John Wick: Chapter 2 - Move Review by Monte Yazzie

John Wick: Chapter 2

Director: Chad Stahelski

Starring: Keanu Reeves, Riccardo Scamarcio, Ian McShane, Ruby Rose, Common, and Laurence Fishburne

The modern action film, with all the digital flash and flair, gunfire and explosions, isn’t much different from the action films of the past. Look all the way back to the classic western film and you’ll see that the themes are all very similar. How many times has the lone-hero-seeking-revenge been done?

“John Wick” is a new action figure composed of many of the old classic hero tropes, except John Wick’s comeuppance is far more methodical and swift than others like him. Think of Arnold Schwarzenegger in the 1980’s film “Commando”, where the retired Black Ops specialist takes out an entire island of bad guys; John Wick is faster. Think of Jason Statham in the “Transporter” films, where the precision driver takes on scores of tough guys with every martial arts move in the book; John Wick rarely needs more than one move. Perhaps a worthy movie scene comparison would be Bruce Lee in “Enter the Dragon”, except replace Lee’s nunchaku with a handgun.

“John Wick: Chapter 2” knows exactly what it is, and it doesn’t waste much time getting into the action.  The film starts up quickly, on the heels of the last film, with a vehicle chase on the city streets. We find John still trying to get out of the killing game, of course by killing his way out. Though John, still referred to as “The Bogeyman”, doesn’t have much time to rest. A blood promise, one arranged to free him the first time around, pulls him back in and sends him overseas to make good on a contract. However, this contract has the potential to keep John in the killing business for the rest of his life.

While much hasn’t changed in terms of character and theme, John Wick is still nonchalant and vengeance is still the primary motivator, the world has expanded with delightful results. In the first film one of the most interesting aspects was how the world of the contract assassin worked, “John Wick: Chapter 2” provides some behind the desk insight. Writer Derek Kolstad does a great job restraining this aspect of composition; we are given brief insights into the operations of the assassin society and how a contract for a target is made, but it’s never overdone. Too much exposition would take away from the primary reason this movie exists, which is the satisfaction of the bullet ballet.

Sequels are always bigger and bolder. While the body count is bigger, the locations and designs of where and how John Wick wreaks destruction are much bolder. A subway car, a foreign nightclub, an art gallery carnival mirror maze, if you could compose an action scene in a striking location director Chad Stahelski has probably already thought of it. While these decisions make everything look fantastic, there are times when it also feels like a big distraction; a new place with interesting designs to keep you from noticing the repetition of John Wick’s effective combat. In the latter few minutes of the film these aspects become especially noticeable, though there are still quite a few exceptional compositions like two men vying for an upperhand in a subway station. It’s what this film aims to be, comic bloody mayhem.

“John Wick: Chapter 2” continues to embrace its B-movie action film persona. While the production value has been upgraded to A-list standards, the core of the film still relishes in the mayhem it inflicts on everything and everyone that gets in the path of John Wick. If you are a fan of the first film, this bloodier sequel will not disappoint.

Monte’s Rating

3.50 out of 5.00

The LEGO Batman Movie - Movie Review by Jeff Mitchell

‘The LEGO Batman Movie’ delivers plenty of bat-laughs

Directed by:  Chris McKay

Starring:  Will Arnett, Zach Galifianakis, Michael Cera, Rosario Dawson, and Ralph Fiennes

“The LEGO Batman Movie” – Everything but the kitchen sink. 

I mean, everything but the bat-kitchen sink. 

Wait.  I meant to write, everything but the LEGO-bat-kitchen sink. 

You see, in the sparkling, brand new animated picture about DC Comics’ Caped Crusader, director Chris McKay and five screenwriters throw, heave, chuck, splatter, pitch, and toss 1,000,006 pop culture nods on the big screen except the LEGO-bat-kitchen sink.  Most of them circle around Batman, but actually, that might not be entirely accurate.  McKay and his clever writing crew drop in other, unexpected worlds outside of Gotham City’s universe, including Michael Jackson, Dracula and a famous Tom Cruise movie, to name a few.

In the world of animation, anything is possible, and “The LEGO Batman Movie” unequivocally stretches that “law” to extremes to the delight of just about any diehard or casual fan of comic books, video games, the recent explosion comic book movies, animated films, and of course, the lead character.  

Admittedly, with a lengthy 1-hour 44-minute runtime, this dizzying picture could stretch your patience too, but there is no denying that it is funny and extremely clever.

Speaking of funny and extremely clever, Joker (Zach Galifianakis) stars as the main villain opposite Batman (Will Arnett), and he targets a Gotham City energy plant for his latest bout of mayhem.  During the opening sequence, Batman saves the (initial) day and rights Joker’s wrongs, but while buying in to the hero-stops-villain narrative, the spectacular visuals of - seemingly – hundreds of thousands of LEGOs dancing can leave one speechless, or at least in downright awe.

Now, I have not built LEGO toys in decades, but I do recall becoming somewhat frustrated when constructing those colorful, prepackaged pieces into exactly the correct formation that appeared on the paper directions and the front of the boxes.  In other words, building LEGOs can take an awfully long time, and those memories provide a rudimentary point of reference to the mindboggling movement on the big screen in 2017.  

How did they actually make this movie?  I have absolutely no idea.

Well, the picture’s emotional core is a great idea, and it does comically resonate in way that we have never seen Batman.  Batman - full of proud machismo and bravado - needs to take inventory.  Not of his collection of bat-gadgets, but of himself.  While he crows about his core workouts and never skipping “leg day”, his greatest challenge in “The LEGO Batman Movie” is to rely on and trust others.  In this case, these others are a pair of familiar faces, but I will refrain from revealing them here. 

Sometimes, Batman’s personal journey does slow down the film’s breakneck pace.  For example, immediately after the wild opening, the mood - comparatively - becomes eerily silent when Batman travels home, embraces his solitude and microwaves his dinner.   This is done intentionally, but the shift feels like you are stepping off a riotous, 90-mph roller coaster ride and then walking down a quiet, dark hallway, guided by an invisible chaperone.  The sensations of the colorful blitzkrieg of animation still frolic in your head, while you wonder if the film will hand out more tickets to equally enthralling cinematic thrill rides.  McKay and company absolutely deliver, and it turns out that these few brief pauses of reflection are needed to collect one’s faculties.  

This is because the script contains so many visual gags and calls to the friendly ghosts of Batman-past (and many other franchises), it is simply impossible to catch them all, and I am certain that I missed more half of them.  Quite frankly, my “catch rate” probably hovers around 10 percent, but does that mean that I’ll watch “The LEGO Batman Movie” nine more times? 

Don’t bet on it, but I was certainly happy to hop on this animated roller coaster once, step off, take a measured walk, find a comfortable bench, and wonder if the filmmakers actually did include the LEGO-bat-kitchen sink.   It surely is possible.

(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.

The Lure - Movie Review by Jeff Mitchell

‘The Lure’ lures us into its wild, musical weirdness

Directed by:  Agnieszka Smoczynska

Written by:  Robert Bolesto

Starring:  Marta Mazurek, Michalina Olszanska, Kinga Preis, Andrzej Konopka, and Jakub Gierszal

“The Lure” – Mermaid movies are almost as rare as reported sightings of the finned-ladies of the sea.  Arguably, the most famous mermaid film within the last fifty years is the comedy/romance “Splash” (1984), but Disney’s “The Little Mermaid” (1989) could be a close second.  Now, I did see “Mermaids” in the theatre back in 1990, but sadly or perhaps fortunately, I do not recall much about it, other than it was a vehicle for Winona Ryder and Cher.   In 2017, a new mermaid film arrives in American theatres, and it will not share a broad appeal like “Splash” and “The Little Mermaid” do, but “The Lure” is a catch.  A kooky, wild and daring catch!

Director Agnieszka Smoczynska’s new film – set in present-day Warsaw - wears plenty of hats: comedy, horror, musical, and love story lids.  At first blush, these genres seemingly describe “The Little Shop of Horrors” (1960, 1986).  In one sense, that holds true, because both films introduce a harmless-looking, unknown outsider(s) to a human environment, but “The Lure” audaciously delves into sexual and kinky territory with striking, avant-garde visuals and storytelling, sometimes reminiscent of director Alejandro Jodorowsky or David Lynch.  In other words, do not pack the kids in the minivan and ship them off to the theatre for this mermaid film, but for adults who appreciate a unique experience, “The Lure” is your picture.

The film opens with two members of a popular club band - Perkusista (Andrzej Konopka) and Mietek (Jakub Gierszal) – who unexpectedly discover a pair of girls swimming in a river.  With only their heads above water, Golden (Michalina Olszanska) and Silver (Marta Mazurek) sing to them, like enchanted sirens towards their unsuspecting prey.  Youthful and beautiful, Golden and Silver hypnotize Perkusista and Mietek, while insisting - through song – not to worry.  They “won’t eat” them.  Apparently, Perkusista and Mietek’s radar for danger is set incredibly low, because they and the band’s female lead singer, Wokalistka (Kinga Preis), bring the young women into the club, Adria, for a tryout.  

Right away, Golden and Silver (who actually don’t have blonde and silver hair, but black and red, respectively) embrace their new performer roles as backup singers and dancers.  Completely adorable, they sport cute outfits and look like flight attendants from the 1960s, as they reap massive applause and smiles from the crowd.  Sure, Golden and Silver gel with the band, but they also show off their mermaid selves - tail and all - onstage, when they purposely get wet.  Just add water! 

Refreshingly, no evil scientists appear to cart the girls away, and Adria’s patrons accept them, no questions asked.  Smoczynska cultivates a positive environment (at least initially), while the music escorts the girls on their land-established travels, including a wonderful, choreographed number in a local shopping mall.   Anchored by an inviting techno - and sometimes retro - soundtrack, Smoczynska pulls us into this dystopian, fantastical weirdness where these two outsiders find their way in their new world, which of course, does not always bounce in rainbows and lollipops. 

The girls stroll through pools of sexuality and love, but their travels of desire sometimes spawn sinister consequences.  Frolicking can turn bloody at a drop of tail, and although the horror never really creates massive scares, the picture delves into some extreme gore that grabs your attention.   Wonderfully concocted in an unconventional blend of sights and sounds, “The Lure” lures us into an entertaining, 92-minute trance.  Indeed, mermaid movies might be rare, but any film that can hypnotize an audience for an hour and a half truly is uncommon in the world of cinema. 

