it here.  On the other hand, immediate murder is not always Francisca’s modus operandi, and conversely, the film absolutely features the sickening sights and sounds from the results of her carefully crafted decisions.

Pesce shoots his beautifully horrific creation with a distinct arthouse flair and constructs an isolated environment, in which no one can hear you scream and no one can see the merciless transgressions. 

Although, we see and want to look away. 

With a runtime of just 76 minutes, Pesce does not mince words or waste time with the narrative.  He does, however, hold the camera (in place) long enough during a number of ghastly sequences that will make you crave a shower after the film’s conclusion to wash away the vile nature of humanity that you just experienced as a semi-willing viewer.  At the same time, no mere antiseptic rinse can remove the portrait of woman - brought up in a wholly unhealthy environment - from one’s mind, as Francisca promises to slink into an accessible mental crawlspace. Loneliness may do strange things to the mind, but be warned: “The Eyes of My Mother” may trigger permanent damage. 

(3.5/4 stars) 

Jeff – a member of the Phoenix Critics Circle – has penned film reviews since 2008 and graduated from ASU’s Walter Cronkite School of Journalism.  Follow Jeff and the Phoenix Film Festival on Twitter @MitchFilmCritic and @PhoenixFilmFest, respectively.

Miss Sloane - Movie Review by Monte Yazzie

Miss Sloane

Director: John Madden

Starring: Jessica Chastain, Mark Strong, Gugu Mbatha-Raw, Alison Pill, Michael Stuhlbarg, Jake Lacy, Sam Waterston, and John Lithgow

Powerful, sure-minded women who speak their minds and have intelligent opinions are often given a bad reputation in motion pictures. Many times being told, mostly by men, that they are cold, heartless, or unfeeling. Coming on the heels of a divided election and having an even more pertinent message than the producers could have imagined , "Miss Sloane" is a film about an ambitious female lobbyist in Washington D.C. going toe-to-toe with a male dominated gun industry. The film is directed by John Madden, a best director Academy Award nominee for the film "Shakespeare in Love"  in 1999, in the style of a political-thriller but is more suited as being an intriguing character study with a strong performance from Jessica Chastain who plays the title character.

Elizabeth Sloane (Jessica Chastain) is introduced sitting in a Congressional hearing concerning the ethical intentions of her role as a lobbyist for an organization that was spearheading a new bill on gun regulation. Every aspect of her career in under scrutiny, including her personal life and her former employment with another organization that is currently her opponent for the gun bill. Mr. Madden orchestrates a taut courtroom drama in these moments, with Sloane the target seemingly from every angle and every person in the courtroom. However, these beginning moments aren't given much context other than an brief introduction to all the players associated with Sloane.

The film takes the viewer back to the beginning, two years, when Sloane was an up-and-coming lobbyist making positive and negative impressions with everyone she encountered. Abruptly, Sloane decides to leave the organization and move to a rival group after being asked to consult on a campaign opposing background checks for gun owners by a National Rifle Association-like group. From this moment the film begins to dig into the character of Elizabeth Sloane, displaying her shrewd tactics, viewed by some as conniving, and her meticulous methods that display her ambition for success. While this sometimes comes off as callous to her constituents who have trouble keeping up with her decisions, they cannot deny the results she achieves. Many times she seems one, two, even three steps ahead of everyone in the room.

Director John Madden handles the aspects of Sloane's character with confidence, portraying a female character in a such a way that no character in the film ever feels like her equal. It's her character that makes the film so enjoyable, a quality that should be attributed foremost to the wonderful performance by Jessica Chastain who deftly layers many aspects of the performance with engrossing touches that correspond to the themes of vanity, loyalty, and purpose that define her character. Without such strong lead performances from the lead and supporting cast, Gugu Mbatha-Raw as a pawn for manipulation and Michael Stuhlbarg as a loud antagonist to Sloane are both very good, some of the deficiencies of the narrative would be harder to ignore. Aside from the long-winded political rhetoric which offers great opportunities for the actors to unleash a bit; the structuring of the build-up for the story doesn't fit many of the resolutions, which seem too neatly packaged for as complicated as the issues are explained to be.

Still, "Miss Sloane" is a great character film that offers an impressive performance from Jessica Chastain. While it may not completely achieve the thrilling political moments it reaches for, it does create a thrilling mystery watching a character that is never easily categorized and is always a step ahead of everyone.

Monte's Rating

4.00 out of 5.0

Jackie - Movie Review by Jeff Mitchell

Nothing about ‘Jackie’ feels routine

Directed by:  Pablo Larrain

Written by:  Noah Oppenheim

Starring:  Natalie Portman, Peter Sarsgaard, Billy Crudup, John Hurt, and Gretta Gerwig

“Jackie” – “The only routine with me is no routine at all.” – Jackie Kennedy

Director Pablo Larrain’s new film about Jacqueline Kennedy, “Jackie”, deliberately strays from routine biopic patterns in a fascinating, almost experimental, look at the former first lady during the days after President John F. Kennedy’s assassination in 1963.   Leading up to the release of the movie, Larrain said in an interview that he did not wish to tell what happened during those dark, confusing days in November 1963.  Instead, he wanted to make a film that allows the audience to feel the results - and share the emotion - of those events with Jackie (Natalie Portman).   Based upon the combined strength of the narrative’s organic approach and Portman’s landmark performance, Larrain’s vision is realized. 

“Jackie” is one of the best pictures of 2016.  

Anchored by and told in retrospect via an interview in Hyannis Port, MA with an unnamed journalist (Billy Crudup) - within a couple or few weeks after JFK’s death - Jackie leads him through that incredibly trying period and, in addition, a brief stop on her famous 1961 network television special, “A Tour of the White House with Mrs. John F. Kennedy”.  The interview feels contentious as an emotionally depleted Jackie distrusts the reporter and wonders about his story’s potentially-crooked angle.  Kennedy presents a formidable challenge for any potential adversary, and the movie reveals her growth and thickened porcelain skin through the emotional and political battles she endured as the first lady.

Just 31 years old when President Kennedy took office, the winds and weight of the U.S. Presidency pushed and tested Jackie, and Portman delivers a convincing portrayal, by navigating through true events.   After her husband his killed, Jackie is seen as isolated - through imaginative camerawork and dramatization - even though she is sometimes surrounded by people. 

For instance, while in Dallas, the shock of the shooting sent waves over Jackie, the president’s staff, Vice President Lyndon B. Johnson (John Carroll Lynch), and his wife, Lady Bird (Beth Grant), however, the first lady stands alone, while everyone else circles her but keeps a distinct physical and emotional distance.  The only form of comfort towards Jackie is a slight touch of the shoulder from LBJ.  The moment offers a telling lesson, because she appears to be an outsider, especially after LBJ is sworn in as president, and his staff have seemingly moved on.  Whether or not the events occurred in that manner, Larrain and Portman are communicating that Jackie felt isolated. 

Other scenes of seclusion also transpire, when Jackie is truly on her own.  She grieves her lost husband and the loss of her own figurative life, before and after Nov. 22, 1963.  We see a woman with fame thrust upon her, complete with massive, new roles, demanding expectations and the revelations that they were not entirely welcome.   What is welcomed, however, is Portman’s cadence, makeup, hair, mannerisms, walk, and energy that seem to channel Jackie.  In fact, during some particular spells during the 99-minute runtime, I took a few specific double takes while experiencing Portman’s effective depiction of one of the most revered women of the 20th century.  It simply is difficult to take your eyes off Portman, no matter where she appears in the frame.  She delivers some mesmeric work here, not only to suitably play well-documented events but to also fill in the blanks during those undocumented ones, based upon the filmmakers’ and Portman’s interpretations. 

Do not expect a movie that presents several thoughtful, revealing exchanges with her husband, played by Caspar Phillipson.   The Danish actor certainly resembles President Kennedy, but he only appears for a scant, few minutes, and he may have spoken a few words on camera, but perhaps I dreamt it.

Quite appropriately, Larrain sometimes presents “Jackie” in a dream-like state with a mixture of striking imagery and illuminating dialogue.  Rather than offer a standard biography, with decades of occurrences that total her environmental DNA as of 1963, “Jackie” opens the White House doors for a limited time and reveals a woman who was far from routine. 

