The Lovers - Movie Review by Jeff Mitchell

Letts and Winger masterfully play a flawed couple in ‘The Lovers’

Written/directed by: Azazel Jacobs

Starring: Tracy Letts, Debra Winger, Melora Walters, and Aiden Gillen

“The Lovers” – “Cheating and lying aren’t struggles.  They’re reasons to break up.” – Patti Callahan Henry

Michael (Tracy Letts) and Mary (Debra Winger) have been married for eons.  Perhaps many of their years together have been happy, but not recently.  Residing in Santa Clarita, California, this 50-something couple share a comfortable suburban home and drive to white-collar jobs that one might find near Initech, the infamous company from “Office Space” (1999). 

Although Michael and Mary have zero passion for their day jobs, their work does not create emotional heartburn, per se.  No, Michael and Mary have, instead, checked out from a different job, their lifelong commitment to one another.  Their marriage.  On the figurative love-meter scale, their needle unfortunately resides at zero, as they sleepwalk through their mornings and repeatedly lie about staying late at the office, so they can canoodle with their respective lovers. 

Yes, both Michael and Mary are cheating on each other, but their best-laid plans of starting new lives with two others hit an unexpected bump that shake their foundations in this light – but absorbing - comedy/drama from writer/director Azazel Jacobs.  Shuffling romantic partners is not a brand-new cinematic concept, but “The Lovers” hooks us because of Letts and Winger’s nuanced performances and an unexpected twist that drives the main narrative. 

Letts is riding high from 2016 with three very memorable supporting roles in “Indignation”, “Wiener-Dog” and “Christine”.  He is an expert at playing caustic characters who seem to distantly sting from a past wrong turn taken in life.  Here, Michael regrets a couple wrong turns as well but does use them as excuses to verbally sting Mary.  He just keeps his distance.  Michael is not without his faults, but he does not stir audience disdain for his transgressions either.  He simply looks for happiness with the wrong girl, a challenging and demonstrative ballet teacher named Lucy (Melora Walters).  One wonders if Michael is attracted to drama, because he does not step away from her, despite her occasional explosions. 

Winger is very likeable as Mary.  Now, the screenplay implies that Mary has known about Michael’s affairs for years, and therefore, she decides to follow the what’s good for the goose is good for the gander approach and found a new man, Robert (Aiden Gillen).  Michael may have apparently wronged his wife for a long, long time, but Winger’s Mary does not play a victim.  She seems to have calmly concluded that their imperfect marriage ran painfully adrift and reclaimed her happiness by standing tall and sharing her life with someone else, a few hours at a time. 

Well, it is wonderful to see Winger on the big screen again for the 1-hour 34-minute runtime of “The Lovers”, especially because I have not seen her in a film since 2008’s “Rachel Getting Married”.  In that movie, her character – in a hugely explosive scene – becomes entangled in a vicious spat with her daughter (Anne Hathaway).  Winger has a history of playing tough, complicated and sometimes damaged women who are not afraid of a fight.  Similar to Letts, many of her characters will not shy away from a terse argument, but Mary might. She is strong but soft, feminine and willing to talk first rather than don verbal boxing gloves.  One hopes that happiness is truly in her future, even if her chosen new love interest occasionally shows his petty side.  

“The Lovers” might be a small movie, but Letts and Winger show off huge amounts of talent and charisma.  The two truly feel like a married couple of 30 years.  Each spouse intimately knows the other’s breathing cadences, and their “secret decoder rings” translate the slightest inhalation changes.  In other words, each one instantly recognizes when the other lies...and cheats. This brisk and thoughtful indie does not lie and/or cheat, but it sneaks up on us with its smarts, charm (which includes a very well-placed song, performed by Letts) and unexpected steps to find love.

(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 Wall - Movie Review by Jeff Mitchell

Taylor-Johnson and Cena cannot rest against ‘The Wall’

Directed by:  Doug Liman

Written by:  Dwain Worrell

Starring:  Aaron Taylor-Johnson, John Cena and Laith Nakli

“The Wall” – What images immediately come to mind when you read the words, “war movie”?  Human history unfortunately can provide thousands of examples in which people become mired in mass conflict and attempt to kill one another, and the big screens sometimes masterfully recapture those horrific struggles. 

For me, three films immediately pop into my brain.

Steven Spielberg’s “Saving Private Ryan” (1998) illustrates the murderous spectacle of war via the Allied invasion of Normandy.  Stanley Kubrick’s “Paths of Glory” (1957) depicts the brutality of war, when French soldiers scurry over mud, crawl under barbed wire and dodge German gunfire and grenades in No man’s land during World War I.  Lastly, “The Deer Hunter” (1978) places the enemy’s face in close-up view, as Vietnamese guards force American prisoners of war to play Russian roulette against one another, again and again and again. 

All three are all-time classic war movies, among the best in cinematic history.  Director Doug Liman’s “The Wall” is not an all-time classic, but it is a good film and also very different than most war pictures.  It does not carry the grand spectacle of “Saving Private Ryan”, the visceral brutality of “Paths of Glory” or a close-up view of the other side like “The Deer Hunter”.  Instead, it pits two American soldiers against an unknown enemy in the middle of 2007 Iraq, four years after the United States claimed “mission accomplished”.   

Sgt. Isaac (Aaron Taylor-Johnson) and Staff Sergeant Matthews’ (WWE’s John Cena) mission is to investigate a situation.  About eight American contractors lay dead - where they stood - in the middle of seemingly Nowhere, Iraq.   Isaac and Matthews, very experienced through several difficult tours, believe that the person responsible is not too far away, and therefore this ordinary, partially-constructed infrastructure site is extremely dangerous. 

After Isaac and Matthews become caught in a fiery exchange, the only refuge is a modest, stone wall, about 20 yards long.  This wall was part of a school that the Americans destroyed during the war, and now it serves a much different purpose.  “The Wall” – which runs a scant 1 hour 21 minutes – has a very small cast, but it raises big moments of anxiety in a couple of ways. 

The enemy is a sniper, hiding somewhere close by, and Isaac and Matthews initially have zero clue where he or she is located.  The shots could be coming from anywhere, and Liman sets a noticeably unsettling tone.  Isaac and Matthews - simply standing upright in plain view and with high-powered rifles in hand – could be struck down in any second, and the beads of sweat running down their brows might also be running down ours as well.  This tension-filled setting feels like an outpost from a rustic western with the sun beating down on our heroes and barren desert stretching in every direction. 

They are alone, and their only occasional companions are subtle and not so subtle noises.  Bits of torn plastic wrap flapping in the breeze and the crunching of dirt fall into the former, and the piercing cracks of single gunshots belong in the latter.  The gunshots repeatedly surprise the men as much as they surprise us, especially since the actual crack of a fired bullet arrives about a second after it strikes its intended target.

Targeting this sniper is the most pressing problem, and with his or her unknown whereabouts, “The Wall” effectively offers a sense of isolated doom.  Doom is featured in other ways too, as the film raises bigger questions about the Iraq War itself.  Through creative means, Isaac and the sniper actually communicate, and they reveal their motivations within a war without an apparent purpose. 

We have seen the hellish results of war in just about every such movie that I can remember, so Liman’s picture does not break any new ground in that respect.  It does, however - through subtle conversation and the complications of laying in the desert behind a modest stone wall - underscore their dire circumstances, and how their lives were irrevocably changed because of decisions made at the highest political level. 