(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.

The Space Between Us - Movie Review by Jeff Mitchell

‘The Space Between Us’ should give its audience some space

Director: Peter Chelsom

Writer:  Allan Loeb

Starring:  Asa Butterfield, Britt Robertson, Gary Oldman, and Carla Gugino

“The Space Between Us” – Long distance relationships are difficult.  Sharing your emotions, feelings, wants, and dreams with someone primarily through text, Skype, phone calls, and photos over an extended period of time – even with an occasional weekend, in-person visit – can be a taxing and emotional drain on a couple.  The only real relief in sight is the eventual day that the pair live and breathe in the same general space, or at least the same zip code. 

Tulsa (Britt Robertson) and Gardner (Asa Butterfield) are not in a romantic relationship.  They are pen pals, but Gardner wishes for more.  His roadblock is the whole distance-thing. 

About 140,000,000 miles of distance! 

You see, sometime in the not-too-distant future, a NASA-based program called Genesis – led by Nathaniel Shepherd (Gary Oldman) - embarks on Mars settlement program, and an astronaut gives birth to Gardner on our solar system’s fourth planet.   Sixteen years later, the space between Gardner and Tulsa – who lives in Colorado – makes it problematic for a dinner/movie date on a casual Saturday evening.  Fortunately, after some significant lobbying, Gardner hops aboard a spaceship heading to Earth, and he carries secret plans of romance with Tulsa. 

Although space exploration flags the backdrop to “The Space Between Us”, the movie is less about science fiction, and more about a teenage romance, like a futuristic “The Boy in the Plastic Bubble” (1976).  Gardner’s upbringing on a Martian environment renders his internal organs vulnerable to Earth’s environment, but with a sudden exposure to blue sky, green trees, American fast food, and a pretty girl, throw caution to his new planet’s wind, right? 

After a while, one has to wonder if director Peter Chelsom and screenwriter Allan Loeb threw caution to the wind, because this interplanetary story – albeit with good intentions – feels sloppy, sophomoric and silly.  These feelings begin to arise, because for starters, Chelsom devotes next-to-zero time in establishing the lead characters.  Sure, we see Gardner’s bouts of cabin fever and complaints of loneliness, but they seemingly occur for just a few minutes before this lanky teen is whisked away to Earth.  In Colorado, Tulsa is a troubled, foster care system tomboy who rides motorcycles, fends for herself and cops an attitude towards her schoolmates, like some out-of-body combo of Amanda (Tatum O’Neal) and Kelly (Jackie Earle Haley) from “The Bad News Bears” (1976).

Chelsom rushes this shaky relationship between a naïve boy and street-smart girl without an emotional connection for the audience and then sends the two on an inane road trip across the western states.  Robertson and Butterfield are strong, young actors and admittedly do their best to portray this mismatched couple with Tulsa’s tough girl act and Gardner’s inexperienced weirdness.   For example, when Gardner sees a horse for the first time or enjoys his fifth hamburger, their reactions are some of the film’s best moments.   Unfortunately, their quality time plays under this clumsy journey with Nathaniel and an astronaut named Kendra (Carla Gugino) chasing them via corporate vans and helicopters. 

While Nathaniel and Kendra fret like hysterical teens who were just told that Taylor Swift is giving up music, Tulsa and Gardner bond over a series of recycled script devices like a renegade plane ride and a shopping spree, as they also steal multiple cars to get from here to there.  Not only do the sequences seem tired, but the film feels like Chelsom and Loeb jammed together puzzle pieces which do not completely fit.  Many scenes lack simple common sense.  For example, in the third act, none of the characters sport any astronaut or safety gear during an intense space shuttle ride. 

In other instances, the filmmakers manufacture random fulcrums to move the narrative along.  In one scene, Gardner needs to escape a NASA facility, so he releases the pressure from some air tanks – with some unknown function – as an obvious diversion.  This fools everyone on the big screen but completely puzzles the theatre audience as to why the air tanks even cause a figurative smoke screen.  At another point, the kids steal a BMW, but later, they sport a large blue truck.  Now, admittedly, I may have missed this particular stolen car exchange, but I was probably sans my glasses and rubbing my temples for relief, which happened on several occasions during my two-hour experience.   Admittedly, I think that a preteen audience might willingly ignore these miscues and just enjoy the adventure with its Disney Channel-like soundtrack, but for me, the pain ran deep.

Thankfully, pain is only temporary, and the emotional mark that this movie left will eventually fade.  Well, rather than let my relationship with “The Space Between Us” slowly fade, I’ve had enough. I am breaking up with it and keeping my distance.

(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.

Rings - Movie Review by Jeff Mitchell

‘Rings’ would be more appealing if it went in circles

Director:  F. Javier Gutierrez

Writers:  David Loucka, Jacob Estes and Akiva Goldsman

Starring:  Matilda Anna Ingrid Lutz, Alex Roe, Johnny Galecki, Vincent D’Onofrio, and Bonnie Morgan

“Rings” – “I need to see this through!” – Julia   

“Why?” – Holt (Julia’s boyfriend)

About 70 minutes into “Rings” - the latest sequel to 2002’s “The Ring” - Julia (Matilda Anna Ingrid Lutz) has the above exchange with Holt (Alex Roe), because she feels compelled to discover the secrets of the infamous villain, Samara (Bonnie Morgan). 

At that particular moment, I realized that life imitates art, because I was having that same internal dialogue and was thinking, ‘No matter how dull and lifeless this 102-minute horror movie may be, I need to see it through to the end.’

Why?  ‘It’s my job.’

Hopefully, my uneventful movie experience can save you from a similar fate, because, quite frankly, “Rings” certainly is one humdrum horror flick, with its biggest scare coming from a dog’s bark.  One simple jump scare.

This film does, however, occupy another 101 minutes and 58 seconds of screen time, so let’s start from the top. 

A biology professor, Gabriel (Johnny Galecki), discovers a VCR at a flea market and finds a heinous video tape that unleashes an evil spirit named Samara, seven days after one views its contents.  For some highly questionable research reasons, he persuades many of his students to watch the tape, including Holt, a young intern.  Once Holt does not return his girlfriend’s (Julia’s) calls and texts, she drives to campus, discovers his life hangs in the balance and becomes entangled in this deadly, supernatural web.  

The original “The Ring” spun mountains of tension, because Samara and her intentions were wholly unknown at the time, while the film’s protagonist (Naomi Watts) attempted to thwart a fatal attack against the tick tock of a seven-day clock.  In 2002 - assuming one did not watch the previous “Ringu” films from Japan - the journey into this ill-fated world, in which a waterlogged corpse with gangly, black hair climbs out of an abandoned well and piles up her body count, was new.

In 2017, this act feels tired, because an informed audience knows the rules of engagement with Samara and how to avoid danger.  

First of all, if a character has not actually seen the video, he or she is no danger.  Due to this rule, one of the signature sequences within the first 30 minutes leaves no surprises or scares.  Julia finds herself locked-in with Holt’s friend in an apartment.  Now, Holt’s friend viewed the video and Samara targets her in the living room.  Even though Julia cowers in the adjacent bathroom, she harbors absolutely no risk.  

Secondly, the seven-day rule buys the victim time.  In this case, Julia eventually does view the video’s contents, but her life is not at stake until the seventh day arrives.  During a majority of the film, director F. Javier Gutierrez throws a number of nightmare visions at Julia, including snakes, iron chains and other sinister images.  Since these images – during “Day One” through “Day Six” - are clearly non-lethal visions, Julia’s life is never jeopardized.  These repetitive sequences plainly go through the motions, because the real worry will not appear until “Day 7”. 

Outside of the aforementioned, harmless attack and some daytime nightmares, Julia drags Holt to the tiny town of Sacrament Valley to literally and figuratively dig up dirt on Samara to end (or free her from) her reign of terror.  This pair of one-dimensional characters play Sherlock Holmes to investigate clues (like a church steeple and a trail of bugs) and meet various small-town residents with less personality than your average “Scooby-Doo” character. 

Personally, I was hoping that the bed and breakfast owner (Jill Jane Clements) would randomly blurt out, “You meddling kids.” 

Alas, no such luck.    

The only worthy piece to this slow-moving puzzle is the always charismatic Vincent D’Onofrio, who plays a blind man named Burke.  Thankfully, most of his precious few onscreen moments at least bring some life to the story, but then again, even D’Onofrio cannot salvage this lost horror film.  At least he added one more reason for me “to see this through”, other than it’s my job.    

(1/4 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.

A Dog's Purpose - Movie Review by Kaely Monahan

‘A Dog’s Purpose’: Sweet, fluffy, cute, but paradoxical

By Kaely Monahan

As far as feel-good movies go, A Dog’s Purpose will give some warm-fuzzies. The film revisits the what dog’s purpose is through several doggie reincarnations, starting with a stray puppy who is killed by the pound. Not exactly how one would think a film filled with cute dogs would start off. Not to mention, it’s unnecessary and is a lackluster beginning.

The story really begins when the dog, voiced by Josh Gad, is reincarnated into a golden retriever and is adopted by a boy and his family. Christened Bailey, or as he interprets it, “Bailey-Bailey-Bailey-Bailey,” we watch him grow up with his human and learn what it means to be a boy’s best friend.

But old age strikes and Bailey dies and is born again as a female German Shepherd whose human partner is perpetually sad. The cycle repeats with him reincarnating as a corgi who is a lonely black woman’s best friend and then finally as a neglected mutt who finds his way back to his original owner’s farm.

On the surface, this film is cute and sweet and plucks at your heart strings. However, it leaves more questions than answers. If dogs can reincarnate, does this mean they have innumerable lives? How do we know who is their first owner? How do they know who their first owner is? Is there a limit to doggie lives they can have? Perhaps we’re taking this too seriously, but it does beg the question—why does Bailey’s boy matter more than the lonely cop? Or the single woman? Are not their stories just as important?