(3.5/4 stars)

Jeff – a member of the Phoenix Critics Circle – has penned film reviews since 2008 and graduated from ASU’s Walter Cronkite School of Journalism.  Follow Jeff and the Phoenix Film Festival on Twitter @MitchFilmCritic and @PhoenixFilmFest, respectively.

An interview with Miss Sloane director John Madden by Jeff Mitchell

Acclaimed director John Madden (“Shakespeare in Love” (1998), “The Debt” (2010), “The Best Exotic Marigold Hotel” (2011)) stopped in Phoenix on Nov. 17 to introduce his new film, “Miss Sloane” starring Jessica Chastain in the title role, for a Phoenix Film Society screening at the Harkins Scottsdale 101.   The Phoenix Film Festival had a chance to sit down with him for an additional few minutes on that day as well, and Madden offered some wonderful insight about the title character, the reasons why Chastain was terrific for the part and more. 

“Miss Sloane”, a thriller revolving around the U.S. gun lobbies, arrives in theatres on Friday, Dec. 9. 

PFF:  You worked with Jessica on “The Debt” (2010), and she brought a steely, sober acumen to the table in that movie.  In “Miss Sloane”, Elizabeth Sloane (Chastain) frequently rattles off a litany of concepts, facts and red tape dynamics at breakneck speed, like a CEO of a high tech company, and she is a very intimidating presence.  What did you see in Jessica that made you think of her for this role?

JM:  Jessica is one of a handful of actors who has that virtuoso kind of skill.  She can do anything, as you know.  She’s extremely smart and has a kind of effortless skill at what she does. You can’t see the wheels turning at all, and she internalizes what she does and inhabits what she does.  She always has a vulnerability about her, a fragility about her, even when she’s playing a fiercely determined character like in “Zero Dark Thirty” (2012) or “The Martian” (2015). 

So, I was under no doubt whatsoever that she could do that, and I also thought that she would absolutely be able to master the verbal dexterity that you are talking about.   Not only do that, but do that with “a music” that meant that you weren’t just listening to a verbal assault and reeling from it.  I heard a lot of the movie during (various) auditions, and you know what it can be like when you hear someone who hasn’t got “the music”. 

It’s amazing what Jessica has pulled off.  She dominates everything, but she makes everything so fascinating.  It’s a highly verbal (film) - which is considered a danger zone for movies - but I always believed that you can make that thrilling, if you get it right and make it work right.     

PFF:  The audience receives just a touch of insight into Elizabeth’s past.  Did you have thoughts of revealing more of her past, or did you want to keep it a mystery? 

JM:  The (way that the) film is presented (is) actually a very deliberate choice. If you are telling, for example, a family drama or a character portrait that is bound up in the past and choices that were made in the past, that’s one thing.  I think there is a kind of lazy orthodoxy that requires an event to be included in the story that illustrates how this person became this person. 

This film is partly characterized as a thriller, obviously, and quite deliberately, and part of what you are doing is figuring out what is going on, and how and why it is going on.  I felt, the writer (Jonathan Perera) felt and Jessica felt that the interesting experience is to watch that character and understand that character, as the story unfolds in a way that is sufficient to the story itself. 

PFF:  It’s self-contained. 

JM: It’s self-contained. You sort of know - instinctively - I think from the story, that she had to carve her own way through her life and her existence.  Somewhere or another, she has compartmentalized or suppressed (her past), where she doesn’t allow it to become part of her normal discourse, her emotional life. 

It’s true.  (Any) circumstance where she allows any personal contact or intimacy is one which she holds the key to herself.  It’s transactional.  That person (who she meets in the film), the other half of that relationship, is constantly trying to mine her for information, which she won’t give.  It felt to me that it was truthful to who the character was and what she was.  I don’t come out of the movie - and I wouldn’t come out of the movie, had I not directed it - being frustrated by that.  People become the way they are for a number of reasons, but it is not germane to this particular story as its own shape, its own weight and its own way of telling a story, I think. 

Elizabeth has no friends.  She has no relationships, outside of professional ones, and she is alone.

PFF:  Do you think that Elizabeth, after this film ends, would open up and find love? 

JM: Yes, I think that she will open up in some way, because I think – (and) you don’t understand this in the beginning - but she stands over a colossal void. 

She’s running herself into a hole that she’ll never be able to climb out of.  She has nothing to live for actually, beyond the addictive charge of success and winning.  She recognizes, I think, that it’s empty, and that is nothing to aspire to or to live by, but she couldn’t begin to know how to access the parts of herself that have somehow been cauterized, lost and forgotten.

PFF:  The film revolves around the gun lobby.  How familiar were you with the inner workings of lobbies, lobbyist firms and/or the fight for and against gun restrictions coming into the project? 

JM:  One of the privileges of making movies is that you get to examine issues that you just have some intuitive sense of, but not a real understanding of.  I didn’t know much more (about lobbyists other) than the job description.  It’s an opaque thing to most people.  I think that’s one of the pleasures of the film.  The lid gets lifted on (lobbying firms) and how (they) work.  Obviously, we are taking a very extreme example.  I wouldn’t necessarily say that it represents all of that industry.  That’s one thing.  

The gun issue is one that I have been fascinated by from afar, because I am baffled by it. From an outside perspective, (after an incident like) the Sandy Hook massacre, why would anybody sensibly not wish to control the sale of firearms, without it necessarily violating their 2nd Amendment rights?  Let’s (just) be careful about who is able to purchase these things.  The fact that the majority of people believe in that, but it never becomes actual in a legislative sense, is a paradox or a scandal, depending upon which way you want to look at it. 

It isn’t, (however), the subject of the film.  The film is not a polemic, and I never intended it to be that.  It’s the context of the film, but its political process is really the subject of the film, as well as the story of this character.  The bafflement is a very good spur to moviemaking.  How do I understand this, and how do I articulate its contradictions?  The key to it is the (U.S.) Constitution, of course.  Those of us outside need to (come) to grips and understand what the significance of it is - politically - in the country, and I respect that. 

Jeff – a member of the Phoenix Critics Circle – has penned film reviews since 2008 and graduated from ASU’s Walter Cronkite School of Journalism.  Follow Jeff and the Phoenix Film Festival on Twitter @MitchFilmCritic and @PhoenixFilmFest, respectively.

Man Down - Movie Review by Jeff Mitchell

The well-intentioned war movie ‘Man Down’ feels like it needed more filmmakers

Directed by:  Dito Montiel

Written by:  Dito Montiel and Adam G. Simon

Starring:  Shia LaBeouf, Jai Courtney, Kate Mara, and Gary Oldman

“Man Down” – U.S. Marine Gabriel Drummer (Shia LaBeouf) roams a decimated American countryside that looks like a recent victim of a nuclear attack.   With visuals reminiscent of the “Divergent” series (2014 – 2016), a nearby city is filled with broken, hollowed out skyscrapers, as Gabriel searches – along with his best friend, Devin (Jai Courtney) – for his young son (Charlie Shotwell) along the desolate, post-WWIII streets.     Director/cowriter Dito Montiel truly paints a terribly grim image of America, and the opening few minutes foreshadow an equally depressing picture.  Despite an admirable performance by LaBeouf, the film’s ultimate point regrettably becomes marginalized in the midst of a befuddled, overthought narrative. 

“Man Down” continually shifts between Gabriel’s experiences in post-WWIII to his days with the U.S. Marines, before everything went to hell, as it is commonly referred to in military films.  During the former, Gabriel and Devin – sporting beards and acting in survival-mode in a toxic wasteland - are no longer with the armed services and are hardened by a cataclysmic war that the audience does not experience onscreen.  In the latter, Gabriel and Devin go through basic training in Camp Lejeune, North Carolina and head out to a different war in Afghanistan, filled with open questions and the possibilities of urban warfare mistakes. 

Most of the time, both environments are cinematically adequate on their own, but the movie’s construct deliberately delivers a puzzle.   How does Gabriel go from a present-day U.S. Marine in Afghanistan to a future nomad rummaging through the ruined homeland?   This is especially confusing, because, in addition, Montiel and cowriter Adam G. Simon spend a significant amount of screen time with a military official (Gary Oldman) interviewing Gabriel.  As the movie treads forward between (actually) three time periods, it becomes obvious that the meeting with Peyton (Oldman) and Gabriel carries at least a portion of the film’s answers.   Then again, their conversation carries little insight or interest, as the officer and private work through tired, clichéd regulations in a dimly lit trailer complete with woodgrain paneling. 