Five years from now, “The Wall” will probably not enter my consciousness when I think about great war films, but individual soldiers fighting for a cloudy cause - four years after the conflict supposedly ended – could still linger.

(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.

Chuck - Movie Review by Monte Yazzie

Chuck

Director: Phillipe Falardeau

Cast: Liev Schreiber, Elisabeth Moss, Naomi Watts, Ron Perlman, Jim Gaffigan, Michael Rappaport, Pooch Hall, and Morgan Spector

Do you recognize the name Chuck Wepner? What if I told you that Chuck Wepner was a boxer who went the distance in the ring with Mohammad Ali when "The Greatest" was in his prime, in the first fight after Ali defeated George Foreman in Zaire in "The Rumble in the Jungle". Ring any bells? Sounds unbelievable right? Sounds like something out of a movie? Well, if you've seen the film "Rocky" then you've seen the film inspired by Chuck Wepner.

"Give the White Guy A Break", that's how boxing promoter Don King billed the fight between Wepner and Ali. The fight had everything good sports stories are made of, a blue collar underdog going up against a sports icon with a loud mouth, a scrappy fighter known for taking a punch (Wepner was nicknamed the "Bayonne Bleeder") verse a flashy fighter known for giving a punch, and at its core a fight that had more to do with the racial divide than it did for the talents of the fighters. The surprise of the whole thing, Wepner made it 15 rounds and knocked Ali down to the ground.

Director Phillipe Falardeau isn't so much concerned with the big fight, it plays a role as an early first act transition. What is emphasized is Wepner's life after the fight, the fame from the unexpected hit film "Rocky", the indulgence of women and drugs, and of course the subsequent fall from fame and the spotlight. Regardless of how much Mr. Falardeau tries to tell a different boxing story, the film still utilizes many of the familiar motifs found in sports/boxing films. But, just like Chuck Wepner, the film puts up a pretty good fight.

Liev Schreiber plays the embattled boxer, a liquor salesman one day and a local folk hero the next day, with charm and confidence. It's a quality that makes it all the more difficult to watch the character when mistakes are made over and over again. In one of the most cringe-worthy scenes Chuck is given an opportunity to try out for the "Rocky" sequel by Sylvester Stallone (played convincingly by Morgan Spector), his addictions ruin the opportunity. Mr. Schreiber maintains a grounded performance throughout that gives the character surprising appeal amidst his extensive flaws.

Elisabeth Moss plays Chuck's diligent and patient wife Phyliss with the steadfast hope that her unfaithful husband will change his ways, and when he doesn't she becomes a woman determined to never be stepped on again. Naomi Watts shows up for a supportive role as Chuck's new girl Linda, a woman unwilling to commit to a man who won't change or see that life has a different purpose than remaining relevant. It's a small role but Ms. Watts does a good job of creating quick chemistry with the Mr. Schreiber. Also making appearances are Jim Gaffigan as Chuck's best friend, Ron Perlman as his trainer, and Michael Rappaport as his brother. It's a good cast all playing support to Mr. Schrieber's lead.

Unfortunately as the film begins to delve into Wepner's downfall, the interesting character bits begin to disappear in favor of the standard biopic sentiments that gloss over a lifetime of information in order to show the upward trajectory for the character in the end. While Mr. Schreiber's performance and voice over narration help when the film begins to wane, the familiarity and compliance to never explore the fighting character more than surface interactions prevents the film from having a lasting effect.

Monte's Rating

3.00 out of 5.00

Guardians of the Galaxy Vol. 2 - Movie Review Monte Yazzie

Guardians of Galaxy Vol. 2

Director: James Gunn

Starring: Chris Pratt, Zoe Saldana, Dave Bautista, Michael Rooker, Kurt Russell, Karen Gillan, Pom Klementieff, Elizabeth Debicki, Sean Gunn, and Sylvester Stallone

Have you ever made a mixtape? Those of us from the cassette days probably understand this concept best. It can be a complicated process depending on the kind of theme you want the music to have. Do you start the mix off with something that gets your adrenaline flowing? Do you slowly build the mix towards a climactic final song? For those experienced in this process, you know that there is always a standout mixtape that all other mixtapes will be judged by.

"Guardians of the Galaxy Vol.2" is like a mixtape in regards to how it handles composing all the good feelings and emotions in order to match the quality that made the first film so excellent. Happy to say that director James Gunn has made a pretty good mixtape of a film here, one that has more emotion and feel good moments than expected, though a few choices keep the film from reaching the heights of its predecessor.

The Guardians of the Galaxy, lead by Peter "Star-Lord" Quill (Chris Pratt), are introduced in preparation to fight a new foe, a blobby, tentacled beast with pulverizing rows of razor sharp teeth. Gamora (Zoe Saldana), Rocket (voiced by Bradley Cooper), and Drax (Dave Bautista) fly around chopping and blasting at the beast while an adorable Baby Groot (voiced by Vin Diesel) upstages the entire action set piece with a dance number. From the early moments of the film you can feel the playfulness and silliness that made the first film so unique in the Marvel Cinematic Universe. Mr. Gunn, who also penned the script, enjoys moments of levity in his films. When another film would bask in a tension filled action scene, Mr. Gunn instead opts for well placed sight gag or a verbal jab. Many times in his films, it's a welcome moment, however in "Guardians of the Galaxy Vol. 2" it undercuts some of the nice emotional content that he builds.

The emotional content here was an unexpected surprise, there are more than a few moments that will tug at the heartstrings. It provides an opportunity for the talented cast to display some insight into their characters. There are familial themes strung throughout the entire film, fathers and sons, the bond of siblings, the abandonment and loss of family are a few. Mr. Gunn does a good job of utilizing these narrative elements to add some structure to the characters, which is necessary considering there is no true origin story for the world that these characters operate in. While little elements continue to become clear concerning the core Guardians' team stories, the focus is clearly on Peter Quill's backstory and family. This allows a welcome surprise from veteran actor Kurt Russell playing Peter's father Ego with the kind of charm and laid back demeanor that has made Mr. Russell so appealing for all these years. It's great casting because it's not too big of a stretch to see Mr. Pratt follow in the same career path as Mr. Russell.

The team in the "Guardians of the Galaxy" film are a near perfect mix for a ragtag team of heroes, even though they aren't the original team from the comic books. While the spotlight was evenly distributed in the first film, some characters are given lesser or too much attention in the sequel. Gamora is trying to patch up her past quarrel with her sister Nebulla (Karen Gillan) but the conflict is never given much time to fully have the impact that it should and Drax's vengeance-fueled emotional quality is substituted for comedy that sometimes hits but mostly misses the target.

There are fan surprises throughout the film, a quality that this franchise completely understands how to incorporate without ruining a scene. But the surprises aren't limited to Marvel world connecting or one-off references to lesser known comics, it's also how Mr. Gunn makes a digital character like Rocket Raccoon the heart of the film or how he takes the talented abilities of Michael Rooker and provides the actor with a character and material that displays why he is such a great actor. While this film may not compose the combination of elements that made the first film so impressive, it's still consistently fun and filled with heart. A good mixtape is a good mixtape.

Monte's Rating

3.50 out of 5.00

Guardians of the Galaxy Vol. 2 - Movie Review by Kaely Monahan

Starlord returns to work through some daddy issues

By Kaely Monahan

Making a sequel is hard but Marvel has built an empire out of creating not just sequels but vast interconnecting storylines that somehow feed our inner need for a great action film. Even so, there’s always a chance the second film in a franchise will not reach a fan’s hopes and dreams. That said, Guardians of the Galaxy Vol. 2 comes nearly there.