The film wouldn’t have you think so as the majority of the film is spent on the front end with Bailey and the boy, and then it rushes to get through the other reincarnations. The pacing is so off that it’s hard to become fully invested in the film. Even this critic, who is prone to copious tears in animal movies, only cried a little and only once. I fully expected massive waterworks for this film.

Based off a book by the same name, A Dog’s Purpose had at its helm Swedish director Lasse Hallström. Apparently, he’s no stranger to working with animals as he’s directed My Life As a Dog and Hachi: A Dog’s Tale. Under Hallström’s guidance, this film proves to be cute and funny, despite the pacing issues. There’s plenty of adorable dog shenanigans to keep you smiling.

Josh Gad, beloved from Broadway to Disney, brings his irrepressible enthusiasm to his voice-over part. His performance will win you over and carry you through the story. He almost convinces you to ignore the plot holes. Almost.

Ultimately, A Dog’s Purpose is a lesson for humans rather than dogs. It reminds us to live in the now and be there for others, and don’t forget to live life to the fullest.      

Toni Erdmann - Movie Review by Jeff Mitchell

Huller is sensational in the comedic, resonant and soulful ‘Toni Erdmann’

Writer/director:  Maren Ade

Starring:  Sandra Huller and Peter Simonischek

“Toni Erdmann” – “To a father growing old, nothing is dearer than a daughter.” – Euripides

Winfried (Peter Simonischek) is a piano teacher.  With a rumpled wardrobe and a full mop of silver hair, this 60-something gives lessons in his home and plays the black and white keys for recitals at a local school.  During one particular number, the children mark themselves in zombie makeup and dedicate a song to an outgoing administrator.  The lyrics “here today, gone tomorrow” stand out during the piece, while Winfried – also caked in makeup – plays along. 

This small, early scene says so much about Winfried’s life in two ways.  First, not unlike playing the piano, he seemingly wishes to play all the time.  Play practical jokes.  Second, his beloved and only child - his daughter Ines (Sandra Huller) - works as a consultant, far away in Bucharest, Romania, while he lives a generally lonely existence in his German hometown.  

“Gone tomorrow” is his unfortunate present. 

Well, writer/director Maren Ade wraps an absolutely marvelous cinematic present about a trying relationship between a father and daughter.  With a truly breezy runtime of 2 hours and 42 minutes, she unlocks deep, soulful themes, surprises with unexpected and hilarious comedic turns and offers - hands down - the best foreign language film that I have seen over the last 13 months (in other words, including 2016). 

Winfried probably sees Ines once every 13 months, but most likely, these lapses of contact stretch even longer.  While they seem worlds apart from a physical distance, Winfried and Ines could not be more emotionally different.

Ade lays this groundwork rather quickly.  In addition, to Winfried’s disheveled appearance, she figuratively presents him like a defeated, aging comedian performing in near-empty theatres with stale material and lost, 30-year-old social references.  Of course, Winfried is not a professional comedian, but he does turn to his unique brand of comedy - odd practical jokes - in his daily life, as a way to (attempt to) connect, with just about everyone. 

He, however, almost constantly seems out of step. 

For instance, he attends a lunch party at his ex-wife’s house to see Ines but shows up at the front door with zombie makeup (from the previously-mentioned school concert).  He always carries a false set of “monster teeth” in his front pocket and pops them in for no apparent reason, other than to garner reactions and on occasion, falls into his alter-ego and tells stories about his fictitious life coaching business. 

I’m certain that millions – if not billions - of daughters need a global support group to heal the mortification from their fathers’ amateur attempts at embarrassing humor, but Ines has to be the planet’s number one case study.  

You see, while Winfried’s unique strain of arrested development embodies him, not an ounce of teenage frivolity passed along to her.  Ines is a workaholic, and her job pays her exorbitant amounts of money to concoct business strategies to slash payrolls.  It is a humorless reality, but as a skilled professional, she stays in beautiful high rise apartments with luxurious creature comforts.   Ade smartly contrasts Ines’ plush living arrangements with her antiseptic workspace. In one scene, Ines delivers a critical client presentation in the most lifeless, bland conference room this side of Initech from “Office Space” (1999).  We see that Ines carries heaps of responsibility for an important job, but her actual work and its surroundings are ultimately soulless.

On the other hand, Winfried’s unexpected trip to Bucharest tries to breathe soul into her world, but it is unwanted color.  She certainly needs some sort of levity, but not from her dad, as only embarrassed kids perceive.  Winfried badly misses her, but his behavior (mostly) ranges from a jokey pest to a ticking time bomb.  Apparently, he can simply appear anywhere, much to the shock and disapproval of Ines.  At the moment, her life is consumed with closing a big deal, and her dad’s repeated stumbles into her work ecosystem raise the tension during several key, mouth-agape moments.  Many times, Winfried’s includes his infamous monster teeth (and more) during the most inopportune times when working his clumsy anti-appeal.   

Throughout the story, Ade introduces sympathy towards each character.  It primarily rests with Ines, but it volleys between the two.  Neither Winfried or Ines are antagonists, but misunderstood protagonists, whose parent/child connection needs extensive calibration through measured doses of quality time. 

Ade’s rich script devotes heaps of resonant quality time with Ines and Winfried, and both Huller and Simonischek rise to the challenge and embrace their characters’ toxic chemistry, but Ade offers enlightening insight into both as individuals, especially Ines. While Huller explores Ines’ complicated DNA, she delivers an absolutely sensational performance. 

During the constant barrage of her dad’s gags, Ines holds herself together in public forums, but allows the movie audience to see her obvious frustration “beautifully” bubble to the surface with subtle looks, slightly uneasy gestures and swallows of anger.  No, Ines is not simply an overachieving robot, despite Winfried’s perceptions.  She wishes to stretch herself emotionally, but does not possess the tools to do so. 

This becomes especially clear during three highly, highly memorable scenes:  an intimate moment with her boyfriend, a party with her work colleagues and a particular musical number.  In one place, she does not convey her vulnerability enough, expresses way too much of herself during another and oddly and wonderfully combines both during the third scene. 

In addition to calibrating the connection to her dad, she needs to get in tune with herself.  Embracing a work/life balance is the right recipe, and perhaps rest and reflection are the initial ingredients.  Surprisingly, Ines does relax a bit when her dad is near, because she does allow herself to nap on a few occasions.  Perhaps these quiet pauses are the beginning of her new journey to happiness.  Perhaps not.  Either way, Winfried will want to support her.  He might carry his monster teeth in tow, but nothing is dearer to him than Ines and the constant hope of “here today, here tomorrow.”

(4/4 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.

Split - Movie Review by Monte Yazzie

Split

Director: M. Night Shyamalan

Starring: James McAvoy, Anya Taylor-Joy, Haley Lu Richardson, Jessica Sula, and Betty Buckley

M. Night Shyamalan is on a career upswing and “Split” is somewhat of a return to an earlier form for the director of the standout fright film “The Sixth Sense” and the superhero influenced “Unbreakable”. Mr. Shyamalan was, and still is, unfortunately type casted as a director known for surprising, shocking twist endings. This makes watching his films somewhat of a difficult and frustrating ordeal because of the need to overanalyze every aspect. Still, minus a few films, Mr. Shyamalan has crafted a career that indulges in the art of the mystery and the writer/director displays with “Split” that he can still build an effectively suspenseful film that keeps you wondering what’s going to happen next.

“Split” is about a man (James McAvoy) of many names, this is because of the many personalities that fight for the spotlight in his mind. The first personality we are introduced to is the cleanliness obsessed Dennis who invades a car filled with three teenage girls, drugs them, and kidnaps them. Dennis is just one of 23 other personalities, or “alters” as the film describes it. Once in captivity the three girls begin to witness the depths of this man’s personality disorder, and the dangerous designs in store for them.

“Split” doesn’t waste much time getting into the grit of the situation. It takes less than 10 minutes to place the three girls in captivity and introduce the antagonist to the viewer. Mr. Shyamalan establishes the situation then takes a step back to let the personalities of all the characters settle in. The director has always done a particularly great job of building characters and providing a very genuine and authentic feel to how they communicate with each other. The three girls are interesting and compose a good dynamic together. Casey (Anya Taylor-Joy) is the outsider of the three girls; she is abnormally calm and particularly watchful when Dennis comes into the room to explain the situation of their captivity. Through a series of flashbacks we see young Casey on a hunting trip with her father and uncle and begin to realize how she connects with this situation. Claire (Haley Lu Richardson), the feisty and proactive one, and Marcia (Jessica Sula), the nervous and fearful one, are also provided with interesting moments that help with defining their characters. Together these three young women compose an interesting survivalist group.

The aspect of being a victim isn’t only reflected in the primary story but in the backstory of the main protagonist and antagonist. Trauma has changed these individuals, which makes their decisions an influence of their trauma. While Mr. Shyamalan utilizes these aspects to offer some interesting concepts to the composition of the characters, specifically within the multi-personalities of the James McAvoy’s character, there are few moments when it takes on an uglier perspective through the camera’s eye. These young women, who are utilized together to challenge the common tropes associated with women in genre films, are often displayed through the camera as mere objects in very little clothing. Together the group of women are stronger than when they are eventually separated, the films stalls a bit once this occurs.

James McAvoy elevates this film so much. His performance of numerous characters with distinctive qualities is exceptional; one particular scene is especially fantastic and displays the great range Mr. McAvoy possesses. Ms. Taylor-Joy is building quite a catalog of performances; here she is a great balance to Mr. McAvoy’s indulgence but is also provided with moments that display the strength she must own.

Misdirection is one of the most powerful tools in Mr. Shyamalan’s writing arsenal, and he utilizes it with great success in this film. It’s as if he is toying with assumptions and perceptions that have influenced films throughout his entire career. That’s probably why the film feels most in line with his early career work. What transpires over the course of “Split” is suspenseful even if the mystery falls apart as more aspects are introduced. Still, in the hands of Mr. Shyamalan you can't help but remain engaged until the final moment.

Monte’s Rating

3.25 out of 5.00

Paterson - Movie Review by Monte Yazzie

Paterson

Director: Jim Jarmusch

Starring: Adam Driver, Golshifteh Farahani, Rizwan Manji, Barry Shabaka Henley, Chasten Harmon, and William Jackson Harper

The late, great Leonard Cohen once said, “Poetry is the evidence of life. If your life is burning well, poetry is just the ash”.  Mr. Cohen is one of the great poets, both in music and literature. If there were a list of great poets in filmmaking, Jim Jarmsuch would be near the top of the list. Mr. Jarmusch’s films, like good poetry, have a distinct rhythm and flow that breaths life deeply into the themes and the atmosphere of every frame of the film, which makes everything undeniably unique, undeniably Jarmusch.