While on the subject of lighting (or lack thereof), at one point during basic training in Camp Lejeune, I pulled off my glasses and also looked around the theatre.  Some scenes seemed slightly out of focus, and I wondered if the movie was presented in 3D, but I simply failed to pick up my 3D glasses.  After realizing that no one else - within a 20-yard radius - was wearing those special glasses, I felt reassured that I did not miss a “Pick up your 3D glasses here” sign before walking into the theatre.

The message, however, that Montiel and Simon want the audience to absorb is a vitally important one and not to be taken lightly.  I am most appreciative of the subject matter that the movie conveys and believe that it will open up dialogues over coffee after the theatre lights turn on.  At the same time, “Man Down” delivers this message like a sledgehammer whirling down on an unprotected box of supermarket eggs while simultaneously offering an unnecessary mystery over almost the entire 92-minute runtime.  “Man Down” certainly contains a worthy premise, but the movie is aptly named, because it feels like it needed more filmmakers.   

(1.5/4 stars)

Jeff – a member of the Phoenix Critics Circle – has penned film reviews since 2008 and graduated from ASU’s Walter Cronkite School of Journalism.  Follow Jeff and the Phoenix Film Festival on Twitter @MitchFilmCritic and @PhoenixFilmFest, respectively.

Manchester by the Sea - Movie Review by Monte Yazzie

Manchester by the Sea

Director: Kenneth Lonergan

Starring: Casey Affleck, Michelle Williams, Kyle Chandler, C.J. Wilson, Gretchen Mol, Lucas Hedges, and Matthew Broderick

Tragedy changes people. It takes a piece of a person, never completely making them whole again. The saying “time heals all wounds” is true, however wounds leave scars, a life long reminder of the pain that you once felt. Kenneth Lonergan, a writer who’s films have a specific and special way of portraying death and the after effects it leaves on a person, manufactures his newest film “Manchester by the Sea” in a lingering fog of a tragedy.

Lee (Casey Affleck) is a janitor living near Boston. He does odd jobs like fixing faucets, shoveling snowy sidewalks, and plunging clogged toilets; but something is different about Lee, you can feel the frustration and anger in his every motion and see pain and despair behind his eyes. Lee receives an unexpected phone call from his hometown, his older brother Joe (Kyle Chandler) has died from congestive heart failure. Lee quickly returns to his hometown to handle arrangements but also to take care of his nephew Patrick (Lucas Hedges).

“Manchester by the Sea” is about people and the pains of death. Mr. Lonergan handles this aspect deftly and delicately, painting a portrait of ordinary people living in a small town dealing with death in a personal and many times genuine way. Life still moves forward without pause for compassion, little things like dinner still needing to be cooked, preparing for snow that is still going to fall, and partaking in the painstaking process of grieving. It’s uncomfortable to watch yet fascinating to see the process so meticulously staged by such a skillful writer. There is more going on still, the aspect of Joe’s death is just one component. Lee has a history in this small New England town, people recognize him and whisper condemningly in his direction.

The focus of Lee’s agony is revealed through flashbacks about half way through the film and the result is heart breaking. How do you deal with such immense tragedy? That’s the question that continues throughout the remainder of the film and is displayed through a man still dealing with the affects of death from the past and forced to handle it again in the present. You are offered two separate versions of man; it’s almost like watching two different characters completely. Lee, as a married family man, is the definition of “the life of the party”. He drinks with his friends, roughhouses with his brother, affectionately teaches his nephew how to fish, and flirts sweetly with his wife (Michelle Williams).  Lee, as a lonely janitor, is cautious and measured. A man clearly dealing with emotions flowing very close to the surface, it takes everything in his power to keep those emotions restrained; sometimes they come through as aggression and anger while other times they come through as nothing more than a long stare into the distance. Mr. Lonergan builds moments that place Lee in the middle of ordinary social situations that are difficult for him function in, then into the middle of complicated situations only to watch the character drown in his own sea of self-destruction and self-loathing. You can never tell exactly how Lee will react to these circumstances, it’s an intriguing quality methodically designed by the writer/director.

Accommodating the script is a slew of fantastic performances. Casey Affleck is superb, skillfully handling the weight of the emotions in the film and delivering one of the finest, gut-wrenching performances of the year. Add to this the committed performance from Lucas Hedges who plays Patrick, a teenager trying to find a handle on the death of his father. Mr. Hedges develops the character through the different stages of the grieving process, in one moment with the kind of teenage angst you’d expect from someone his age but also with the carefree outlook that you’d expect from a young person who has lived in the same safe community his entire life.

“Manchester by the Sea” is not a film for every film fan, it's uncomfortable and grueling to watch a character suffer with these kinds of feelings for two plus hours. While the film portrays a tragedy many of us will ever know, pain and sorrow is something we can all relate with in one way or another. We all have wounds that haven't fully healed, some are still aching while others are long past the point of pain. While "Manchester by the Sea" may be polarizing for many viewers, the film displays that we all deal with pain in different ways and some us have unimaginable wounds they may be trying desperately to hide underneath a wealth of different emotions.

Monte’s Rating

4.00 out of 5.0

Bad Santa 2 - Movie Review by Jeff Mitchell

‘Bad Santa 2’ is a flawed, funny stocking stuffer

Directed by:  Mark Waters

Written by:  Johnny Rosenthal, Shauna Cross

Starring:  Billy Bob Thornton, Tony Cox, Kathy Bates, Christina Hendricks, and Brett Kelly

“Bad Santa 2” - “He’s making a list, and he’s checking it twice.  Gonna find out who’s naughty or nice…” – “Santa Claus is Coming to Town”, written by John Frederick Coots and Haven Gillespie

“Bad Santa” turned this famous Christmas song on its head in 2003, by ironically finding a Kris Kringle (Billy Bob Thornton) who was both naughty and not very nice at all. Willie (Thornton) - a mean-spirited shopping mall Santa Claus who prefers booze over milk and cookies – routinely curses “over” his breath when various kids sit on his knee and ask for their most hopeful Christmas wishes. 

Thornton answered our comedy wishes by breaking several rules of Christmas decorum in this unique and hilarious performance.  Thirteen years later, Thornton resurrects Willie in director Mark Waters’ (“Mean Girls” (2004), “Mr. Popper’s Penguins” (2011)) new picture.

Like “Dumb and Dumber To” (2014) and “Bridget Jones’s Baby” (2016), there is no intellectual reason to convey another story of a beloved movie character in a sequel.  On the other hand, with Black Friday, flashing multi-colored bulbs positioned on rain gutters and a 100,000 percent increase in seasonal egg nog sales imminently upon us, tis the season for Christmas movies, and hence Willie’s time is now. 

Well, the year 2016 has not treated our hero very well, or to be more accurate, Willie has not treated himself with kindness.  Behind on bills and in desperate need of a cleaning woman in his tiny Phoenix apartment, he believes that he has no apparent reason for living, when opportunity suddenly knocks!  His old business partner, Marcus (hysterically played by Tony Cox), offers him a safecracking gig with two million dollars at the end of a sorted rainbow. 

This particular prospect naturally contains a Christmas theme, which forces Willie to sport a Santa suit again.  This, of course, makes him want to grab the nearest adult beverage and punch an open wall, but a small fortune could make any malcontent perform a task for a few days.

While Willie, Marcus and their new business partner, Willie’s mom Sunny (Kathy Bates), plan to hatch their robbery, they also devilishly spread their holiday jeer with putdowns, insults and complaints with the veracity of a raw, blush-inducing segment on the Howard Stern Show or the most uncouth joke emanating from a Reno comedy club on a random Saturday, just after midnight. 

Thornton and Cox are masters at this type of humor with the abilities and timing to deliver expletives regarding “cultured” topics like sexual prowess or idiocy, and Bates joyfully plays along and hangs with their boorish behavior throughout the picture, including a bathroom scene in which she multitasks while watching her favorite reality show. 

The reality is “Bad Santa 2” is very funny, and if you enjoyed the foul-mouthed style of the first picture, you will get a yuletide kick out of the sequel.  Some of the sequences feel very familiar, such as various children asking Santa for presents and Willie finding a love interest (Christina Hendricks) with less importance on amore and more emphasis on physicality. The only moment, however, that really seems recycled is when Willie spews pizza from his mouth, which immediately flashes back to him screaming at a mall shopper that he is “on his lunch break” in the first movie.   All in all, the original picture is over a decade old, so although “Bad Santa 2” does not soak in originality, Willie’s antics - for his fans – are certainly welcome.