James Gunn is at the helm was once more both writing and directing GotG2. Starlord (Chris Pratt) is back with his characteristic swashbuckling style and flair for the dramatic. The entire crew returns with Zoe Saldana as Gamora, Dave Bautista as Drax, Bradley Cooper as Rocket and the totally adorable Baby Groot, who Vin Diesel voices.

The film opens with a flashback to when Peter Quill/Starlord’s mother was with his father, Ego, played by a young-looking Kurt Russell. Some necessary plot points are planted here before moving on 37 years later. We catch up with the Guardians on a planet filled with a race of golden perfectionists. The Guardians are tasked with saving a shiny object—in this instance, batteries of some amazing power. They have to fight what looks a cross between a slug and an octopus—which shall henceforth be called a “slug-o-pus.” For whatever reason, slug-o-pus wants the batteries. Does he want to eat them? Does he want to wear them? Perhaps his phone needs charging? Who can say?

For all the spectacular action sequences, the film quickly zeroes in on its focus: family. If the first film is about finding yourself, this one is about finding your family. For Pratt’s Peter Quill, it means discovering who is father is and what his heritage means. For Gamora and Nebula, it’s realizing what being sisters is all about. Even Rocket goes through an incredible character arc in the short amount of time that he’s on screen.

The film isn’t afraid to question what family is. Peter has to decide if his family is the one he grew up with and created with the Guardians, or if it’s the relationship with his blood father. There is also a strong vein of forgiveness—even if you screw up over and over again.

James Gunn and fellow writer Dan Abnett put together a remarkably deep storyline despite the shallowness of some of the characters. At first glance, you might not catch just how introspective the story is.

What this Guardians film lacks is the magic of the first one. The initial film had a certain spunk and sparkle that took us completely off guard. The bar was raised very high, which means the second film must be beyond spectacular. GotG2 gets pretty close, but some of the jokes feel forced; there’s a few moments that feel flat. Baby Groot, for example, was really built up in the promos, but some of his novel cuteness seems to have suffered from too much exposure leading up to the film. He’s cute, but not that cute. His best gags were given away in previews.

The relationship of Gamora and her sister Nebula feel sacrificed for time, which is unfortunate. These are two powerful female characters in the Marvel universe and they hardly get time to work out their storylines. This is very unfortunate, but unsurprising. From the beginning, Marvel films have struggled to give due credit to the female heroes. (Where’s our Black Widow film??)

James Gunn and Dan Abnett had a real golden opportunity to give these women real depth but more screen time was given to a CGI raccoon and a blue alien. No offense to Rocket or Yondu. While the story arc for both Rocket and Yondu were great and emotionally satisfying, us lady fans of Marvel could really use a win for the superwomen in its universe .

Even Starlord’s daddy issues feel subverted by the emotional rollercoaster Rocket goes through. By comparison, these two get almost equal screen time. Baby Groot and Drax are reduced mostly to comedic sidekicks who have no real story, but then there’s only so much time you can devote when you have more than seven important characters.

In the end, Guardians of the Galaxy Vol. 2 accomplishes its goal of being an entertaining follow up on our favorite space heroes. Is the first one better? Yes. But this one holds up rather well and fans, for the most part, won’t be disappointed.

   • Kaely Monahan is a radio producer, entertainment journalist, and the creator of Popcorn Fan Film Reviews. Follow her @PopcornFans and @KaelyMonahan.

Five Must-See Kurt Russell Performances By Jeff Mitchell

Five must-see Kurt Russell performances

“Guardians of the Galaxy Vol. 2” arrives in theatres on March 5, and our five heroes – Star-Lord, Gamora, Drax, Rocket, and Groot (actually, Baby Groot) return to ride through the cosmos and attempt to save the galaxy again while offering heaps of action, humor and alien-human-plant-raccoon camaraderie.  New characters appear as well, but none more pivotal than the one played by longtime, Hollywood action star, Kurt Russell.  Russell shines in Marvel Studios’ latest effort, but the man has been blazing across big screens for decades, appearing in over 50 featured films since the 1960s.  In celebration of his new role in “Guardians of the Galaxy Vol. 2”, let’s look back at a portion of his illustrious film career.  There are so many highlights to choose from, but instead of including every one of his films, here are five must-see Kurt Russell performances.      

“Bone Tomahawk (2015), Sheriff Hunt – Russell’s most famous performance in a western is Wyatt Earp in 1993’s “Tombstone”, but his best work within the genre is in writer/director S. Craig Zahler’s “Bone Tomahawk”.  In this picture, Sheriff Hunt (Russell) leads a group of three other men – played by Richard Jenkins, Matthew Fox and Patrick Wilson - on a long, treacherous journey from their town of Bright Hope to a frightening community of cannibalistic cave dwellers.  About 75 percent of the film embraces the pureness of the American western with saloon drinks, cowboy talk (i.e., “If you don’t say who you are, I’ll shoot you dead.”) and the open range, but the last 30 minutes delve into gruesome horror that will be etched in this movie critic’s brain for eternity.  Don’t say that you were not warned!  On the other hand, Russell’s machismo persona nicely gels with the other three leads, as their verbal jousting and friendly banter during their trek will absolutely bring a smile to anyone who loves westerns.  A hidden gem.

“Escape from New York” (1981), Snake Plissken – The year 1997 was a relatively peaceful time in America, but not in writer/director John Carpenter’s dystopian action picture.  In “Escape from New York”, 1997 New York City is no tranquil walk in the park.  In fact, the federal government walls off Manhattan Island and declares it a prison for the most ruthless criminals, and somehow the U.S. President (Donald Pleasence) finds himself trapped inside.  Enter Snake Plissken (Russell), the ultimate tough guy with a black tank top, eye patch and a snake tattoo breathing on his stomach.  This former military specialist with two purple hearts cuts a deal to rescue the president within 24 hours in a race against time inside an infinitely violent concrete jungle.  Everyone he meets seems to think that he was already killed but do not test this assumed dead man.  Ernest Borgnine, Adrienne Barbeau, Harry Dean Stanton, and Isaac Hayes join in the “Mad Max”-like carnage in this classic action film.

“Miracle” (2004), Herb Brooks – “I’m not looking for the best players, Craig.  I’m looking for the right ones.”  - USA Hockey Head Coach Herb Brooks (Russell)

Coach Brooks has only seven months to construct and train a hockey team to play in the 1980 Winter Olympics in Lake Placid, and with a very short window to put a championship team on the ice, he tells his assistant coach, Craig Patrick (Noah Emmerich) that needs the right players.  Brooks recruits 21-year-old hockey “kids”, who attempt to do the improbable: win a gold medal for the United States.  Director Gavin O’Connor and Russell recreate a terrific, behind-the-scenes look at Brooks’ out of the box thinking and methods which inspired 20 young hockey players and an entire nation.  While the players - sometimes begrudgingly - follow Coach Brooks’ words, we gaze and listen to every moment that Russell appears on screen in one of the most satisfying sports movies in recent decades.  

“Do you believe in miracles?” 

Well, after seeing this movie, we all should.