“Paterson” is a film about a working class poet and how the rigors and repetition of daily life influence the poetry that he creates. It’s also about the personal aspects of the creative process and the unique development of art. It’s about inspirations found in life, how the ordinary parts of life can become extraordinary with the right words. “Paterson” is a deceptively multifaceted film made by one of the founding fathers of indie cinema.

Paterson (Adam Driver) is a bus driver working an ordinary nine-to-five job in Paterson, New Jersey. However, this working class man is also a poet, making the most of the small moments in his day to write in his poetry book. Everything about Paterson is simple; he has a daily routine that has become a rhythm to the many pieces of his day. Whether the journey to work, the drive on his transit line, or the nightly walk with his dog, these pieces of the daily puzzle paint a picture that becomes words of insightful poetry for the common man.

Mr. Jarmusch builds an interesting form through the commonplace routine in “Paterson”. We see Paterson as he wakes up every morning for an entire week; we are engaged in his routine from the very beginning. It’s throughout this process that Paterson’s words sprawl across the screen, taking space during the routine of his life we are introduced to the ramblings of the bus driver but also the design of the form and structure of poetry for a poet. It’s an interesting construction that Mr. Jarmusch develops. The influences that Paterson encounters board his bus, an assortment of ages, genders, and anecdotes about everything from past flings to the history of the city they live in. The influences also interrupt his walk to and from work, like a young girl who is also a poet, and invade his personal space, like bulldog named Marvin; Paterson sees poetry all around him. In a great scene, that is purely Jarmusch, hip-hop artist Method Man makes a cameo as a rapper trying to find the design of a verse. It’s a small but important scene in the composition of the film that displays the process of an artist, but also how poetry has evolved far beyond the sonnet or limerick into popular culture. 

The performances in the film are exceptional, Adam Driver is remarkable, providing a characterthat is nuanced and restrained. It showcases just how talented the actor is. Director Jim Jarmusch admires these kinds of characters, Paterson is person who looks deeply into the world, an admirer of everything around him and a vessel for every thing both good and bad. Golshifteh Farahani plays the muse to the poet, the influence of love that brings healthy doses of inspiration through chaotic patterns that adorn every plain space in their home (an entire article could be dedicated to how pattern influences poetry), indecision with her pursuits of being a cupcake baker on one day and the next day wanting to be a country singer, and change that is an emotional motivation for everything in her world. Ms. Farahani is very good throughout, balancing these numerous qualities in one performance effortlessly.

 “Paterson” is so much more than the simplistic premise about a week in the life of a bus driver in New Jersey. It’s a film about the development of the poet, the rhythm of daily life, and the influences that shape and mold the structure of art. “Paterson” displays the talented work of one of cinemas greatest visual poets.

Monte’s Rating

4.50 out of 5.00

Neruda - Movie Review by Jeff Mitchell

Larrain does not box ‘Neruda’ into a standard biopic

Director:  Pablo Larrain

Writer:  Guillermo Calderon

Starring:  Luis Gnecco, Gael Garcia Bernal and Mercedes Moran

“Neruda” – How do you make a film about a complex, iconic and larger-than-life figure and successfully illustrate him or her into an effective and satisfying two-hour film experience?  The short answer is: not very easily.  Director Pablo Larrain, however, has marvelously accomplished this feat twice within the last year.

Larrain, who is from Chile, delivered his first American movie in 2016, a biopic about the celebrated first lady Jackie Kennedy in “Jackie”.  His picture is not a standard bio in two ways.  First, Larrain does not cover decades of Mrs. Kennedy’s life.  He almost entirely focuses his time on the events immediately after JFK’s Nov. 1963 assassination.  Secondly, leading up to film’s release, Larrain said in an interview that he did not wish to simply tell what occurred during those dark and confusing days. Instead, he wanted to make a film that was more organic, and one that allows the audience to feel and share the emotion of those events with Jackie (Natalie Portman).  In some cases, Larrain and Portman interpret Jackie’s feelings, whether she is behind closed doors or out in the world: The White House, greater Washington D.C. and even Hyannis Port, MA, while in the throes of gut-wrenching mental anguish and uncertainty.

Her world. 

Pablo Neruda, an internationally famous, 20th Century poet, holds enormously high stature in his home country of Chile.  According to Larrain, Neruda embodied many layers, including his love of cooking, wine, women, travel, and literature, and he also held a position in public office as a communist senator.  He added that one could not “fit Neruda into a film (or) put him into any kind of box.”  Like “Jackie”, “Neruda” is not a classic biopic either.  Due to Neruda’s nature, rather than construct a movie about this poet/senator/idealist, Larrain’s picture “is more about (Neruda’s) world, (Neruda’s) cosmos.”  

His world.  

Surprisingly, “Neruda” reveals itself as a cat and mouse picture.  Furthermore, this chase film turns the tables on the predator vs. prey model by presenting a mouse who chases a cat, with the feline pulling the puppet strings.  Actually, in this case, the cat – who is the chasee - is a poet who writes the story. 

Set in 1948, the Chilean President calls for Neruda’s (Luis Gnecco) arrest due to his communist beliefs, condemnation of the government and wide-reaching (and therefore, threatening) influence over the people.  Neruda becomes a fugitive, and a nondescript police inspector, Oscar Peluchonneau (Gael Garcia Bernal), acts as a bounty hunter - without any promise of a future monetary reward – to bring him into custody. 

Larrain does not play it safe, as he shoots with a purposeful, arthouse style.  For example, he sometimes frames individual conversations in multiple locales.  Various exchanges between Neruda and another (perhaps a loyal supporter or the president) move between rooms or settings every few seconds.  One moment they are conversing in a ballroom and the next instant, they finish their exchange in a random, dark office.  There is motion here - via changing locations - even when two or more people stand or sit perfectly still.  Even when simple words are bartered back and forth, he paints a dynamic picture of their strong points of view through changing, moving environments.  

Neruda finds himself on the move as well.  Rather than eluding Peluchonneau by permanently hunkering down in a singular, remote corner of the country, he feels bored by that strategy.  It simply is not sporting, fair or poetic to simply hide “under the bed.”

He adds, “This has to be a wild hunt.” 

The actual hunt is wild, but not particularly nail-biting.  In comparison to 2007’s “No Country for Old Men”, the Coen Brothers build about two dozen scenes of massive suspense, but Larrain does not create that kind of film.  No, the audience does not witness Peluchonneau stalk Neruda with a captive bolt pistol or have his pit bull chase him down a speeding river.   On the other hand, one absolutely never knows where Neruda will travel next, and this unexpected and unknown sense of space keeps the audience constantly engaged.   Additionally, Peluchonneau sometimes feels like a distant echo spoken three years ago, but then suddenly appears within a few hundred yards of Neruda, or drastically and uncomfortably closer.

The lead protagonist and antagonist are obvious adversaries, but they both approach the hunt with gentlemanly honor, even though Neruda’s capture would lead to the amputation of his freedom.  They respect one another and rent acreage in each other’s heads, but from a literary perspective, Larrain plays with the idea that Neruda scribes this entire affair with a pen and paper and fosters Peluchonneau as his lead pawn, at his mercy. 

Some scenes do reveal the wide-reaching influence of Neruda’s words, but his actual writing becomes much more of a supporting player during this particularly nomadic time.  With his lengthy catalog of inspiring words, this feels like a missed opportunity.  Then again, that is not the movie’s point.  In this world, Peluchonneau symbolically becomes Neruda’s creation, and this cinematic phenomenon stirs larger themes, such as an individual’s purpose in the game of life.  In attempting to define Neruda’s world, Larrain undoubtedly won the year.  In addition to “Jackie”, he won it twice.

(3.5 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.

20th Century Women - Movie Review by Jeff Mitchell

‘20th Century Women’ carries us on a personal, nostalgic journey

Written/directed by: Mike Mills

Starring: Annette Bening, Elle Fanning, Greta Gerwig, Billy Crudup, and Lucas Jade Zumann

“20th Century Women” – In 2011, writer/director Mike Mills offered a heartfelt, personal tale about his relationship with his father in “Beginners”, starring Ewan McGregor and Christopher Plummer, who won the Best Supporting Actor Oscar.  Mills’ parents were married for over 40 years, but when his mother died, his father – in his 70s – declared that he was gay the entire time that they were married. 

Mills, who is trained as a graphic designer, brought his unique filmmaking perspective to the movie, by creating a - sometimes - dreamlike experience.  The picture’s nonlinear timeline grants us continual peeks into their relationship, while Mills infuses analogies with history’s effect on romantic relationships, along with wonderfully quirky imagery and oodles of meaningful still photos.  After watching the film, one can truly capture a sense of his dad, which sinks in via cinematic osmosis.

Mills follows up his memorable portrait of his father by delivering “20th Century Women”, which is an equally memorable portrait of his mother, played by Annette Bening. 

Although Mills grew up with two sisters and his parents were married for over 40 years (as previously stated), in this film, Bening plays a single mom to a teenage boy named Jamie (Lucas Jade Zumann) in 1979 Santa Barbara, the time and place that Mills also grew up. 

Dorothea (Bening) is a non-conventional mom. 

She was raised during the Great Depression, and Jamie feels that his mom never gave up her communal spirit, in which neighbors and friends take care of one another.  She owns a large home - built in the very early 1900s - and has two tenants, a 20-something photographer, Abbie (Greta Gerwig), and a 40-something mechanic, William (Billy Crudup).  Abbie and William rent rooms and help fit the “it takes a village” bill, or at the very least, offer good company. 

Dorothea, however, puts her beliefs into well-defined action, by asking Jamie’s plutonic friend, Julie (Elle Fanning), and Abbie to help raise her son, because she feels – as a single mom - that she cannot be there all the time.  Hence, these “20th Century Women” collectively attempt to raise Jamie, an impressionable teen, during a few weeks or months, in their beautiful coastal town. 