Even the kid, Thurman (Brett Kelly), who followed Willie like a lost puppy in the 2003 movie returns and has now reached 21 years old.  Several exchanges between Willie and this painfully naïve adult – who works as a sandwich consultant and wears a t-shirt three sizes too small – are some of the best in the film.

What is not the best?   Well, “Bad Santa 2” certainly has its flaws, including unremarkable production values and a terribly flimsy narrative that would fit nicely into a “Police Academy” reunion film, and that is not a compliment.  From that perspective, the movie reminds me of “The Heat” (2013) with Sandra Bullock and Melissa McCarthy.  In other words, ignore the tired, formulaic construct and just enjoy the comedic performances.  

“Bad Santa 2” is not the biggest or best cinematic present that theatres will receive this holiday season, but it is an amusing (and very rated R) stocking stuffer.

(2.5/4 stars)

Jeff – a member of the Phoenix Critics Circle – has penned film reviews since 2008 and graduated from ASU’s Walter Cronkite School of Journalism.  Follow Jeff and the Phoenix Film Festival on Twitter @MitchFilmCritic and @PhoenixFilmFest, respectively.

An interview with "Moana" animator Darrin Butters by Kaely Monahan

Behind the Scenes on ‘Moana’

Q&A with Moana animator Darrin Butters

By Kaely Monahan

Disney’s latest princess is one tough adventurer. Moana stars Auli’I Cravalho as the Polynesian princess, Moana, Dwayne Johnson as the trickster Maui. As the daughter of the chief of her island, Motunui she is tasked with the care of her people, but Moana feels an irresistible pull towards the ocean.

This pull eventually leads her to save the entire world from an encroaching darkness. Disney character animator Darrin Butters visited Phoenix and shared a behind the scenes look of what it took to make the newest Disney princess movie.

Which characters did you animate?

Traditionally you would work on one character in a movie. But now that we’ve kind of adopted a Pixar model of how to animate, you animate every character in the scene that you’re animating. One benefit of doing one character was that you really got to know that character, but the benefit of doing it this way is you get to animate a variety of characters. It’s exciting and new every single shot you get issued.

I animated probably more Maui shots than anything. I have an affinity for fun comical characters and they seem to cast me on shots of that ilk.

When you’re animating a character, you’re essentially embodying that character. What kinds of references did you use to make Maui, for example, come to life?

The animator is the actor basically, and computer animation is more like puppeteering than drawing. You’re really using all these tools to convey emotion to the audience. For Maui, I have to say Dwayne Johnson—The Rock—who does his voice gave us so much to work with.

In Polynesian folklore Maui is represented by many different versions of Maui. He’s like a trickster, sometimes he’s like a superman, and we really had fun with that kind of a rascal (character). And with Dwayne Johnson’s voice, he is cocky and played Maui with such an ego that he really gave us a lot to work with.

You guys looked like you were also using Johnson’s facial expressions too!

Oh yes! That eyebrow, that lifted eye brow and the smile, this beaming handsome smile, we really were able to leverage all of that.

With every Disney or Pixar film that comes out the animation bar gets raised. You’ve seen a lot of change yourself, being with the company for 20 years.

It’s been a great ride. And I definitely have to say that the Disney that it is now is the Disney I wanted to work for when I got there. We’ve definitely had to learn a lot and make some progress to get to where we are, but you can definitely see a trajectory. I would say from when John Lasseter and Ed Catmull came aboard and kind of re-engineered our management and our process, from Bolt to Tangled to Wreck It Ralph, Frozen, Zootopia, we just keep raising the bar for ourselves. And we seem to make it challenging for ourselves and hopefully we’re meeting that challenge.

Moana had to be challenging in so many ways. The sets for example, a lot of it is just open ocean—not a lot going on color-wise or visual-wise.

It was a huge challenge for every department. Layout had to come with a way of shooting this movie on a rocking boat between two characters. Effects had their work cut out for them. Water is probably one of the hardest things make believable in a computer simulation. We had wind; we had hair; we had a lot of skin—we had wet hair; we had wet skin—it was a huge challenge.

And animating, I’d say the challenge is always harder when you’re animating humans. Humans—other humans can detect what’s wrong with animated human. A fox or a rabbit? We can get away with talking and you don’t know what a talking fox is supposed to look like. But I’ll tell you what, a human—as soon as you make a misstep with the animation and go off that believability track, people spot it right away. So we had to up our game.

You also had the marriage of hand drawn 2D animation with CGI with Maui and his tattoos. How did you guys accomplish that?

It was such a great concept. And that’s the magic of animation—What if his tattoos moved and told the story of Maui’s background, or what if he could interact with his tattoos? We did a lot of research and come up with a system. We worked very closely with all of our hand drawn animating craftsmen that still work at Disney. Every step of the way we’re incorporating their knowledge and that legacy. Eric Goldberg, the lead on the genie from Aladdin, spearheaded the designing and the animating of the tattoos. It was really fun to do the back and forth with them. We would be issued the shot together, we’d plan out what was going to happen. They had a template of Maui’s tattoos and they would animate, pencil on paper, and we would scan that in and it would be mapped on to Maui’s rough animated 3D body. And we would be able to see if we needed to lessen the 3D animation so that you could read what the tattoo was doing. Or, maybe he was moving so much that there didn’t need to be much movement on the tattoos—and that back and forth is something that I’ve never experienced in my work at Disney. It was exciting.

Seems like Disney is moving further and further away from hand drawn animation. Does it still have a place in today’s animations?

We’re constantly looking at ways to make hybrids of hand drawn and 3D animation. I think Paperman was a really good example of melding those two mediums. Every step of the way from character design to getting notes on our shots we’re utilizing that legacy.

In the film, it’s hard to pinpoint just one Polynesian culture. It seemed very much a blend of many nations. Was that intentional?

When you’re telling a story, you want to tell—we wanted to tell this one character’s story. And it’s about her (Moana) finding her identity and her adventure. We were trying to be inspired by that region. We talked to archeologists, fisherman, and dancers and elders, and anthropologists from that entire area (Polynesia) to get an inspiration from all, and to check with them and see if we were respecting their culture.

It was a fun an enlightening journey because I when they did go to all these islands they came back changed not only in what kind of film we’re going to make, but you could tell that the impact was personal.

Also, Moana is not a wimpy princess. She’s built for adventure, which is exciting to see that body type represented.

Sure. Moana is the 16-year-old daughter of the chief and she is set to be the next chief of her island, Motunui Island. She’s a born leader but she has another pull and that’s to the ocean. And it seems like from childhood she’s had this affinity with the ocean. She’s athletic, she can kick some butt and she’s very strong willed and you can see that in her performance. 

 See Moana and Maui in theaters November 23rd.

• Kaely Monahan is a journalist, graduate of City University London and the creator of Popcorn Fan Film Reviews. Follow her @PopcornFans and @KaelyMonahan.

Bleed for This - Movie Review by Monte Yazzie

Bleed For This

Director: Ben Younger

Starring: Miles Teller, Aaron Eckhart, Katey Sagal, Ted Levine, and Ciarán Hinds

Vinny “The Pazmanian Devil” Pazienza is a boxer with an unbelievable story. It’s not unbelievable because of the amazing fight he had with Roger Mayweather. It’s not unbelievable because of the WBA World Title he won against Gilbert Dele. And it’s not unbelievable because he stood toe-to-toe with one of boxing’s greatest champions, Roberto Duran, and was still standing when the final bell rang. No, it’s because Vinny Paz beat the odds after a terrible car crash, one that nobody in the boxing world thought he would come back from. Vinny Paz broke his neck, refused to stop fighting, and worked diligently to make a return to the ring.

Director Ben Younger directs “Bleed For This” with a constant focus on the charismatic, arrogant Vinny Pazienza, played fiercely by Miles Teller. The film utilizes effectively many of the familiar themes boxing films have employed in order to display the fight of recovery Mr. Pazienza pursued. “Bleed for This” may not be as technically exciting or crowd pleasing like other boxing films, the journey for Mr. Pazienza is completely captivating.