“The Thing” (1982), R.J. MacReady – Director John Carpenter’s “The Thing” is best known for its wild special effects and extreme gore, but his movie is much, much more than buckets of blood and innards thrown on the screen.  It is an intense and frightening story within the cramped confines of a lonely science institute on the world’s most desolate continent.  You see, a malevolent alien enters the compound with the ability to kill and mimic any living creature and hides in plain sight, disguised as one of the men in the isolated premises. 

Any of the men could be the creature, as the no-nonsense pilot, R.J. MacReady (Russell), rightly exclaims, “Nobody trusts anybody now.”

Russell delivers an unforgettable performance as MacReady, and while under extreme duress and terror, this character keeps his cool in order to survive an impossible situation. He is the type of guy who you want quarterbacking your football team, a person with plenty of street smarts and a burly toughness to lead men, even when they don’t want to be led.

“Used Cars” (1980), Rudy Russo – Admittedly, writer/director Robert Zemeckis’ comedy has not particularly aged well over the last 37 years.  The shock value of its raunchy punchlines feel dated, and the “Smokey and the Bandit” (1977) bit in the third act is a bit tired.  Still, when Rudy Russo (Russell), an especially talented, scheming car salesman, tells a perspective female car buyer that her hair matches the color of the tires, one becomes amazed with his power of persuasion.  During Rudy’s journey to raise enough money to leave the car business to become – of all things – a state senator, “Used Cars” flashes some memorable faces from the past, like Al “Grandpa” Lewis, Michael McKean and David L. Lander.   The movie was shot in the Valley too and showcases some filmed footage of the ASU Sun Devils!  Really? 

As Rudy would say, “Trust me!”

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 Dinner - Movie Review by Jeff Mitchell

‘The Dinner’ serves up an intriguing, tense drama

Written/directed by:  Oren Moverman

Starring:  Richard Gere, Laura Linney, Steve Coogan, and Rebecca Hall

“The Dinner” – Look up “dinner” in the dictionary, and it reads “the principal meal of the day” and “a formal feast or banquet”.  For most households, however, dinner has a larger meaning.  It is a time when families congregate to share their experiences and feelings while also - functionally - breaking bread.  Sometimes laugher fills these caucuses, but many times, family members toss issues on the table and either productively work through them or dive deeper into valleys of conflict. 

For decades, television shows have featured American experiences at the dinner table, and one might find industrious communication on “The Waltons” or “Leave it to Beaver” or something altogether dysfunctional like on “All in the Family”.  

Seriously, did anything productive ever occur when Archie (Carroll O’Connor), Edith (Jean Stapleton), Michael (Rob Reiner), and Gloria (Sally Struthers) sat down for a meal?

In writer/director Oren Moverman’s “The Dinner”, he invites the audience to a family affair, and his characters need to discuss an event.  An event in which nothing good happened, and in fact, it is much, much worse than nothing good.  The meal is not in someone’s home but in an exclusive French restaurant, complete with posh, dimly lit rooms, expensive wine lists and five-star menus.  This is a place in which four servers and a maître d present every meal’s celebratory course.  A place that serves diverse, intricate tastes like Thumbelina carrots, pumpernickel soil, Bayley Hazen Blue cheese, and bananas Foster without even breaking a sweat, but four patrons are certainly feeling pressure.

Brothers Stan (Richard Gere) and Paul (Steve Coogan) share some serious tension.  Most of it emanates from Paul, as he regularly fires heaping amounts of disdain towards his brother, who is a prominent U.S. congressman.  Prior to the dinner, Paul has zero desire to step outside of his home with his wife, Claire (Laura Linney), and spend any time with Stan and his wife, Katelyn (Rebecca Hall).  He figuratively stomps his feet at his house, on the way to the restaurant and throughout the meal.  Coogan is perfectly cast as Paul, dripping with sarcasm and out-of-line insults towards anyone - not named Claire – within his immediate view. 

Those with razor sharp wit can verbally dance with clever, humorous banter, but Paul’s words cut with razor sharp blades that slash with direct intention to cut one’s spirit, one vicious, snide remark at a time.  Paul is fascinating, because to the audience, we do not have insight into his motivations, and Coogan raises the intrigue for us to discover it.  Meanwhile, Stan, Claire and Katelyn challenge his caustic remarks, but sometimes, they just casually accept his mean-spirited words.

Like it or not, Paul is emotionally damaged, and Linney’s Claire seems to have absorbed the negative energy throughout the years, like a victim slowly exposed to toxic radiation, day after day, week after week and year after year.   Not enough exposure to kill someone at once - or even over a lifetime - but enough to wound one’s psychology and general state of peace. 

The four enter this meal with baggage but must address a new a challenge, one also concerning family. 

The next generation. 

Moverman introduces this challenge over a cracked foundation of twisting quarrels.  The film meticulously opens the mysteries to Paul and Stan’s history and their children’s (Rick, Michael and Beau) present through a slow burn, but sometimes the picture releases effective, quick-hitting explosions.  We are teased too, as the dinner itself runs into several snags in navigating from one course to the next, and usually at least one person is leaving the table.  One wonders if anyone will touch their food at all or even address the elephant in the room…that these four know all too well.  We just guess. 

After a while, we do not have to guess any longer.  The exact reason for the dinner could completely blow up these nuclear families, and the fallout might never possess a half-life.  This dinner will hopefully navigate the future, but when opinions are split - especially when it comes to the fate of one’s children - emotions run high. 

“The Dinner” may or may not provide answers that the audience would like, but it addresses mental illness and the trials of parenting in a forceful way.  The picture’s shrewdly-written script and top-notch performances effectively introduce the characters’ stressors, which are simultaneously both familiar and not fully understood to us.  Then again, the concept of family is not complicated, although its mechanics are.  This makes the potential for any evening meal – whether it consists of meatloaf or four courses – to become an involved and emotional experience.  (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 Midnighters - Movie Review by Jeff Mitchell

Russom and Fort shine in ‘The Midnighters’

Written/directed by:  Julian Fort

Starring:  Leon Russom, Gregory Sims, John Wesley, Larry Cedar, and Charles Dierkop

“The Midnighters” – Victor (Leon Russom) is free.

After 35 years in prison, this 72-year-old – who physically and emotionally displays the effects of extensive confinement through deep etches in his face and pronounced, tired circles under his eyes – is now free. 

His former “business associate”, Louie (Charles Dierkop), asks him, “Do you know what you are going to do now?”

Victor responds, “Not a clue.”

At this moment of “The Midnighters” - writer/director Julian Fort’s outstanding step into noir – my mind immediately traveled back to 1994’s “The Shawshank Redemption”, when the state grants parole to an aging prisoner named Brooks (James Whitmore).   Brooks – unfortunately – could not process his new-found freedom, because the world was much too large, compared with his tiny, cement block cell that he knew for probably half a century, and I feared Victor would fall into the same tragic fate.

Victor is unsure of himself and his new surroundings. 

Are his friends still alive?  Is his money still in safekeeping?  Will he recognize Los Angeles in the 21st century?   

Even though Fort sets his film in the present, his well-crafted crime drama harkens back to gritty affairs from the 1970s, the time – actually - in which Victor was originally imprisoned.  Every main character sports a shady past, and even Victor’s parole officer (Larry Cedar) appears to have worked through his share of issues as well, as Fort deliberately crafts a downcast tone.  His camera follows Victor around blue-collar neighborhoods, as this ex-con attempts to process his next move for the first 45 minutes of the picture’s 1-hour 26-minute runtime.  