In this somewhat sleepy place, the film does not toss a dynamic collection of highs and lows and experiences at Jamie.  Instead, it smartly plays within the boundaries of ordinary Santa Barbara events, like meals around the house, skateboard rides on winding roads, a talk on the beach, or trips to local clubs to catch small punk rock shows.   These occurrences simply present the setting, but the real movement is with the valuable interactions between the five richly textured characters.

Dorothea and Jamie’s relationship clearly is the focal point, but Abbie, Julie and William play vitally important supporting players.  Mills gives each character a 60-second, fully-formed biography and places these individual reflections throughout the picture to explain their journeys, which eventually lead to Dorothea’s community.  

He gives them context, not only individual definitions of their imperfect selves, but avenues for authentic exchanges with one another, scene after scene.  We immediately settle in and feel comfortable with these characters, even when topics include health scares, explicit sex stories or reasons for loneliness.  Accompanied by a spiritual, new age score, these stories evoke empathic feelings for this genuine, onscreen ensemble and promote introspection on the winding paths of our own lives. 

All the while, Dorothea’s devotion to Jamie is never questioned.  Even though their generation gap – in terms of actual years - is larger than most moms and sons, it does not stop her from wanting to comprehend his interests:  girls, his friends and the ‘70s punk scene. Seemingly, about one thousand touching moments reach out from the screen, including some ideas not really spoken out loud in films. 

At one point Dorothea frankly says to Abbie with an air of despair, “You get to see him (Jamie) out in the world as a person, and I never will.”

I imagine that many mothers feel this way about their sons, but I have not heard it spoken in that specific fashion.   Perhaps Mills’ words combined with Bening’s deep, earthy and open performance will earn her a Best Actress Oscar.  That would be a nice bookend to Plummer’s win, but “20th Century Women” is a beautiful tribute to Mills’ mom and a special film, with or without Oscar hardware.

(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.

Julieta - Movie Review by Jeff Mitchell

Almodovar’s ‘Julieta’ explores the mystery of family

Written/directed by:  Pedro Almodovar

Starring:  Emma Suarez, Adriana Ugarte, Daniel Grao, Dario Grandinetti, Inma Cuesta, Blanca Pares, and Michelle Jenner

“Julieta” – “A family is a mystery.” – Sharon Olds

The latest film from acclaimed director Pedro Almodovar offers up a contemporary mystery, although “Julieta” is not a whodunit.  There are no criminal acts or terribly nefarious moves found anywhere within its 99-minute runtime.  The picture, instead, examines a portrait of a family.  A family in crisis, and the mystery of how it fell apart, a “howdunit”, if you will. 

Almodovar exercises his will by crafting the picture on two different timelines, featuring Julieta in her mid 20s during the 1980s and in her 50s in present day.  In 2017, this educated cosmopolite (Emma Suarez) plans on leaving Madrid with her long time beau, Lorenzo (Dario Grandinetti).  With her packing nearly finished and thoughts of a new life in her head, she randomly bumps into a woman from her past on a busy sidewalk at midday.   Suddenly, memories from a past life prevent her from advancing to the aforementioned next one, and Julieta decides to remain in Madrid in the last possible moments before her planned, permanent getaway. 

Heartbroken and left in the lurch, Lorenzo accepts the bad news like a grownup, but tells her, “I always knew there was something more important in your life that you never shared with me.”

Julieta then proceeds to share with the audience. 

Almodovar efficaciously establishes our curiosity around Julieta’s peculiar behavior and rewinds his cinematic clock 30 years to help illuminate the specific source of her sudden cold feet, with Adriana Ugarte portraying a younger Julieta.  Ugarte carries an uncanny likeness to Suarez, which makes one seriously wonder if Emma is playing Julieta in both time periods, as their performances (and physical appearances) feel perfectly in synch with the character. 

We see Julieta build a family with a supportive, kind soul, Xoan (Daniel Grao), but not every marriage falls perfectly into place, and in this case, legitimate disagreements can morph into transforming events.   

On the other hand, the larger conflict that Julieta faces is not due to crystal clear, decisive differences, but because of a cryptic dispute that truly is invisible to the naked eye and indistinguishable to every other organ that possesses the ability to sense.  Julieta may have taken a sudden, onetime misstep or perhaps constantly applied a slight offense and repeated it for a series of years, and over time, resentment slowly and unknowingly built.  Quite frankly, the reasons are unknown to Julieta, and when a struggle arises without warning or explanation, it can be a source of immense doubt and emotional turmoil. 

As a result of this singular divide, Julieta might as well be synonymous with pathos, but Almodovar also introduces a nonfamily-related, tragic event and her parents’ relationship as contributing factors to her personal despair.   They present an additional sense of guilt and some parental dysfunction which help fuel her current gloom, but they do not (appear to) completely gel with the story, and their connections feel deliberately subtle.

They do provide some additional cement to the foundation of the character, a woman tied to the past through a painful episode in which she still wonders what could have possibly been her own contribution.  Julieta may get her answer, but until then, her family – like many, many others - is a mystery. 

(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.

Bye Bye Man - Movie Review by Monte Yazzie

Bye Bye Man

Director: Stacy Title

Starring: Douglas Smith, Lucien Laviscount, Cressida Bonas, Michael Trucco, Jenna Kanell, Cleo King, Carrie-Anne Moss, Faye Dunaway, and Doug Jones

“Don’t think it. Don’t say it”. The creation of a monster for a horror film is difficult work these days, especially when you have classic villains like Freddy Krueger, Jason Voorhees, and Michael Myers still standing tall in the horror hall of fame. Still, the genre needs these new scary creations. “Bye Bye Man”, directed by Stacy Title, tries very hard to make the next great movie monster but unfortunately never gets all the pieces put in the right place.

Elliot (Douglas Smith), Sasha (Cressida Bonas), and John (Lucien Laviscount) are great friends that are moving into an old house off campus from their college. The house is rundown and filled with all the scary trappings of a haunted house, long hallways, creepy basements, and crawlspace doors with creaky hinges. The group of friends stumble across a piece of furniture that holds a secret to an evil entity, one that is responsible with driving people insane once they speak its name.

The genre influences are abundant in “Bye Bye Man”. Shades of “Candyman” and “Beetlejuice” motivate the mythology of speaking the monsters name, also the characters seem pulled from 1990’s slasher films like “I Know What You Did Last Summer” or “Urban Legend”. Unfortunately all of these influential pieces don’t sum up to a good experience. While the first few minutes of the film show promise, mostly because actor Leigh Whannell (from the "Insidious" films) is given the opportunity to play a deranged and tormented man, the rest of film feels thrown together with a mash-up of scenes peaked with subpar jump scares.

One of the main problems with the film is that the Bye Bye Man isn’t given a proper introduction. The first big reveal of the monster happens without much impact, the Bye Bye Man just sort of shows up. Looking at a film that played a big influence here, “Candyman”, the reveal of the hook-handed villain who haunts a young woman happens only after the narrative builds the mythology up in a few specific ways, like establishing the connection with the antagonist with the world of the protagonist through environment and storytelling that promotes the legend. “Bye Bye Man” tries to connect in this way, for a small moment in the beginning it succeeds, but the film undermines itself with cheap scares that distract from the creepy undertones and poorly composed characters.

Even the talents of Carrie-Anne Moss and Faye Dunaway, yes that Faye Dunaway, aren’t enough to save this film. While there are few effective moments, a scene with an underutilized psychic is nicely composed even if its been done hundred of times before, “Bye Bye Man” never reaches the potential of the influences it tries hard to emulate.

Monte’s Rating

1.25 out of 5.0

Silence - Movie Review by Monte Yazzie

Silence

Director: Martin Scorsese

Starring: Andrew Garfield, Adam Driver, Liam Neeson, Tadanobu Asano, and Ciarán Hinds

What does it mean to have faith? This question means something different to every person and is categorized and signified by numerous factors beyond the simple aspect of religious designation. Director Martin Scorsese has dealt with this concept of faith and the doubt that comes with it throughout his entire film career. From the conflict of Jesus in "The Last Temptation of Christ", the maturation of the Dalai Lama in "Kundun", the divisiveness of clashing principles in "Gangs of New York", faith played a prominent role in each of these films. You can even analyze further the non-verbal imagery that Mr. Scorsese displays in his films and find aspects of faith throughout; the introduction of convict with a cross tattooed on his shoulders in "Cape Fear" is an easy example.

Faith can even be found in the ambition of Mr. Scorsese as a filmmaker, who has waited decades to create the passion project "Silence" which is adapted from the 1966 novel by Shūsaku Endō. "Silence" is a film about how one chooses to have faith and the challenges that come with expressing your faith within the world. It's a film that beautifully and complicatedly displays this aspect in every frame, a film that in less experienced, talented hands would not have the evocative power that Mr. Scorsese floods into every moment of the film.

The premise is simplistic, it's a story about two Catholic missionaries, Rodrigues (Andrew Garfield) and Garrpe (Adam Driver), who journey to Japan to find their mentor (Liam Neeson). The priests have been informed that their respected mentor committed apostasy, a renunciation of the faith. Christianity has been outlawed during this time in Japan, leading to violence and persecution against any person practicing the religion. Rodrigues and Garrpe, fearing for their lives and the lives of the people worshipping in secrecy, are left in a state of doubt and in a struggle of faith.

There is much to admire in the beautiful yet brutal “Silence”. The calmness of the camera during moments of crisis and conflict, the patience to ask questions of the viewer without easy explanation, the atmosphere that evokes a connection with natural sound rather than a big composition; it’s everything that you’d expect from an auteur like Mr. Scorsese. The meticulous nature of the filmmaking techniques are completely obvious, as are the odes to Japanese filmmakers like Akira Kurosawa and Kenji Mizoguchi; these moments craft some of the best images in film during 2016. While all these elements create an intoxicating film, there is so much more that is being proposed within the quiet narrative.

The narrative consistently reverts back to the aspect of faith and doubt. The question, "What does it mean to have faith?", is painstakingly analyzed throughout the film to lesser and greater degrees throughout. To call it complicated would be an understatement because the themes in this film hold such a specific, personal, and experiential quality with different people. Some may feel that at times Mr. Scorsese seems to hamper the purpose with an abundance of repetition while others may see this is a recurring link to the challenges that face people of faith. Again, it’s never completely defined one way or another. Mr. Scorsese offers scenes and images meant to create personal examination. It’s fascinating and infuriating at times.