The film begins with Vinny (Miles Teller) desperately working out on a bicycle, his body wrapped in plastic. Vinny is trying to make weight for a big fight against the famed Roger Mayweather. Many boxing insiders, including his trainer (Ted Levine), believe Vinny's career is coming to an end after the fight. This doesn't stop the boxer who quickly finds a new trainer (Aaron Eckhart), a struggling alcoholic, who moves him up a weight class and makes him a contender again. At the peak of Vinny Paz's career as a boxer a terrible event takes everything the fighter has trained for away, placing the future of his fighting career in jeopardy.

A few months ago a boxing film called "Hands of Stone", about the career of iconic Panamanian fighter Roberto Duran, was in theaters. Duran and Pazienza fought during the same time period, they also fought each other in a particularly classic match. What makes these films so different, and what highlights "Bleed for This", is the nature of the narrative. Both boxers have exceptional careers and have had classic matches but Vinny Paz has the story that feels more cinematic because it is so hard to comprehend the journey after his injury. A boxer with a broken neck makes a comeback and the first fight after injury is against an already established boxing legend, every punch has the potential for catastrophic consequences.

For boxing fans all the moments that define boxing films are here. This helps and hinders the film, it helps when the complicated characteristics of a boxer are accommodated by a fantastic performance from Miles Teller and it hinders the film when fight scenes are composed exactly like everything we've seen before.

Performances throughout the film are great, especially Miles Teller who really embodies the mannerisms and accent of Pazienza. Aaron Eckhart is also good, playing against the type that he is usually cast in. However, what makes these two performances excel isn't the fact that Mr. Teller composes a loud, brass, unapologetic character or that Mr. Eckhart is stepping outside of the comfort zone with a role, it's instead the combined relationship that the two actors compose as coach and athlete. The have an honesty with one another that is so true of the dynamic in athletics.

"Bleed for This" is better than some of the other "based on a true story" boxing films. While the film may not have the spectacle of something like "Creed", it still composes a great character dynamic accommodated by great performances from Miles Teller and Aaron Eckhart. It displays the mentality and heart of a fighter, that no matter what odds are in their path, they refuse to acknowledge defeat.

Monte's Rating

3.50 out of 5.0

Fantastic Beasts and Where to Find Them - Movie Review by Monte Yazzie

Fantastic Beasts and Where to Find Them

Director: David Yates

Starring: Eddie Redmayne, Katherine Waterson, Dan Fogler, Alison Sudol, Carmen Ejogo, Ezra Miller, Samantha Morton, Jon Voight, and Colin Farrell

It’s only been five years since the last Harry Potter film was in theaters. Talk to any Potter fan and it might as well be a lifetime. An amusement park in California and Orlando has been keeping the magic alive, allowing fans to visit their favorite school of witchcraft and wizardry and relive all the highlights from the books and films. Author J.K. Rowling, perhaps seeing the massive potential to continue her written stories on film, makes her screenwriting debut in director David Yates’ film “Fantastic Beasts and Where to Find Them”.

With an entire universe already established, one that had the luxury of having the same lead character in all eight films, how does one reestablish the world that has become so recognizable and beloved? First, you hire the director who worked on half of the films that established the universe. Second, you get a stellar cast lead by an Academy Award winning actor. Third, and most important, you get the author of the books to write the film. It doesn’t take long to see the positive influence these three factors have on the film; “Fantastic Beasts and Where to Find Them” reignites some of the magic of the Harry Potter films.

It’s 1926 and Newt Scamander (Eddie Redmayne) has just arrived in New York City for a quick stopover after completing an adventure across the globe to find and document magical creatures. Newt is in possession of a magical case that houses some of the fantastic beasts that he has encountered during his journey. Before Newt can get comfortable in America, a non-magic human named Jacob (Dan Fogler) takes the magical case by accident that allows for some of Newt’s creatures to escape. With tensions heavy between the wizarding world and the non-magic world, Newt’s mishap could spell terrible consequences.

From the beginning notes of the recognizable score David Yates' film begins to orchestrate the merging of worlds, transitioning the design and style of the Harry Potter films and blending them into a new story in a new location. After a bumpy beginning, with the bumbling Newt accidently switching briefcases with the "No-maj" New Yorker Jacob, the film very quickly begins to find some narrative footing. Introducing all the characters that seemingly will have some kind of influence on the future franchise films, there are already 4 more films planned for development. This proves a little frustrating because many of these characters are given small introductions and some are never really utilized again in the film. Jon Voight makes an appearance as a newspaper owner helping one of his sons run for political office and Samantha Morton shows up as the stone-faced leader of a witch hunting group. Neither are given the time to really develop any kind of connection with the narrative that is playing out.

However, the characters that are given time to develop are very good, especially the group that forms to defeat the evil entity destroying New York. Eddie Redmayne and Dan Fogler are fun to watch together; add in the dynamic of two magical sisters played by Katherine Waterson and Alison Sudol and the whole group have a great chemistry. These characters are highlighted by Colin Ferrell, playing an Auror (highly skilled magical detective) named Graves with equal amounts of swagger and creepiness. It's a great role for Mr. Ferrell.

"Fantastic Beasts and Where to Find Them" develops a good amount of fun moments, many times tapping into the charm and humor that made the Harry Potter films so memorable. While the film functions as the foundation for an entire new franchise, an aspect you can feel many times throughout, it still crafts some interesting moments and provides fans of this wizarding world with enough mystery to have them clamoring for the next film.

Monte's Rating

3.75 out of 5.00

The Edge of Seventeen - Movie Review by Jeff Mitchell

Engaging performances give ‘The Edge of Seventeen’ an edge over other high school films

Written/directed by:  Kelly Fremon Craig

Starring:  Hailee Steinfeld, Haley Lu Richardson, Hayden Szeto, Blake Jenner, Woody Harrelson, and Kyra Sedgwick

“The Edge of Seventeen” – Nadine (Hailee Steinfeld) is not 16-years-old and on the cusp or edge of turning 17.  No, Nadine is already 17, and I believe that the “edge” in this film’s title refers to the acidity can come with this particular age.   As the movie plays out, Nadine feels that the “Game of Life” did not exactly deal her a straight flush, however, in this new high school comedy/drama, the audience quickly learns that the world does not spill figurative acid on her either.  Nadine spills it on herself.  Writer/director Kelly Fremon Craig addresses familiar personal growth themes, but her movie deserves our attention with hilarious moments and engaging performances which cover the struggling teen years.  

Steinfeld works her magic to transform herself to a self-loathing, nearly friendless girl who might as well have “woe is me” tattooed on her forehead.  Her lousy attitude began at the age of seven when she concluded that there are two types of people in this world:  Those who are carefree and confident and those who hope that the carefree and confident ones die in an explosion. 

Her brother, Darian (Blake Jenner) fits into the former category, and, of course, Nadine slides into the latter.  Krista - another unpopular girl, but who carries a healthy, positive attitude – befriends Nadine in elementary school, and they remain BFFs through their years at Lakeview High School in a nice, Pacific Northwest suburb.

One day, however, Krista (Haley Lu Richardson) gets a boyfriend, and for reasons that I will not reveal, Nadine makes her best friend choose between her new beau and her.  Krista goes with her heart and picks her boyfriend, and Nadine’s existence – in her mind – suddenly becomes a living nightmare.   Seemingly always sported with a sky blue, polyester winter jacket, a skirt and mod basketball sneakers, Nadine forms her own counter culture (of one) and passive aggressively rages against a system that she sees pitted against her.   Refusing to compromise and make other friends, she’d rather sit in self-pity or even threaten suicide rather than pull herself up by her shoelaces and put on a smile. 

Before you begin wondering if “The Edge of Seventeen” is void of smiles, it certainly is not.  Nadine’s two other confidents provide plenty of perfectly-timed comic relief:  her history teacher, Mr. Bruner (Woody Harrelson), and a classmate, Erwin (Hayden Szeto), who takes a keen interest in her. 

With Krista enjoying time with her new boyfriend off-camera, Nadine forgoes looking to her mother (Kyra Sedgwick) for advice, and turns to Mr. Bruner instead, when she is not teasing him about his follicly-challenged hairline or modest teacher’s salary.  Bruner delivers verbal jabs of his own with the cynical methodology of an overworked school teacher, but his underlying support for Nadine does shine through their back and forth bantering.   