Russom – who delivered the single best performance that I saw at the 2017 Phoenix Film Festival – offers an authentic and wholly empathetic character in Victor.  A man now misplaced in time, Victor quietly fights through uncertainty.  One can feel that he is panicking with internal, physiological combustion but copes by smoking a random cigarette whenever he can.  Sometimes, we see Victor speaking in masculine metaphors with an old friend, Chester (John Wesley).  Other times, he sits alone and deeply ponders his limited time in an unknown future or dwells on his mistake-filled past.  He exists in an unhealthy state, personified – at one point – by dining on a piece of moist, heavily frosted chocolate cake contained in a plastic, supermarket box and drinking a bottle of cold beer. 

He – and his diet - may be unhealthy, but he is free.  

Although, his freedom consists of living on the wrong side of tracks in a weekly-rented apartment at King Solomon’s Reef.  His place includes wood paneling on its thin walls, and they easily permeate the sounds of crying babies and drunks breaking bottles, day or night. 

Like the film’s title, most of the picture takes place at night, and dark tones are also reflected in Victor’s clothing choices (including a loose-fitting, black sweatshirt), his general mood and the overall feeling of dim hope.  The mood and pacing change however, when - out of the blue/dark - a man from his past, Danny (Gregory Sims), suddenly appears and provides a reason for some rarely-felt optimism.  The problem is that Danny could take Victor to a place which could land him back in incarceration.  At this point, the math says that another 35-year sentence means life in prison.

Fort’s film is split into two halves:  Victor’s doubts about his brand new present and the huge step towards a potential future.  Of course, this step is a criminal one, and Fort and Russom lead us down a tricky and tension-filled path in which we really root for Victor to come out the victor.  Our hero’s history of luck has not been a good one, however, and his age does not appear to be his ally.  Sure, experience does beget knowledge, but this is balanced by the stress that extensive prison time has also created.  In one very important 90-second stretch towards the end of the second act, a bead of sweat rolls down Victor’s brow, and we sit next to him and feel the pressure too.  During this precise moment, Victor does have a clue – but not absolute certainty – about this particular action, but as “The Midnighters” unfolds, we don’t have a clue how it will end for this man approaching the midnight of his life. 

(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.

Secondhand Hearts - Movie Review by Jeff Mitchell

‘Secondhand Hearts’ taps into firsthand emotions 

Written/directed by:  Austin Everett

Starring:  Ben Isaacs, Mallory Corinne, Allie Rae Treharne, Jericho Lopez, Rebecca C. Olson, and Ward Wright 

“Secondhand Hearts” - “Jaime, maybe we should talk about some things before we go in.” – Ben (Ben Isaacs)

“Okay, is something wrong?” – Jaime (Allie Rae Treharne)

Something is wrong. 

Ben just arrived back in the U.S. after a trip to Japan.  He is a photographer and traveled to Osaka - and some surrounding areas - to take photos for a calendar, but his trip turned out to be magical.   Sure, Ben’s pictures probably turned out fine, but he met a girl, Emily (Mallory Corinne). 

Ben – who is in a committed relationship with Jaime – ran into Emily in Japan, spent a few days with her, and it became a life changing event for him.  Now, this could be dismissed as a casual fling on the other side of the globe, but Ben and Emily feel a connection, complete with internal churns of butterflies, fireworks and lighting bolts.   Now, Ben is about to meet Jaime’s family for the first time over Thanksgiving dinner, and yes, something is wrong.  He needs to end his relationship with Jaime, and it comes at the worst possible time. 

Writer/director Austin Everett thoughtfully spends his time by offering a compelling drama about a man faced with a thorny decision, but due to newly discovered revelations, Ben’s choice seems impossible.  His thorny decision suddenly becomes wrapped in barbed wire and dipped in lemon juice, and Everett and Isaacs effectively communicate Ben’s anxiety and transmit emotional pokes and punctures from the big screen to the audience. 

The film’s construction pokes in different settings too, as it regularly volleys from affluent, manicured American suburbia to the woodsy and urban charm of faraway Japan.  Everett lays out an intentionally awkward meeting the family assembly with Jaime’s perfectly nice mother (Rebecca C. Olson) and father (Ward Wright).  They welcome Ben into their home and provide a warm environment, but Morris’ (Wright) physical presence is a bit intimidating – like he played football or rugby in college - so our young protagonist does feel the need to tread lightly.  For the record, anyone who has stayed over at a boyfriend or girlfriend’s parents’ home for the first time certainly knows the pressure of maintaining one’s very best behavior...in order to survive the visit.  Due to events - which I will not reveal in this review – raise that pressure on Ben by a factor of oh, I don’t know, 10,000 perhaps?

Ben is emotionally trapped over the course the dinner’s main course.  Thankfully, Everett gives the audience regular reprieves from the confines of family civilities by shipping us back to those aforementioned, past experiences in Japan, Ben and Emily’s romance.  The film smoothly transitions back and forth through smart editing and writing, as the events between the two time periods feel linked.  For example, Ben takes a photo in Morris and Judy’s home, and the action then quickly shifts to Japan, when a group of kids pose with Emily for a picture and yell, “Cheese!”   The flashbacks occur many times, and each one has a distinct purpose. 

Speaking of purpose, Ben seems to have one during his Osaka trip and credit Isaacs for his character’s almost split personality.  Ben is playful, sarcastic, lively, and everything feels right when he is with Emily.  His actions speak to us in Japan but also through a chirpy montage accompanied by a beautiful, upbeat tune called “Brandenburg Stomp”, performed by Kishi Bashi.  It is the type of song that you’ll immediately search for in iTunes and blast in your living room several times in a row.  

Ben and Emily might have previously had their ducks in a row in separate, committed relationships, but they do feel right together and contrast that with Ben’s lethargic, listless spirit, when he is with Jaime.   He actually spells this out in a critical conversation in the third act, but we already felt it with every cinematic fiber of our collective-being.  If “Secondhand Hearts” spells out a life lesson here, this moviegoer hears it loud and clear. Ben is watching his own mistake-of-a-lifetime play out in slow motion, but he can prevent it at any time by taking an incredibly brave, brutally honest step.  The problem is that life is constructing an applecart for Ben, and he leans towards not upsetting it, even though he does not really care for apples.

We do care about these characters though, and Emily does appear in the post-Japan storyline.  While Isaacs plays Ben very differently in the two time periods, Corinne smartly plays Emily consistently during and after Japan.  Her character does not leave her emotions as wide-open as Ben and plays her cards close to the vest.  Perhaps she is thinking of her own self-preservation, but the end result is Ben seems singularly caught in this net, even though Emily has a vital stake in it as well.   Credit Treharne and Jericho Lopez too, who offer real surprises when we least expect it, including Lopez’s character’s reluctant heart-to-heart in an unlikely locale. 

Well, this particular chance encounter - in an unlikely locale from across the Pacific Ocean – causes many waves and “something wrong” in one suburban home over the holidays, and yes, “Secondhand Hearts” certainly taps into firsthand emotions.

(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, respec

Voice from the Stone - Movie Review by Jeff Mitchell

‘Voice from the Stone’ speaks with its stunning visuals, mysterious performances

Directed by:  Eric D. Howell

Written by:  Andrew Shaw

Starring:  Emilia Clark, Marton Csokas, Edward Dring, and Caterina Murino

“Voice from the Stone” – Jakob (Edward Dring) is hurting.  Seven months and 16 days ago, his mother, Malvina (Caterina Murino), died in her home, and Jakob was by her bedside when she passed away. 