The silence in the film reflects the role of God to the people that worship Him, call upon His name, and suffer tremendously for Him within this film, it's an examination of the concepts associated with having faith in something or someone. The silence also displays the struggle with doubt and belief, which is always present regardless of how faithful one may think they are. "Silence” is a complicated experience, but it’s a worthwhile experience for any cinephile or Martin Scorsese fan. It’s fascinating filmmaking from one of the best filmmakers of all time.

Monte’s Rating

4.00 out of 5.00

Things to Come - Movie Review by Jeff Mitchell

Huppert keeps us wondering about ‘Things to Come’

Written/directed by:  Mia Hansen-Love

Starring:  Isabelle Huppert, Andre Marcon, Edith Scob, and Roman Kolinka

“Things to Come” – “Life is what happens while you’re busy making other plans.” – John Lennon

“An object in motion stays in motion with the same speed and in the same direction unless acted upon by an unbalanced force.”  - Isaac Newton’s First Law of Motion

For Nathalie (Isabelle Huppert), a published, high school philosophy teacher, she keeps herself busy with eventful, meaningful plans throughout her days.  Not unlike many hardworking women in 2016, she needs (or feels the need) to wear multiple hats.  Nathalie invests her time with her students and her two grown children.  Additionally, she maintains a household with some help from her husband, Heinz (Andre Marcon), but also looks after her aging mom (Edith Scob), who demands constant attention.  Sprinkle in an occasional escape from Paris to their beautiful, coastal home, and Nathalie enjoys her full life.  As the late Mr. Lennon once said, however, life can suddenly “happen”. 

Writer/director Mia Hansen-Love just so happens to compose a rich and thoughtful deep-dive on a character who must cope with significant changes and attempts to embrace an uncertain future.  The things to come.

Before Hansen-Love’s picture moves towards things that will come, she introduces Nathalie’s current life during the first act.   Even though Nathalie carries honest and noble intentions, at closer examination, the film reveals that negative forces surround her, and she simply accepts the burden.  While wearing various “hats”, she focuses on her obligations, from her classroom to her publisher, her home, and her mother’s home, and although adverse forces are not always intentional, they exist.  This is probably why Nathalie is always in motion, not just figuratively in terms of her responsibilities, but literally as well, by always briskly walking within given spaces. 

Her constant movement becomes quite noticeable after about 10 minutes of screen time, and Hansen-Love and Huppert seem to convey that this helps appease – or has become a byproduct of - her general discomfort.  In fact, she may not even realize her discomfort.  Sometimes in the midst of our demanding lives, we may not rest to notice.

American audiences might some have fun noticing the differences between U.S. and French cultures.  Although Nathalie’s story can be told from anywhere, two distinct moments are wonderfully French.  They deal with relationships, but to reveal them here would be a terrible disservice.  I will only mention that they occur with Heinz and a random stranger and are plainly evident when comparing and contrasting with our more uptight mores on this side of the Atlantic.

As quickly as Nathalie moves within various spaces – while either throwing away a bouquet of unwanted flowers or scurrying to her mom’s house to appease the latest self-induced catastrophe -  it also becomes abundantly clear that she is not moving forward, but in circles. 

In a serendipitous way, life’s “unbalanced forces” nudge her forward by disrupting her well-oiled routines.  She must move forward, but more importantly, she needs to stop and take assessment first. 

Nathalie’s self-exploration and the hope for a positive conclusion keep us engaged, and the story works because of Hansen-Love’s rich script in capturing the small details of her lead character’s life and, of course, Huppert’s absorbing performance.  Huppert wraps herself in Nathalie’s challenges and develops a bond with the audience.  She is comical at times, but mostly Nathalie is the responsible wondermom who we had growing up or possibly knew through a neighborhood friend. 

We should be so lucky.

Talented, thoughtful, beautiful, and well-spoken, she only lacks confidence when her worlds no longer remain their consistent selves.   In this case, this wondermom needs help and a friend, because Newton’s First Law of Motion should not be taken lightly.

(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.

Jeff Mitchell's Top 20 Films of 2016

Jeff Mitchell’s Top 20 Films of 2016

The year 2017 is very nearly upon us, but before we start planning new resolutions and goals, let’s take a quick look back at 2016, and specifically, the year’s best movies. 

I experienced just over 200 movies in 2016, and with so many great films, 30 of them could have found their way on my “Top 20 of the Year”.   Alas, that specific math does not work, so I made some difficult decisions and proudly believe that these 20 films are the very best of 2016.  

20. “Miss Sloane” – Jessica Chastain is a tour de force in the title role, and she plays a corporate lobbyist who is the smartest person in every room that she enters.  Elizabeth Sloane’s (almost entire) sole focus is on winning, but she meets her match during a showdown with the U.S. gun lobby.  Director John Madden’s intense drama seamlessly navigates through miles of modern-day, bureaucratic red tape, while Chastain dazzles at a breakneck speed.  With much respect to Annette Bening and Natalie Portman, Chastain gave the best lead actress performance of the year.  

19. “The Dark Horse” – This inspiring New Zealand biopic - about chess coach Genesis Potini (Cliff Curtis) – delves into surprisingly gritty territory.  We see his severe battles with mental illness and thorny external forces that constantly hinder his daily routines and future goals.  Curtis is nothing short of remarkable as Genesis, while writer/director James Napier Robertson captures the man’s longshot attempt at teaching chess to a group of underprivileged kids. 

18. “Les Cowboys” – A distraught father (Francois Damiens) searches everywhere for his missing daughter and recruits his son (Finnegan Oldfield) as well, on a winding, seemingly impossible journey.  Director Thomas Bidegain explores sensitive topics about Middle East refugees living in Western Europe, as Alain (Damiens) and Georges (Oldfield) feel like outsiders in familiar and unfamiliar lands.  John C. Reilly costars in this emotional French drama. 

17. “The Eyes of My Mother” – Writer/director Nicolas Pesce’s shoots his ghastly horror film with a distinct arthouse flair and constructs an isolated environment – in the form of a remote farmhouse – in which no one can hear you scream or see the merciless transgressions.  Led by Kika Magalhaes’ mesmerizing performance, this film promises to slink into an accessible crawlspace of the brain and plant its seedy roots.   

16. “Arrival” – Director Denis Villeneuve’s alien encounter picture taps into familiar themes from the genre and turns them on their head, when a communications expert (Amy Adams) attempts to learn our new visitors’ language.  These human/alien exchanges build high degrees of tension, relief and intrigue, and the narrative delivers surprises not normally explored in routine science fiction.

15. “The Nice Guys” – In the funniest movie of the year, Ryan Gosling and Russell Crowe play a pair of somewhat dimwitted, but resourceful, private investigators who try to solve a puzzling Los Angeles murder case.  Gosling, Crowe and director Shane Black have lots of fun with the 1970s setting, as political correctness and general welfare can be extremely difficult to find.  The film leaves an opening for a sequel, and here’s hoping that Gosling, Crowe and Black return for “The Even Nicer Guys” in a year or two.

14. “Anthropoid” – The film’s title refers to a secret WWII operation in Czechoslovakia, and director Sean Ellis’ creation is split into a tale of two distinct halves: before and after the mission.  During the planning stage, Czech army soldiers (Cillian Murphy, Jamie Dornan) develop close relationships with resistance fighters, but must deal with the operation’s violent consequences.  This deliberately schizophrenic narrative yanks the audience through an emotional journey, while offering an important history lesson probably not included in most U.S. school textbooks.

13. “Indignation” – Writer/director James Schamus’ expertly crafted film – based upon Philip Roth’s novel – is a story about boy-meets-girl, but the college-aged couple’s (Logan Lerman, Sarah Gadon) courtship sails into trying waters due to sexual repression and mental illness.  Despite their relationship hurdles, the movie nurtures us into a rocky lullaby and discovery of first love, but resonates into broader themes when we least expect it.   

12. “Jackie” – Director Pablo Larrain’s film about Jackie Kennedy (Natalie Portman) 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.  In a recent interview, Larrain said that he wanted to create a film that allows the audience to feel the results – and share the emotion – of those days with Jackie. Based upon his organic approach and Portman’s landmark performance, his vision is realized.

11. “20th Century Women” – Set in 1979 Santa Barbara, Dorothea (Annette Bening) embraces the saying “it takes a village” when raising her son, Jamie (Lucas Jade Zumann).  She recruits two young women (Elle Fanning, Greta Gerwig) to help guide him on the ways of the world, because she perceives that she cannot be there all the time.  Bening gives a touching, accessible performance, and she and writer/director Mike Mills lead a memorable look at a cast of characters who try to steer their own ways too, mistakes and all.

10. “Moonlight” – Alex R. Hibbert, Ashton Sanders and Trevante Rhodes portray a boy/teen/man nicknamed “Little” through three time periods, in a film which writer/director Barry Jenkins organically captures how a child’s environment can impact his or her outlook as an adult.  Skillfully acted at every turn, Mahershala Ali arguably gives the film’s most memorable performance as Juan, a small-time drug dealer who offers a kindhearted hand to Little.

9. “The Handmaiden” – Director Chan-wook Park’s highly entertaining picture creates a feast for the senses in a diabolical spinning web of deceit, when a count (Jung-woo Ha) recruits a female laborer (Tae-ri Kim) to help hijack a fortune from a Japanese heiress (Min-hee Kim).  A movie-lover’s movie, but be warned, it is rated “NR” for a reason. 

8. “Captain America: Civil War” – The latest effort in the Marvel franchise successfully juggles 12 superheroes in a harmonious balance of emotional conflict and action.  Somehow, directors Anthony and Joe Russo highlight the best of each character without making the picture feel like a greatest hits parade. 

7. “Captain Fantastic” – Ben (Viggo Mortensen) raises six children off the grid in the Pacific Northwest, and although the film bathes in out of the box thinking, at its core, it is simply about love and family.  Striking emotional chords with family dynamics in a wholly unique way, writer/director Matt Ross offers the most satisfying drama of the year.  