Now, to say that the exchanges between Szeto and Steinfeld are priceless would be a complete understatement, as Erwin constantly attempts to win over Nadine in the clumsiest, but also in the most utterly genuine, gentle ways.  While Nadine is internally consumed with losing her best friend, she either does not realize or does not want to realize that this guy is sincerely interested and a great catch!  Craig’s clever writing and Szeto’s deliberately awkward performance offer many of the biggest laughs in the film, including a potential first kiss that goes terribly sideways.

With Nadine’s perception that her life is sideways, the film effectively communicates and establishes that close relationships with her mom, Darian or anyone else do not stand much of a chance.  In addition, without a male role model in Nadine’s life, Mr. Bruner and Erwin help fill a need, even though she does not completely grasp the amount depth that they both carry. 

In order for Nadine to see the beauty in people and her environment, she needs to first raise her self-esteem and identify her self-worth.  Steinfeld’s committed performance will make you hope than Nadine fundamentally changes from being her own worst enemy to becoming her own biggest champion.  No one said that it will be easy, but there is a reason why the age of 17 has an edge. 

(3/4 stars)

Jeff – a member of the Phoenix Critics Circle – has penned film reviews since 2008 and graduated from ASU’s Walter Cronkite School of Journalism.  Follow Jeff and the Phoenix Film Festival on Twitter @MitchFilmCritic and @PhoenixFilmFest, respectively.

An interview with Haley Lu Richardson from "The Edge of Seventeen" by Jeff Mitchell

Phoenix native Haley Lu Richardson made a triumphant return to the Valley on Nov. 16 and sat down in a group interview with the Phoenix Film Festival and other news/entertainment outlets to chat about her new film, the high school comedy/drama “The Edge of Seventeen”.   In the movie, Nadine (Hailee Steinfeld) and Krista (Richardson) are best friends.  Life becomes complicated, however, when Krista (Richardson) gets a boyfriend and Nadine (Steinfeld) makes her to choose between her new beau and her.      

Richardson opens up about the movie’s themes, the bonds of friendship, a brief big screen appearance of her fashion line, and more.  This fun interview does mention a minor spoiler (twice), but I’ll warn you ahead of time.  “The Edge of Seventeen” also stars Woody Harrelson, Kyra Sedgwick, Blake Jenner, and Hayden Szeto, and it opens on Friday, Nov. 18. 

Q:  The movie felt like a realistic portrayal of high school.  How much input did you and your castmates have with the dialogue?  

HLR:  I’m so glad that you feel that way.  I heard that Kelly Fremon Craig - the writer/director - spent a significant amount of time traveling to high schools and interviewing and observing kids.  Even though she went to high school (years ago), things have changed.  It’s 2016, and she really wanted to capture this generation and how things actually are today.

Kelly was super open.  We had two weeks of rehearsal time.  I just spent time with Hailee, and we did our scenes.  Kelly was open to (improvisation) during the rehearsals and not being stuck to the page. I didn’t do much improvising on set, but all of the work that we did in the rehearsal period changed the scenes a bit. 

Q:  So, you are not that far away from high school.  Did that help you relate to the characters? 

HLR:  It’s really funny, because I have been acting professionally for five years, ever since I was 16.  Since then, I’ve literally just played high school kids (laughing). I feel like that I’m constantly forced into all of those memories, and I’m just stuck there reliving it forever.  So, yes, I could definitely relate to all of the (high school) characters. 

I think what I related to the most was the friendship between Krista and Nadine. Even when everything goes down, neither of them are bad people.  I feel that they have a very real bond and a selfless friendship, which I feel that I’ve had in my life.

Q:  Your character makes an important choice.  Do you think that friendships are more important than a potential boyfriend or is all fair in love and war?

HLR: (* MINOR SPOILER *) That’s a tough one.  I don’t know if it is breaking “girl code”.  I know you don’t want to date an ex-boyfriend but dating a best friend’s sibling is kind of on-the-line.  Kelly and I did not want to make Krista the stereotypical villain that ruins the protagonist’s life.  Krista had reasons for what she did, and she’s not a bad person.  She’s not even doing anything that bad. 

She’s been such a selfless friend for so long and realizes that she could possibly have this great connection with this guy.  She had to do something for herself at some point.   I don’t even view it – and maybe this is just my bias because I had to get into this headspace to play Krista – but I don’t view that she had to make a choice between a relationship and a friendship.  If it’s not crossing the line or disrespectful to a friend, I don’t think there really has to be a choice.  You can make it work.

PFF:  Krista and Nadine had a falling out in the film’s second act.  We saw Nadine’s story, but we did not see Krista’s.  How was Krista feeling during that time, and were there any thoughts of Krista reaching out?  

HLR: (* MINOR SPOILER *) That’s a really interesting question.  It sets up different challenges when you are playing a supporting character, because you do not have all of the pressure of carrying the movie.  You also have different pressures of making your character well-rounded, even though the audience does not see all of that person’s life. 

There was a scene with Blake Jenner (Krista’s boyfriend, Darian) that I really liked (which did not make the final cut). Krista and Darian were in his bedroom playing foosball, hanging out and giggling, and then we heard Nadine walk in downstairs.  Krista and Darian stop, look at each other and ask (each other if they are okay).  That moment sums up where they both were.  They both so badly wished that (the conflict with Nadine) wasn’t happening, but they had to follow their hearts and do something for themselves.  I think that’s where Krista was and sums up what she was feeling. 

PFF:  When Krista meets Blake, she is ready for this relationship and is self-assured.  On the other hand, their classmate Erwin (Hayden Szeto) tries to connect with Nadine, and it’s not working.  Nadine either doesn’t see a connection or doesn’t want to see one.  My interpretation is that she doesn’t love herself, so how can she put herself out there for someone else.  Do you see it that way?

HLR:  Oh yes, absolutely.  In my life, that is something that I realized early on.  You really have to take care of yourself and love yourself (in order) to be giving to other people.

Q:  There are a lot of themes of adolescence in the movie.  What messages do you want the audience to take away? 

HLR:  My best friend called me after she saw it and said what she (took away) is that sometimes you have to give people space.  Sometimes you cannot hash it out, and it will all be good. 

What I really get from the film is sometimes we think that everyone is out to get us.   Everyone else is the bad guy, but really, when we reflect what is in our head, we are our own worst enemy.  We are the ones choosing to be insecure and choosing not to open up to people.

Q:  You have a fashion line called Hooked by Haley Lu.  Did you bring your sense of style or influence onto the set?

HLR:  Oooh.  There is a scene, and it’s so quick.  When we go to the party, I start playing beer pong.  There’s this moment when I take off my jacket, and I’m wearing one of the tops that I crocheted!  I am really proud of it! 

Crocheting is something that I do, that I literally feel no pressure.  It’s a really good thing to have in a world where there is so much pressure.  My mom taught me how to crochet when I was eight, and I’ve been doing it ever since and coming up with patterns and designs.  It’s something that I do just creatively and to have fun. 

Jeff – a member of the Phoenix Critics Circle – has penned film reviews since 2008 and graduated from ASU’s Walter Cronkite School of Journalism.  Follow Jeff and the Phoenix Film Festival on Twitter @MitchFilmCritic and @PhoenixFilmFest, respectively.

Photos courtesy of Lunabear Studios

Arrival - Movie Review by Monte Yazzie

Arrival

Director: Denis Villeneuve

Starring: Amy Adams, Jeremy Renner, Forest Whitaker, Michael Stuhlbarg, and Mark O’Brien

“E.T.”, “Independence Day”, “The War of the Worlds”, “The Day the Earth Stood Still”, “First Encounter of the Third Kind”; these are all films that have portrayed contact with alien beings from outer space in different ways. Some of these films display a curious, confused, friendly intergalactic organism while some portray a hostile, angry, vindictive space creature. No matter how one may examine these extraterrestrials it’s undeniable that the event of such an arrival on Earth would display some interesting characteristics from our divided, emotional population.

Talented director Denis Villeneuve, who directed the impressive “Sicario” last year, returns with another remarkable film called “Arrival”. The filmmaker utilizes the premise of a science fiction film, specifically the invasion angles associated with the genre, to craft a thoughtful and tender film about communication, love, and the human condition.  It’s an incredibly well thought out film that displays the power of genre film and how, in talented hands, a story about extraterrestrials unexpectedly arriving on Earth can also be an incredibly artistic endeavor.