He is about 11 years old, and from the moment that she passed, he has not spoken a word to anyone, not even his grieving father, Klaus (Marton Csokas).  Klaus is beside himself because of the loss of his lovely, talented wife but also because of Jakob’s silence.   

He hired several nurses to hopefully find a way for his son to speak but to no avail.  One day, a nurse without a university degree, but with a special gift of connection, Verena (Emilia Clarke), enters their lives.  Verena, without a husband and kids of her own, enjoys a fruitful, successful career and a long track record of healing dozens of kids over the years.  She believes that she might be the key to reaching Jakob and helping him speak, and hence, Verena attempts to find a “Voice from the Stone”. 

Director Eric D. Howell’s picture is aptly named for a couple reasons.  First, in the classic story “The Sword in the Stone”, a boy becomes the only one in the kingdom to pull a sword from a stone.  In this film, Verena could be the only one to help Jakob rediscover his very lost voice.  Second, Malvina’s family is beyond exceedingly rich, as they earned their wealth – for over 1,200 years - through mining in the adjacent quarry.  Hence, “stone” has a literal meaning in this picture.

Literally, this film – told in a 1950s Tuscany setting - is visually beautiful.  Howell found a gorgeous setting - Castello Di Celsa in Siena, Italy – which serves as Klaus and Jakob’s home.  Hiding in the sometimes-gray fog, the property is a luxurious wonder.  With lush patterns of thick avocado-colored hedges and acreage in every direction, the carefully manicured land accompanies its massive stone castle-master with a towering crown.  The interior is just as impressive, but Howell filmed all of the indoor scenes in Montecalvello Castello, as the small, selected cast weave in between notable rooms steeped in massive amounts of history. 

Nearly everything feels wrapped in a shroud of mystery and secrets, as we see Verena walk in both light and shadows.  Much of the time, she is looking for Jakob.  The boy might not have his voice, but he certainly owns a mind of his own.  Verena continually attempts to reach a boy who does not wish to be found – both emotionally and physically - and keeping his distance seems to be his primary skillset.  Jakob is not stupid, because he knows very well that his silence breeds frustration with his dad and one starts to believe that it has a specific purpose. 

Clarke’s Verena is very sympathetic, especially after a reveal of her past and plays an effective protagonist, as we hope for her quick success.  With humility, grace and patience, she wins over the audience but struggles to warm up to a cold, distant Klaus and a confused boy, who appears to be in limbo of actually accepting her tutelage.  Verena is an honest broker, but this quality leaves her vulnerable to the unknown, which is in a heaping supply with 12 centuries of life, love and death in one place with one family.  The family has generated an uncountable amount of memories on this site, and along with wind, rustling leaves and creaky gates, Jakob swears that he hears something else, a voice. 

“Voices from the Stone” is a mystery, but through most of the picture, it is a subtle and slow one.  Running at a thrifty 1 hour and 34 minutes, the film does feel longer.  With just a few lead characters in a nearly empty house and very few times when anybody connects, the slower pace is noticeable, but it is also offset by a picturesque view in nearly any direction. 

The movie does pay off in the third act, and when looking back, the cryptic script does nestle into a logical conclusion.  Curiously, for a movie wrapped in subtlety, it does unnecessary reinforce its main plot point through the lyrics of a complimented song at the most critical time.  Attentive audiences do not necessarily need this cue, and my wish for a music-only melody played at this said, verbal moment.   It is probably the only time in the picture in which I wanted less, because for most of the film, I wanted more scripted, verbal nuance to match the intricate visuals.  Still, “Voice from the Stone” is a stylish mystery that ultimately answers why Jakob has been hurting for seven months, 16 days and counting, whether or not Verena is ultimately successful. 

(2.5/4 stars)

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

The Lost City of Z - Movie Review by Jeff Mitchell

Gray and Hunnam discover an absorbing journey towards ‘The Lost City of Z’

Writer/Director:  James Gray

Starring:  Charlie Hunnam, Robert Pattinson, Sienna Miller, and Tom Holland 

“The Lost City of Z” – “It is there, and we must find it.” – Col. Percy Fawcett (Charlie Hunnam)

“Ain’t nobody comes back from up there.” – A disbeliever    

When traveling, I frequently look to my phone for five-star reviews for some out of the way restaurant or coffee shop.  Sure, I may not be too familiar with the new neighborhoods or roadways, but the determination to discover a sought-after meal or liquid caffeine is strong.  Well, that is the extent of my efforts in exploration, so – to me - the fortitude of Col. Percy Fawcett (Hunnam), a true figure from the early 20th Century, is not simply remarkable, but incomprehensible.

In “The Lost City of Z”, the British government commissions Col. Fawcett to South America for two years to map the jungles of Bolivia, which will hopefully help settle a border dispute.  In an effort to clear his family name (from past missteps not caused by him), Percy decides to leave his wife and children behind for this treacherous journey. 

Director James Gray (“The Immigrant” (2013), “Two Lovers” (2008)) runs with the biopic material and shoots an astonishing-looking picture about a man’s quest to know the unknown.  During Percy’s surveying duties, however, he does change his focus.  Instead, he looks to find a lost civilization, a lost city.  A lost, landlocked city of Atlantis located in the middle of the jungle, a city that Percy labels as Zed.

“Z” is the last letter in the alphabet, and this lost city is one of the last places someone from Great Britain – with all of the creature comforts of the early 1900s - would venture, but with his colleague, Henry Costin (Robert Pattinson), and a small group of westerners and locals, they perilously move forward. 

Gray – who actually shot many of the scenes in Colombia – takes painstaking efforts to paint an aura of danger.  If the overbearing, intense heat – that seemingly bleeds off the screen - does not wither Percy, Henry and company, instinct-driven jungle mammals or serpents could gnaw on our heroes.  Although, the biggest threats are some local tribes, who might consider outsiders the enemy or worse yet, FOOD.   Yes, cannibalism is not an unfamiliar practice within these mazelike circles.  Clearly, animals gobbling up one for dinner is a vastly unpleasant proposition, but fellow human beings concocting a person-stew can raise the onscreen characters’ anxiety to a fever pitch.   The audience’s anxiety too. 

In one of the most effective scenes, the group travels down a silent river in a large raft, completely vulnerable with copious jungle surrounding them on both sides.  Silence becomes their only dreaded companion, with a very real possibility of a sudden ambush occurring at any moment. 

This is Percy’s exploration story, but the film’s other main thread is the toll that his worldly travels have on his family back in Britain.  Sienna Miller is convincing as Percy’s supportive wife, Nina, but Tom Holland offers different sentiment as Jack, their oldest son. 

Resentment. 

Resentment for his father placing his ambitions above them.  This knotty family subplot, however, does not work as well.  While the movie spends majority of the time in South America, the emotional pull from England seemingly becomes nonexistent.  Gray gives Percy very few sentimental reaches for home during his pursuits in the jungle.  This explorer appears solely focused on his adventure, so there is little opportunity for the audience to be invested in Percy’s family, because - generally speaking – he is not.   

Percy does cope with his missed family, when he makes a brief return, late into the 2nd act, and this is when Holland delivers heavy doses of guilt.  On the other hand, since Percy is not privy to modern parenting skills nor have access to self-help books from a fully-stocked Barnes & Noble rack, subtler needs at England do not necessarily register with him.