6. “O.J.: Made in America” – In a year chock-full of excellent documentaries – like “Weiner”, “13th”, “De Palma”, and “Lo and Behold, Reveries of the Connected World” - director Ezra Edelman’s film towers over them all.  A sprawling work of genius, which runs almost eight hours, it explores the dysfunctional foundations in O.J. Simpson’s life and racial tensions in Los Angeles that led to a 1995 not guilty verdict and much, much more.  This highly insightful doc cannot be missed.

5. “The Witch” – Ill misfortune plagues a pioneer family in the form of black magic from a witch living in a nearby forest, and writer/director Robert Eggers turns on his camera and makes us sweat every ounce of terror and confusion that they suffer.  The movie does not rely on jump scares or gore, but instead delves into morbid terrors through eerie tones and 17th Century thinking, and in the process, “The Witch” brews a highly sinister concoction.

4. “Manchester by the Sea” - A Boston janitor, Lee (Casey Affleck), emotionally cuts ties with the world, but that dramatically needs to change when he is asked to become his nephew’s legal guardian.  Writer/director Kenneth Lonergan – an expert at creating intriguing characters within ordinary slices of life - weaves an intricate, subtle picture that sneaks up on the audience and punches us in the gut.  Hands down, Affleck delivers the performance of the year in Lonergan’s masterpiece.

3. “Hell or High Water” – Chris Pine and Ben Foster play desperate brothers who rob banks all over West Texas, and Jeff Bridges and Gil Birmingham are a pair of Texas Rangers trying to chase them down.  Although the movie takes place in 2016, everything feels like a classic western, as the movie garners our complete attention with its cat and mouse narrative and riveting performances.  Foster deserves to win the Best Supporting Actor Oscar.   

2. “The Lobster” – The most unique movie experience of the year can best be described as a Wes Anderson picture with a more forlorn and darker feel.  In this dystopian society, a single person has 45 days to fall in love or “the authorities” will turn him or her into an animal, and that is the proposition posed to an introvert named David (Colin Farrell).   David attempts to work his dating magic, while the highly charged script makes snide observations at societal views about relationships and the reasons why we choose our partners.  Director Yorgos Lanthimos’ wicked cinematic eye-opener has the most memorable ending of 2016.

1. “La La Land” – Writer/director Damien Chazelle’s utterly wonderful film is a throwback to Old Hollywood, as he spins a tale about two young hopefuls, Sebastian (Ryan Gosling) and Mia (Emma Stone), dreaming to make it as a jazz musician and an actress, respectively.  Spectacular sequences - including a mind-boggling song and dance number on a log jammed Los Angeles freeway - hypnotize us, and the movie feels like a two-hour eight-minute stroll through a candy factory, bursting with sugary splashes of primary colors.  The film, however, is not just rainbows and lollipops.  Sebastian and Mia’s dreamy relationship faces the reality of their career aspirations, and in turn, this provides a soulful look at love and finding the right person.  “La La Land” found itself as the right film for my #1 spot of the year.      

Monte Yazzie's Top 15 Films of 2016

Best Films of 2016

By: Monte Yazzie

It was good year for film. Yeah, that’s probably a cliché thing for a film critic to say. But it’s true; when your top three films could each hold the first place ranking on a different day you know that there were quite a few really good films that came out this year. Making the obligatory end of year list very difficult to narrow down to a mere fifteen.

Film seemed all the more revealing this year; with all the changes in the political landscape and conflicts in society it was easy to figure those factors into many of the films. I always find it interesting to examine and re-examine film as time moves forward and changes occur in culture and society. Film is a reflection of our time; great artists create images and write words because of the influences around them. 2016 was a special year for film, however what I think was most important about film this year was how closely and effectively it analyzed elements inherent to all of us, aspects of communication, identity, religion, gender, history, and the political agenda. Here are the best films of 2016.

15. The Wailing

Meticulous in its method and steady in its execution, “The Wailing” is a horror film that manipulates expectations by pulling the viewer deeper into the abyss of the mystery but also the characters that are placed in such terrible settings. This combination of horror and character gives the film an unexpected emotional undertone that makes the scary moments all the more affecting.

14. Manchester by the Sea

Casey Affleck and Michelle Williams provide stunning portrayals in “Manchester by the Sea”, a film that can be a polarizing experience, but one that generates wonderful discussion. Director Kenneth Lonergan examines tragic events and how, no matter how much people may try, life moves forward with or without you.

13. Sing Street

The best way to describe “Sing Street” would be to compare it to a really good mixtape. It has a little bit of everything; dance worthy moments, sentimental trips, melancholy cuts, and uplifting hits. It also understands how these emotional moments relate with the ebb and flow of being a teenager.

12. O.J. Made in America

The five part documentary, from ESPN’s “30 for 30” series, is an exhaustive analysis of the O.J. Simpson murder trial coined “the trial of the century” which placed a real life courtroom drama in the American home. Though the success of the film doesn’t rest in its painstaking measures but rather in the examination of the American culture, the role of celebrity, and the history of an admired athlete.

11. The Fits

There is a moment in “The Fits” when a young 11-year-old girl turns an overpass into a practice space for her two athletic passions, boxing and dancing. It’s a raw, aggressive and emotional scene that frames this stunning first feature from director Anna Rose Holmer in the realms of a horror film and an adolescent coming-of-age drama.

10. Kubo and the Two Strings

What a good year for animation, with films like “Zootopia” and “Moana” getting lots of the attention, it was a stop motion animated film called “Kubo and the Two Strings” that was the standout. It’s a familiar fable about a young boy who goes on a journey and must face fears from his past. Though this common story done in the now uncommon and time consuming manner of stop motion artistry has a significant amount of heart but also some great insight into matters of friendship, family, and courage.

9. Green Room

People have different definitions of horror; some may call “Green Room” a thriller though I like to think of it as survival horror. Just like zombies in “Dawn of the Dead” or vampires in “From Dusk till Dawn”, Jeremy Saulnier’s film creates monsters out of a community of white supremacists. “Green Room”, like the band featured in the film, is the very definition of punk rock. It’s a film that understands the rules but decides to play by its own tune, a fast, aggressive, and stripped down horror tune that is a masterclass of tension.

8. The Lobster

Perhaps the most unique film of the year, writer and director Yorgos Lanthimos creates a surreal and eccentric allegory about relationships and the methods to which people find love. It’s unlike other films this year; a journey into surrealism and satire that is both humorously genuine and heartbreakingly bleak while consistently being diligently straightforward. Colin Farrell and Rachel Weisz both give exceptional performances. It’s an experience that stays with you.

7. Paterson

“Paterson” is so much more than the simplistic premise about a week in the life of a bus driver in Paterson, New Jersey. It’s a film about the development of the poet, the rhythm of daily life, and the influences that shape and mold the structure of poetry. Adam Driver delivers a striking performance, one that is nuanced and restrained. Director Jim Jarmusch admires this kind of character, one that looks deeply into the world and through the ordinary to compose the extraordinary that exists.  

6. Arrival

Science fiction is the perfect genre to tell complicated stories. Director Denis Villeneuve composes “Arrival” to tell a story about the human condition, love, and communication. While aliens and the ominous spacecrafts linger in every trailer, the film isn’t so much concerned about those genre fascinations. It’s a film that subverts the science fiction genre in ingenious fashion, avoiding formulaic conventions and boldly going beyond the contemporary expectations that usually define science fiction films.

5. The Handmaiden

Director Chan-wook Park has made a career of making interesting, edgy arthouse films; though some moviegoers may consider his films more from the grindhouse than the arthouse. Still, film should be a vessel to tell challenging stories. “The Handmaiden” is a beautifully composed erotic tale of betrayal, forbidden passions, and blossoming love. It’s melodrama in its highest, most artistic form.

4. Hell or High Water

 “Hell or High Water”, directed by David Mackenzie, is starkly comedic and absolutely visceral. It undercuts these themes with biting social commentary on the economic state while also utilizing genre characteristics from traditional western films, heist films, detective stories, and family dramas to create a film that is an effective blend of everything that makes going to the movies such an amazing experience. 

3. La La Land

Three films in and director Damien Chazelle is just getting better every time. “La La Land” is an inspired musical with beautiful melodies and wonderful choreography, but even better is that it’s a character film that challenges the viewer to look beyond the happy-go-lucky moments and the cheery musical movements. “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.

2. The Witch

It’s been a long time since a horror film has affected me the way Robert Egger’s film “The Witch” has. A film that lives and breathes on manipulating the atmosphere that it lives in, building dread and creating an environment that saturates any glimmer of light with darkness. It’s hard to call it just frightening or menacing, it’s something more, something darker and more authentic than those terms can embody. It’s a nightmare that you can’t wake up from, one that lures you into the blackened world and then forces you to keep going when you want to turn back. “The Witch” is the best horror film this year.

1. Moonlight

Director Barry Jenkins crafted the most beautiful and complex film of the year. “Moonlight” asks difficult questions to the viewer and doesn’t succumb to Hollywood. It tells entire stories with simple body language, a few verses of a song, the stillness of a camera that never flinches from a character. It’s a coming-of-age film, a film about sexual identification, a film exploring masculinity, a film that doesn’t surrender to easy stereotypes or simple exploitation. What “Moonlight” does is show the power that a film can possess, and how that power has the ability to transcend and destroy barriers of preconception.

Honorable Mention

Jackie

A Monster Calls

I, Daniel Blake

Silence

Everybody Wants Some

Hunt for the Wilderpeople

High-Rise

A Bigger Splash

Deadpool

Miles Ahead

Loving

Midnight Special

The Nice Guys

20th Century Women

Embrace of the Serpen

Fences - Movie Review by Monte Yazzie

Fences

Director: Denzel Washington

Starring: Denzel Washington, Viola Davis, Mykelti Williamson, Jovan Adepo, Russell Hornsby, and Stephen McKinley Henderson

Have you ever met someone who can tell stories with such flare and emotion that it feels like you are in that exact moment? Someone who can inspire a group of people with meaningful and honest messages of encouragement? Someone who can bring the house to its knees in laughter with yarns that connect into amusing, hilarious insights of everyday life? These people fascinate me because of their undeniable talent to command a room of people with such natural authority.