Dr. Louise Banks (Amy Adams), a linguistics expert, is teaching at a college when the world is disrupted by the arrival of alien spacecrafts that position themselves all across the globe. Dr. Banks is called to assist the government in establishing communication with the alien visitors; assisting her is a theoretical physicist named Ian (Jeremy Renner) and an army Colonel (Forest Whitaker). Once on board the ship the team must decipher a language in order to figure out the purpose of the extraterrestrials while the world around them grows progressively more hostile towards the unexpected visitors.

This broad synopsis is all you need to know about the story going in. It may be the best way to approach this film experience. “Arrival” does a great job of creating a detailed and complex, yet completely accessible, narrative. However, its biggest triumph is the genuine and heartfelt emotional experience that is organized along the way. Communication and language play vital roles in the composition of the film, specifically how humans communicate with each another and how they communicate the emotions that motivate their every decision. There is a strong aspect concerning language and how it is used to provide structure in the way we examine history and comprehend the future. The characters composed in the film beautifully explore these aspects, specifically the sensitive construction of Dr. Banks played by Amy Adams.

Ms. Adams conveys a character restrained by emotion yet motivated towards the process of connection. How can you have a genuine connection without emotion? It’s a compelling contrast that is expertly crafted by the actor. Jeremy Renner’s character also brings an important component to the film; the actor’s character is looking for an explanation grounded by some sense of logic, it’s a great character to utilize in the science fiction genre.

Influencing all these narrative and character aspects is the astute direction of Denis Villeneuve. The director continues to grow with every film that he orchestrates, here again displaying the themes of the film through every aspect of the filmmaking process. Mr. Villeneuve connects with director of photography Bradford Young in composing a world filled with images that build an atmosphere of disconnection that is reproduced in the characters. This is utilized in a variety of ways, either with tight close-ups that blur the world around the character or with singular shots that correlate to the loneliness experienced by the barriers imposed with humanity and with the aliens trying to communicate.

“Arrival” is an impressive experience; a film that is more about the human connection and less about the aliens and the ominous spacecrafts. It’s a film that subverts the science fiction genre in ingenious fashion, avoiding formulaic conventions while utilizing genre characteristics in intelligent ways. It’s a film that boldly goes beyond the contemporary expectations that usually defines the genre.

Monte’s Rating

4.50 out of 5.00

The Eagle Huntress - Movie Review by Jeff Mitchell

From the other side of the world, ‘The Eagle Huntress’ soars with inspiration 

Directed by:  Otto Bell

Starring:  Aisholpan Nurgaiv and Daisy Ridley

“The Eagle Huntress” – In the 2016 U.S. Presidential Election, Hillary Clinton attempted to – but could not break – this country’s ultimate glass ceiling.   On the other side of the world in Mongolia, however, a 13-year-old girl named Aisholpan attempts to shatter a sky-high – and more intimidating - glass ceiling nestled in the Altai Mountains, in trying to become a full-fledged eagle huntress.  This fascinating documentary – directed by Otto Bell – transports the audience to an unknown land, presents a little-understood culture and offers a close and personal story about this amazing teenager. 

Now, the life of a Mongolian nomad is a laborious, proud one and built on traditions.  For Aisholpan’s family, they live in a large marquee during the summer months and move to permanent housing during the winters.  Her mom raises the children and tends to the camp, and her father hunts with his eagle.  In this culture, for hundreds (or perhaps, thousands) of years, each male hunter finds an eagle, and he and his bird become partners to look for game.  Just like life in this environment, working in tandem with a winged hunting partner is not an easy proposition. 

Aisholpan, an excellent student, does not settle for easy challenges and wants to be a doctor when she grows up.  For now, she embarks on a most difficult journey: to partner with her very own eagle and emotionally grow into an eagle huntress.   

Bell’s picture does a terrific job of framing Aisholpan’s day-to-day life within the community, but he also presents breathtaking shots of the Altais with dangerously steep, rocky ledges and vast grasslands below.  This portion of Mongolia seems inviting at times, but mostly, Bell presents a harsh ecosystem in which its inhabitants need heavy coats to block dry, callous winds that could easily crackle one’s skin.  (Just picture a Mad Max movie during a frosty winter.) 

While the surroundings may be abrasive, Aisholpan’s family is certainly not.  As a tomboy apprentice, she follows her dad on his hunting trips and related duties, and her father warmly supports her interest.   This is highly unique, because the community’s elders massively frown upon women even considering hunting.  

Their beliefs are wrapped in familiar misogyny seen in countless forms across societies and locations all over the world, but here, they are completely engrained in long, long traditions.  The film displays these cultural barriers - blocking Aisholpan - when various elders deliver stern statements that explain away women’s roles in hunting.  

For Aisholpan, her focus is simply with her dad and learning her craft with a bright smile and upbeat persona.  When she does, indeed, find her own eagle, her internal light shines even brighter.  With her dad’s tutelage and her natural affinity to partner with her beautiful, soaring bird, she can climb to brand new figurative heights. 

The film climbs cinematic heights too, as it works as an informative lesson about this faraway community and its way of life.  By introducing Aisholpan, she injects a fresh approach for the audience, but also for local families.  Since eagle hunter traditions move from father to son, Aisholpan clearly breaks the mold.  With her warmth, talent and love of her winged partner, they are welcome ingredients for success and inspiration to girls and everyone else. 

Daisy Ridley - an inspiration to girls all over the world in “Star Wars: The Force Awakens” (2015) - narrates the documentary, however, her voice seems to appear for only a few minutes during the 87-minute runtime.   No, do not run to “The Eagle Huntress” to hear Ms. Ridley speak for five or so minutes.  Go to this documentary to see a most gifted teen with a big heart. 

(3/4 stars) 

Jeff – a member of the Phoenix Critics Circle – has penned film reviews since 2008 and graduated from ASU’s Walter Cronkite School of Journalism.  Follow Jeff and the Phoenix Film Festival on Twitter @MitchFilmCritic and @PhoenixFilmFest, respectively.

Loving - Movie Review by Jeff Mitchell

The historical drama ‘Loving’ lives up to its name

Written and directed by:  Jeff Nichols

Starring:  Joel Edgerton, Ruth Negga

"Loving” – “Your blood doesn’t know what it wants to be.”

In 1958, Sheriff Brooks (Marton Csokas) utters these words to Virginia bricklayer Richard Loving (Joel Edgerton), because he, a white man, married Mildred (Ruth Negga), a black woman.  In that place and at that time, interracial marriages were illegal.  In 2016, Virginia’s old state law does not even seem possible, but the sheriff arrested Richard and Mildred for exactly that reason. 

Jeff Nichols – known for slow burning thrillers like “Take Shelter” (2011) and “Midnight Special” (2016) – writes and directs his first movie based upon a true story.  Even though “Loving” is a historical drama, Nichols’ signature touch gives the film an edge, bathed in quiet intensity.

Now, the movie opens with a moment that is the opposite of intense and is best described by the film’s title.  Shortly after dusk, Richard and Mildred sit on a porch and exchange tender verbal and nonverbal cues, and the scene clearly conveys that they enjoy a devoted, caring relationship.  A few scenes later, he takes her to a lush field and proclaims that he will build a house for them, and the camera slowly moves towards her face that captures pure joy.   Despite knowing Virginia’s marriage laws, they decide to travel out of state and get hitched, but the harsh legal rules quickly follow them when they return. 

Although Nichols could present several angles of Richard and Mildred’s story, he smartly focuses on their innermost perseverance and the personal toll that the law took on their family for years.  In the beginning, Richard appears to have all the answers (for their relationship) until their legal troubles start.  Edgerton’s shifts Richard’s outlook from self-assurance to fear and doubt, as the consequences of their decision are too large for him to absorb.  At that point Negga’s Mildred develops a tranquil strength and looks for legal means to right the wrong-headed law.  The film absolutely depicts their desire for a happy, legal existence within their home state, but they express it very differently.   While Richard feels overwhelmed and regularly looks over his shoulder for the law’s long arm to grab him by the neck, Mildred steps out of her comfort zone to pursue outside legal help.

Nichols settles into his comfort zone as well by delivering key scenes which feature Richard’s anxiety.  For instance, while heading across the border into Virginia at night, Richard and Mildred’s drive on a winding country road spins like a spy film.  Every car with bright lights could be law enforcement ready to ship them to prison, and much of the film keeps this overall uneasiness. 