One explicit fact that should register with the audience is that the film is a biopic, and in these cases, a movie can be held to history in order to explain…well, history.  Now, I cannot confirm if Percy did experience contentious moments with his eldest son or not.  The picture does form their relationship in that way, but it does not distract from the story.  On the other hand, the third act takes a sudden left turn which does distract from the basic narrative, but apparently, the film is at the mercy of history. 

These quibbles aside, “The Lost City of Z” is an absorbing picture about an exceedingly brave man who attempts to write his name in textbooks and folklore for future generations, and Gray and Hunnam capture Col. Percy Fawcett’s spirit which honors his aspirations.  You see, Percy is the type person who hears “nobody comes back from up there”, digests the warning but pushes forward anyway, and that type of courage should be heard, seen and experienced.  

(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.

Norman - Movie Review by Jeff Mitchell

Gere and Cedar make ‘Norman’ a definite BUY

Writer/Director:  Joseph Cedar

Starring: Richard Gere, Lior Ashkenazi, Michael Sheen, Steve Buscemi, and Hank Azaria

“Norman” - $1,192.18

Norman Oppenheimer (Richard Gere), the struggling head of Oppenheimer Strategies – who usually wears an unflattering, light brown winter coat, a longshoreman’s cap and sports ear buds connected to his iPhone - makes an investment of $1,192.18 during an ordinary weekday in Manhattan.  Hoping that this cash outlay would land him future opportunities, his spontaneous action – in fact - earns him a life-changing seat at the table, the connected world of money, politics and access! 

Well, sort of. 

You see, Norman’s entire life seems to be broiled in sort of terms, because he is not a clearly-defined businessman.  He frequently hands out his Oppenheimer Strategies cards and asks perspective clients, “What can I do for you?”  The problem?  It is difficult to know what he can offer or how he can help. 

He does claim long friendships with sought-after people, but when one asks a probing question or two, Norman then speaks in riddles, half-truths or outright lies.  A keen, well-trained eye can spot Norman’s shyster-act a mile away, but an unassuming type could mistake his enthusiasm as genuine.   Actually, Norman’s desire to become connected is genuine, so sheathes of honesty in his speech do ring true.  This is, of course, among the promises that he doesn’t exactly know how to keep. 

Writer/director Joseph Cedar’s fascinating character study - which doubles as a casually stressful thriller – is a keeper. 

Cedar throws us into Norman’s universe - the cold and busy New York City pavements - and into this man’s desperation for a deal.  Norman always seems to be on the outside looking in, and Cedar strategically places and paints his lead character in that light.  For one, in many circumstances when he steps into a building, the lighting is deliberately dim.  Sometimes we only see outlines of business people lurking - or even plainly standing - in the shadows, and this makes forming bonds with possible leads more difficult.  More importantly, it symbolizes Norman’s hobbling attempts to secure a win in the figurative dark.  Secondly, he frequently works outside in the below freezing temps during a typical Big Apple winter.  Always bundled up with his aforementioned coat and hat, Norman’s face is usually red from the frigid wind or perhaps of embarrassment from constantly fighting an uphill battle.  When we see Norman waiting to deliver a sales pitch at 6:56am in Central Park, desperation is the first word that comes to mind.

Masterful is a word that describes Gere’s performance, as he plays a man burdening himself with difficult-to-keep verbal agreements stacked upon one another like a self-defeating pyramid scheme.  While Norman is a singularly-focused, one-note machine to reach a monetary promise land, we can also see his internal churn.  Gere allows us to feel sympathy for Norman, while sharing his slow descent into quicksand, not entirely unlike the highly effective Sam Raimi’s 1998 thriller, “A Simple Plan”.  In that film, one fateful decision by two brothers (Bill Paxton, Billy Bob Thornton) leads to a handwringing experience in which they find themselves over their heads, and Norman discovers a similar slippery slope, that cinematically frays our nerves.  

Regrettably, the soundtrack’s slow jazz vibe - filled with snare drum beats and a moody, downtrodden horn section – wore on my nerves fairly quickly.  It did fit with Norman’s sort of lovable loser persona, but a tick tock, staccato beat – instead - could have increased the picture’s anxiety.  Perhaps no accompanying soundtrack at all would have been more effective, but apparently Cedar did not receive my wish list. 

Well, he did pleasantly surprise with a terrific supporting cast, including Michael Sheen, Steve Buscemi, Hank Azaria, and Lior Ashkenazi in perfectly-fit roles to witness Norman’s winding trip to possible redemption or expulsion.   In the nebulous world of Oppenheimer Strategies, it turns out that $1,192.18 could buy him either one.

(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.

The Promise - Movie Review by Jeff Mitchell

‘The Promise’ conveys an emotional World War I history lesson

Directed by:  Terry George

Written by:  Terry George and Robin Swicord

Starring:  Oscar Isaac, Charlotte Le Bon, Christian Bale, Shohreh Aghdashloo, and Marwan Kenzari

“The Promise” – “There are churches and mosques like you wouldn’t believe.”

In 1914 Constantinople, this is Mikael Boghosian’s (Oscar Isaac) reaction to Turkey’s most prominent city.  Although cultural differences can be a source of tension and divisiveness, Turks and Armenians live in relative harmony during this time, not only in this massive cultural center, but also in Mikael’s small village of Siroun. 

As director Terry George’s (“Hotel Rwanda” (2004)) picture opens, Mikael – an Armenian - makes a promise to a Maral (Angela Sarafyan), that after two years away at medical school, they will marry when he returns. 

In the meantime, George treats Mikael and us to the sheer beauty and pageantry of Constantinople with wondrous sightlines and artistic gifts.  Actually, according to www.imdb.com, George did not film in Turkey, but through the magic of cinema, we certainly believe it.   Isaac is also very convincing that Mikael is having the time of his life.  Learning his chosen profession at the Imperial Medical School, making well-placed friends, spending time with family, and meeting Ana (Charlotte Le Bon). 

Ana is seeing an American AP reporter, Chris Myers (Christian Bale), but his drinking has driven a wedge in their relationship, and as it turns out, Mikael and Ana share immediate chemistry. Isaac and Le Bon have fun with their characters’ new friendship - with potential for more - and effectively interject humor, playfulness and outright attraction for one another.  They create a classic love rectangle problem with Chris and Maral as the odd ones out, but the familiar formula works here, because Ana and Mikael are very, very likeable. 

Although scorned partners are the least of their problems, because when Turkey joins World War I in October 1914, Mikael’s bright, new world is laid to waste.

George immediately shifts the material from a good-natured exploration to a gripping, war-torn drama, laced with romance during a time of chaos, confusion and shattered dreams.  Turkey suddenly becomes a place where the previously perceived harmony becomes a distant memory, as the Turkish military begins an elimination of the Armenian people within its own borders.  Mikael, his family, Ana, and others who we began to know during the film’s first half hour are immediately endangered, and the picture takes an ambitious approach in capturing this countrywide horror. 

The screenplay follows Mikael’s twisting path from a respected medical student to a fleeing war prisoner, and his life and heart are turned upside down.  Mikael’s personal anguish bleeds into the frightening Armenian plight that grips the nation, and suddenly, Armenians become nomadic people within their own borders.  George captures their hardships by filming many brutal walks through the deserts and forests.