American playwright August Wilson, an exceptionally talented author, wrote a character that you could describe as one of these “great conversationalists” in a play called “Fences”. The character, Troy Maxson, is a charismatic man with strong ideas and perceptions about the world around him and the world that has and will shape his future. Troy is a difficult character to like, but he is undeniably riveting to listen to.

Denzel Washington, reprising the role he established in the stage adaptation a few years ago, plays Troy Maxson. However, Mr. Washington is doing more than just acting, he also directed this film. Also reprising her role from the play is Viola Davis, playing a beautiful and thoughtful woman, mother, wife who loves her family and makes Troy a better man than he actually is. “Fences” is a film that operates within set boundaries, much like its title insinuates, and it places the viewer in the middle of a family dynamic that lumbers and crumbles under the stress of past woes, selfish decisions, and the pursuit for the happiness that motivates the American dream.

We are introduced to Troy Maxson (Denzel Washington), waxing and jabbing with his best friend Bono (Stephen McKinley Henderson) about their job as sanitation workers, their lives as husbands and fathers, and the past that has solidified their relationship with such a fierce bond that underneath every mean spirited joke and personal stab you can feel the kind of love that comes with shared experiences both good and bad. Troy’s wife Rose (Viola Davis) is the glue that holds her family together, a woman who adores her husband amidst the knowledge that everything in their relationship, and with their family, is not the best that it could be.

“Fences” was adapted from a play, but Mr. Washington doesn’t allow the constraints within that structure to keep him from expanding the limits. By no means does the film have flashy photography or offer technical flare; instead Mr. Washington establishes a parameter, the inside of the house, the confines of the backyard, the sidewalks and road of the street Troy walks home on. Within these boundaries Mr. Washington displays the American dream for a family that experienced the social injustices that tarnished their pursuit of that dream. Troy is still weary and angry from these experiences, he was a baseball player that peaked before Jackie Robinson broke the color barrier and a sanitation worker who believes that being a driver is meant for people of a different color than him. While these experiences are never shown, Troy discusses them with such intricacy and passion that you can see these scenes formulate from his words. Still, this harsh mentality about the world saturates every decision he makes with his family. His youngest son Cory (Jovan Adepo), who plays football and is vyingfor a scholarship to play in college, is challenged on numerous occasions in a similar fashion as when Troy discusses how bad a baseball player Jackie Robinson was. It starts as part tough love but moves into something that feels like bullying, Troy’s other son Lyon (Russell Hornsby), who is a struggling musician, is also belittled for wanting to borrow money and then later in the film denied the opportunity to pay his father back because of Troy’s pride. It’s within these moments with family where we begin to see the charismatic talker, who boasts about fighting the devil and hitting homeruns, show his true colors. In a heartbreaking scene and performance from Viola Davis, Rose confronts her husband who has just boasted about another woman, complained about his home life, and offered regrets about why the world has passed him by. Through a flow of tears, she asks him the question “What about my life, what about my dreams?” and Troy has no response.

“Fences” is never an easy film, it asks complicated questions and insists that you try and see the world through the eyes of the characters. This sometimes offers valuable insight, like when Troy discusses why he “likes” his son, and at other times confuses, like when Rose complaisantly accepts an unimaginable responsibility because of Troy’s selfishness. Still, great characters should make these aspects of life difficult to understand, it’s easy to say that we would respond differently but it’s never that easy in the moment. That’s the accomplishment that Mr. Washington achieves in “Fences”, making the murky and thorny choices these characters make resonate so emotionally long after the film ends.

Monte’s Rating

4.00 out of 5.00

Elle - Movie Review by Jeff Mitchell

“Elle” is a strange, ineffectual Parisian thriller 

Directed by:  Paul Verhoeven

Written by:  David Birke

Starring:  Isabelle Huppert, Laurent Lafitte, Anne Consigny, Charles Berling, and Jonas Bloquet

“Elle” – Michele Leblanc (Isabelle Huppert) is a tough and talented business woman.  She founded a video game company with her best friend, Anna (Anne Consigny), even though neither one appears particularly familiar with the industry.  Their company sits in a beautiful, modern office in Paris, and business appears to be booming and probably due to their stewardship. 

Gaming is her career, but a brutal incident occurred in her apartment that was no game.  A masked intruder broke into Michele’s home and raped her, and director Paul Verhoeven pulls no punches in depicting the vicious assault.  The nefarious scene plays more than once on the big screen, guarantees a deeply distressing few minutes and leaves a much longer burn after the end credits roll.  What is also surprising, however, is Michele’s reaction to that doomed event, and she attempts to find her perpetrator in the most unexpected and seemingly casual manner. 

Huppert’s brave performance has generated support and accolades at the beginning of awards season, including European Film Awards and Golden Globes nominations for Best Actress.  Due to circumstances that I will not reveal, her character, Michele, does not turn to the police for help.  Instead, she initiates an investigation of her own, and the script offers a few key suspects from both her work life and personal life in order to keep Michele and the audience guessing.  Without professional law enforcement, Michele needs to fend for herself, and the film successfully places us in her uneasy shoes.

Michele quickly conveys that she is an incredibly busy woman and garners our sympathy.  Besides running her own company, she also attempts to manage her inhibited mother (Judith Magre), her irresponsible 20-something son, Vincent (Jonas Bloquet), and much, much more.  Quite frankly, with all of her commitments, I am not sure how she has time to track down her assailant.  In between delivering repeated, sound advice to Vincent (in vain, I may add), listening to her mom’s latest ideas and trying to meet difficult deadlines at work, she squeezes in some moments to practice her aim on the gun range and to ask her IT guy to hack into her employees’ electronic mailboxes for clues.  

On the plus side, Huppert and Verhoeven probably paint a realistic picture of a modern woman who wears many hats and stretched terribly thin between a multitude of players.  Conversely, due to the film’s nonchalance, it does not work as an effective thriller, but a meandering and exhausting walk through a few weeks (or perhaps months) in Michele’s life.  Even though her search is her top priority, she compartmentalizes it in a way that just does not register as believable. 

Many other characters don’t act in a believable way either.  For example, her best friend’s husband, Robert (Christian Berkel), interacts with her in a particularly selfish manner, especially after knowing the trauma that she has been through, and Vincent constantly whines and carries on like a 12-year-old.  Michele successfully juggles about five key relationships and her video game company as well, but while she oversees these dysfunctional moving parts, finding her rapist becomes lost in the narrative somewhere. 

Although, figuring out the bad guy was not lost on me.  Personally, I have a historically terrible track record at picking out the villain but had little trouble this time around.  Perhaps it was a lucky guess, but I was more than happy to help, because Michele’s calendar seemed busy. 

(2/4 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.

Lion - Movie Review by Jeff Mitchell

Pack some tissues for “Lion”, a true and emotional journey

Directed by:  Garth Davis

Written by:  Luke Davies, based upon the book, “A Long Way Home” by Saroo Brierley

Starring:  Dev Patel, Sunny Pawar, Abhishek Bharate, Priyanka Rose, Nicole Kidman, Rooney Mara, and David Wenham

“Lion” -  In 2016, I imagine that a vast majority of kindergartners probably do not have mountains of responsibility or stress.  I am not familiar with the average kindergarten curriculum these days, but when I went to school – about 150 years ago - I remember memorizing my phone number, learning to tie my shoes and understanding that the word “button” began with the letter B.  From my recollection, life was fairly anxiety-free with the exception of taking that big step of climbing on the yellow school bus. 

This is not the case for a Saroo (Sunny Pawar) in 1986 India. 

With one incredibly costly - but completely innocent - mistake, Saroo becomes lost from his tiny village of “Ganestalay” and ends up miles and miles away in Calcutta, and the film “Lion”, from first time feature-film director Garth Davis, chronicles his journey.  Davis structures the picture, based upon Saroo Brierley’s book, “A Long Way Home”, into two distinct halves:  Saroo’s misstep as a child and his attempt to reunite with his family as an adult (Dev Patel).  Although the latter introduces substantive material, the former works better cinematically. 

Pawar is a mesmerizing little actor, as he convincingly portrays the emotions of a lost, 5-year-old boy, without the comfort of his mother Kamla (Priyanka Rose), brother Guddu (Abhishek Bharate) and sister Shekila (Khushi Solanki).  Davis and Pawar truly capture the utter despair involved, as Saroo screams out for “Guddu” and “Mum” over and over within a sea of busy strangers at a train station or while painfully alone with no one to listen.  Eventually, his cries for help become muted to the resignation that no one will answer, and Saroo’s helplessness and that sick feeling in his stomach transmit from the screen to the audience, along with gentle prodding on our collective tear ducts. 

The story takes a distinct turn in the second act.  Many years later, a small event triggers a 20-something Saroo to search for his family.  Saroo’s pursuit becomes manic and obsessive at times, and he feels deep guilt for putting hit mother, brother and sister through distressing worry for two decades.  The problem is no one has heard of his hometown of “Ganestalay”, so he has to somehow retrace his steps from 20 years ago to find it.  Fortunately, the modern conveniences of 2007 - such as the Internet - exist, so Saroo might have the right tools to find his invisible needle in a country-sized haystack.

While he combs through countless electronic searches, he also turns his living room walls into a scene reminiscent of “A Beautiful Mind” (2001), with pins and strings darting over countless directions on maps of India.   Saroo agonizes, but unlike the first portion of the movie, it seems more difficult to translate his sudden feelings of despair.   Davis injects several flashbacks originating from Saroo’s memory, but they become repetitive and a little clumsy.  Since Saroo pushes away his supportive girlfriend (Rooney Mara), many times Patel is left to his own devices to convey angst, and generally speaking, Google searches are not terribly engaging as filmmaking instruments. 

The movie does introduce two engaging constants in Saroo’s life, John and Sue Brierley (David Wenham, Nicole Kidman), who certainly bring a calming and stable presence.  Davis devotes significant supporting screen time for Kidman, and she delivers a solid performance in presenting unwavering devotion to Saroo.  

Davis, Patel and the rest of the cast and filmmakers carry the same devotion to the story, as Saroo attempts to take an unfathomable leap to correct an unsuspecting boy’s poorly-timed misstep. 

As an adult, your only responsibility is to pack enough tissues before leaving for the theatre. 

(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.