Conversely, Richard and Mildred push forward with an unbreakable bond and show their love with an ever-present and steady presence at home.  She is the family’s caretaker, and he carries his lunch pail and yardstick-long level to and from construction sites.  We see this play out repeatedly, as they are simply a family grinding through the trials of raising kids and putting food on the table.  Even though they do not display much physical affection, their relationship is never in doubt. 

Both Edgerton and Negga’s performances capture a rustic, authentic relationship under environmental duress but thankfully, none really exists between them.  Edgerton’s work as Richard is pretty transformational, and Negga carries Mildred’s tranquil strength.  Mildred certainly is the film’s soul, as she attempts to bridge her marriage with the legal means to legitimize it.  

They also fight racism, but it mostly appears in the form of an occasional look that turns into a stare or a casual choice of wording.  On the other hand, during the original arrest, Nichols introduces an overt racist moment when the sheriff and his deputies enter the Lovings’ front and bedroom doors.   

Virginia owned warped reasons for their law, and the sheriff’s comment that Richard’s “blood doesn’t know what it wants to be” will haunt you.  After the movie ended, I clearly wished that 1958 was 200 years ago.  Sadly, it is not, but “Loving” presents a recent history lesson about a devoted couple which will resonate well into the future.

(3.5/4 stars)

Jeff – a member of the Phoenix Critics Circle – has penned film reviews since 2008 and graduated from ASU’s Walter Cronkite School of Journalism.  Follow Jeff and the Phoenix Film Festival on Twitter @MitchFilmCritic and @PhoenixFilmFest, respectively.

Write here...

Moonlight - Movie Review by Kaely Monahan

‘Moonlight’ poetically gives voice to gay black experience

By Kaely Monahan

“Moonlight” is a quiet film, just like its protagonist. It invites you into the most intimate of settings: the mind of a young, black gay boy. It follows his story through adulthood. Yet for all its watercolor delicacy, "Moonlight" is a movie about strength and what defines it.

In simple terms, the film is about this poor, black gay boy growing in a ghetto neighborhood in Florida. There are drugs, bullying and even glimmers of gangs, but the film is not categorized by any of those things. Rather, it is simply the stage wherein bigger life questions are asked.

“Moonlight” could have very easily gone completely wrong. It could have fallen into cliché and stereotyping on so many levels, from race to underprivileged America to the minority gay experience. But writer and director Barry Jenkins avoids all the pitfalls by choosing instead a hero whose strength lies in introspective quiet. The lead, Chiron may be a man of few words, but he is far from silent. Instead, his life is seen through the hardships around him and his reserve, at times, seems more defiant than meek.

Set up in three acts, Chiron, is played first by young Alex Hibbert. Through his eyes, we meet a young boy who doesn’t fit in and desperately wants to. Bullied by his peers, slowly disregarded by his mother, he finds solace and stability in another wealthier black family. Which, as it turns out, is affluent because the head of the house is a drug seller. Teenage Chiron is played by a gangly Ashton Sanders who beautifully embodies the awkward stage of teenagehood. From learning how to stand up for himself to discovering his sexual awakening, Sanders lends a vulnerability to Chiron that is wholly believable.

Finally, adult Chiron is played by a brooding and intensely introvert Trevante Rhodes. This Chiron is not what we would have expected from such a reserved boy. Having spent some years in prison and now a drug dealer himself, the man seems at odds with his true self--yet he challenges anyone to say he should be otherwise.  

Chiron is powerfully quiet and everything is internalized. It is not a simple part to play as the character’s thoughts are completely evoked through action and cinematography. Young Hibbert makes you want to reach out and hold him. Wide-eyed, scared but also rebellious, young Chiron is reminiscent of any young boy. And that is part of the film's success. At each stage of Chiron's life, he feels real. You forget you're watching a movie and get lost in the story.

"Moonlight" addresses the usual tenants of a growing of age film but also challenges them. What does it mean to be a black kid growing up in the ghetto? What is homophobia? What does it mean to be a strong man? What is friendship and can it survive betrayal? Director-writer Jenkins also flips around the stereotypes, playing with ideas of what the gay experience is; who drug dealers are; and how to find yourself.

Moonlight - Movie Review by Monte Yazzie

Moonlight

Director: Barry Jenkins

Starring: Alex R. Hibbert, Jaden Piner, Mahershala Ali, Naomie Harris, Janelle Monáe, Ashton Sanders, Jharrel Jerome, Trevante Rhodes, and André Holland

Films like “Boyz N The Hood”, “Menace II Society”, “Dope”, “Straight Outta Compton”, portray a world for young men that is fraught with violence, poverty, and drugs. These films depict young black men struggling to escape, working to make ends meet by any means necessary, and many times falling into the trappings of their environment. Scroll through your social media feed or turn the television to any news agency and it’s easy to see that the reality of the fictionalized world isn’t too far off from the lived in world.

This makes Barry Jenkins film “Moonlight”, an adaptation of a play entitled “In Moonlight Black Boys Look Blue” by Tarell Alvin McCraney, an exceptional achievement in filmmaking. “Moonlight” displays how violence or the threat of violence can dehumanize and destroy young people, is shows the depth of poverty for entire communities, and it also illustrates the heartbreaking affect of drug abuse. But that is a small piece of a much bigger and breathtakingly beautiful story. “Moonlight” is a film composed of moments, small pieces in the developing life of an adolescent child, who then becomes a maturing teenager, and finally grows into an adult man. Each piece portrays the same person but is played by different actors that fit the specific age.

We are introduced to a young, quiet boy named Chiron (Alex R. Hibbert) running away from some kids who are trying to beat him up. Chiron, nicknamed Little, finds safety in an abandoned apartment. Juan (Mahershala Ali) is a local drug dealer who helps Chiron and offers him dinner and a place to sleep. Chiron lives in a housing project with his mother Paula (Naomie Harris), a drug addict who ignores and takes advantage of him. The story doesn’t stay here; Chiron is also portrayed as a self-conscious and confused teenager, tormented by a bully at his high school and befriended by a friend from his childhood. Chiron is then shown as an adult, a changed man with a confidence that is ultimately a protective mask so that he doesn’t have to experience the pain that has come to define his life.

From the first frames “Moonlight” establishes a very calm, quiet quality. Even when the film becomes aggressive or ominous, a unique atmosphere is constructed that changes the way you analyze the emotions and attitudes of the characters. It almost feels like standing in the eye of the storm, watching destructive things happen all around you.  Director Barry Jenkins begins to ask very tough questions from the beginning. Chiron answers many of these questions without words but rather with his actions. You can feel the discomfort, the awkwardness, the struggle, the pain, and the vulnerability in everything that he does. Mr. Jenkins shows significant restraint, never attempting to manipulate these themes but instead introducing them and letting the characters progress authentically and specifically. It would be easy to turn this film into a blatant perspective on race or a deliberate analysis on male gender roles, however Mr. Jenkins is both purposeful and ambiguous with his character choices. The director deconstructs aspects of race and gender, at times providing enough stereotype or easy categorization to then destroy whatever you perceived or assumed about the characters.

The filmmaking technique utilized throughout compliments the narrative perfectly. The photography is exceptionally restrained and simplistic, composing that independent film look viewers are very keen to identify and manipulating it to create stunning moments of everyday life, both the delicate and painful moments. For instance the comfort of sitting at the dinner table in an early scene, the uncertainty of the beach at night in the second act, and the freedom of a road trip at the end of the film, it’s all utilized to bring more identification to Chiron’s changed character. The music also composes another powerful element as well, whether the use of Aretha Franklin’s “One Step Ahead” to bring definition in certain scenes, the classical pieces during transformative character transitions, or the use of the hip-hop song “Cell Therapy” by the group Goodie Mob in punctuate Chiron specifically within the framing of the story, it all serves a very important reason to the structure of the narrative and the development of the characters. It's some of the best use of music in film this year.

“Moonlight” is a beautiful and at times complex film with exceptional performances all around. It’s a coming-of-age film, a film about sexual identification, a film exploring masculinity, a film that doesn’t succumb to easy stereotypes or simple exploitation. What “Moonlight” does best is show the power that a film can possess, and how that power has the ability to transcend, destroy barriers of preconception.

Monte’s Rating

5.00 out of 5.00