The shifts in tone shake our foundation, but the core relationships between Chris, Ana and Mikael remain intact.   Chris, in turn, places himself in constant danger to report on the Turkish atrocities, and Mikael and Ana focus on saving as many Armenians as they can.  We have seen these types a war-driven romances before, but the unknown subject matter (at least to this moviegoer) and George’s very high production values keep our eyeballs glued to the screen. 

This film must have generated the interest of several well-known actors, because during the second and third acts, some key cameos suddenly appear.  I can point to three real surprises, where famous actors take small, supporting roles.  Although their arrivals into the film are noteworthy, they also can temporarily distract and pull us out of the story.  These cameos are not nearly as disruptive as the constant stream of A-list actor appearances in Terrence Malick’s “The Thin Red Line” (1998), but it feels the same way, to a lesser degree. 

To a greater degree, I keep coming back to Mikael’s words of the churches and mosques, a time of accord among two groups of people who are different, but held mutual respect.  I suppose “The Promise” is telling example that peace is fragile and precious, and life does not need a very dramatic push to toss it aside.  Well, maybe we should look 103 years into the past, when mosques and churches are spoken in the same sentence with harmony.  In 2017, we should be so lucky.

(3/4 stars)

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

An interview with director Justin Barber, director of "Phoenix Forgotten" by Jeff Mitchell

In March 1997, a mysterious set of lights appeared in the Phoenix, AZ sky, and this famous UFO sighting is known, naturally, as the Phoenix Lights.  Twenty years later, that onetime phenomenon continues to baffle eyewitnesses and give hope to UFO believers.  Director Justin Barber – fascinated by the story as a high school student in 1997 – has now made a movie about it. 

“Phoenix Forgotten” is a fictional thriller, and Justin features the lights as the picture’s main platform.  The Phoenix Film Festival did not see the film at the time of this interview but enjoyed chatting with Justin about his new movie!   Justin talked about his belief in UFOs, the documentary style of the picture, some places that he filmed in Phoenix, and more.

“Phoenix Forgotten” arrives in theatres on Friday, April 21.

PFF: I was living in Phoenix at the time that the Phoenix Lights phenomenon occurred, but sadly, I was cooped up inside watching television that night – probably “Seinfeld” – and completely missed the lights.  Did you interview Valley residents who claimed to have seen them in preparation for the movie?

JB: I did, and I tried to approach the movie with a mindset that this was real world material.  I did spend a lot of time in Phoenix trying to track down real people, eyewitnesses and experts to get to the bottom of (the lights). 

(When the Phoenix Lights happened,) I was in high school at the time, living in Florida and remember hearing about them through the news. Twenty years ago, I (wrote) an article for my high school newspaper about them.  It was cool when (making) the movie to go back and pick up that thread again, and yes, I did find that people who had actually seen them.  Some of those people are interviewed in the movie.  The movie is a mix of real people and actors.  Yes, I tried to get to the bottom of it myself and go to Phoenix, the scene of the crime. 

PFF:  I like that you wrote a paper about the Phoenix Lights in high school.  That’s pretty amazing, and here you are and just directed a movie about it.

JB:  Yes, it’s a self-fulfilling prophecy, I guess.  The interest has persisted.  It was such a big story, and it remains such a big story.  It’s a modern urban legend for the southwest.  For a lot of people, we remember it 20 years on, because it was such a bizarre event, and a lot of people think that it has not been fully explained. 

PFF:  I’d like to believe in UFOs and apt to believe than not believe, but I’ve heard friends and colleagues - over the years – discount UFO sightings, because they occur in small, remote places, where hardly any witnesses are present.  Is that what makes the Phoenix Lights so unique?

JB:  I think so.  I think it’s the sheer number of eyewitnesses.  Some people say hundreds of people saw (it), and others say that thousands of people saw (it).  People were able to film it!  There is that iconic footage of the formation of lights, and you see them in other movies.  In M. Night Shyamalan’s “Signs” (2002), there are images of lights in the sky that the characters see.  That’s inspired, I think, by the Phoenix Lights. Yes, it took place over a populated area, but there is footage of it as well. 

That’s where our story begins.  Like I said, I approached this as real world material, but our movie has fictional characters.  It is historical fiction past a certain point.  A lot of people know about the Phoenix Lights and recognize this footage.  Fewer people know the story of the kid who shot it.  It was shot by Josh Bishop (Luke Spencer Roberts), a high school kid in Phoenix, and six weeks later, he disappeared with two of his friends and was never seen again.  That’s the story that we are telling.  What happened to these three kids? Was there a connection between their disappearance and the Phoenix Lights? 

These are the fictional characters that we are inserting into the real life backdrop of the Phoenix Lights event.

PFF:  Should I assume that you used the actual Phoenix Lights footage for the picture?  If so, how much cleanup was needed to properly insert the footage into your movie?

JB:  My main character, Josh, films the Phoenix Lights, and one of the big scenes early on in the movie is the sighting.  (He and his family) are having a backyard barbeque in Phoenix, and Josh is tasked with filming the event.  The Phoenix Lights sighting happens in the middle of it, and he spins the camera around and films the sighting from the party.  We recreated the Phoenix Lights sighting from scratch for this scene, using the actual Phoenix Lights footage as a reference. 

The reason is because we sculpted a scene around (the party) and needed a lot of control of how the sighting unfolded.  There is a lot of real world footage in the movie, because – for the most part - the movie is treated as a documentary, so I did license actual footage here and there, but this key footage of the Phoenix Lights that Josh films, I did recreate from scratch (using) visual effects.  Although, it is in the vein of the actual Phoenix Lights sighting. 

The other reason is when I really dug into this material and looked at the photographic evidence, (the lights) actually look like - to me - the official explanation, that they are military flairs.  Eyewitnesses describe seeing something really different from what was photographed.  I think there could have been more than one thing happening. 

People claim to have seen this ship, but there is this footage of - what to me - looks like military flairs.  I wanted my main character, Josh, to be a little bit more “on the fence” than myself.  It needed to look more like a UFO, because when I looked at the real footage, it didn’t look that otherworldly to me, honestly.  So, I recreated the sighting.  The way it moves.  The way it appears and disappears. I wanted a little more control of it as a director.

PFF:  Do you believe in UFOs?

JB:  I don’t know where I stand on the Phoenix Lights, except to say that the footage looks like flairs. That being said, a lot of eyewitnesses say that they saw something totally different, and the footage was not necessarily what they saw.  They describe looking up at a formation of lights that flew overhead, and it blocked out the stars.  They couldn’t make out any structure, but they could definitely tell that there was an object up there, between these lights connecting them that seemed to block out what they could see up in the night sky.   Some people will tell you that the flair drop was a diversion from this actual craft. 

As far as actual UFOs, I do think there is life out there.  I think statistically the universe is so big and so old, that I subscribe to what Carl Sagan would say.  There are so many worlds out there, mathematically, there is bound to be life. 

There are so many people who claim that they had experiences on our planet with spacecraft or strange beings.  There is either something going on, or there is some sort of collective psychological experience that (they) are all having, but that’s what so interesting about it.  These experiences haven’t been explained yet, really.  It just comes down to: do you want to believe, or do you not want to believe?   

PFF:  I assumed that you filmed in Phoenix.  If so, are there certain landmarks that Arizona residents be on the lookout for?

JB:  Yes, I hope that Phoenix residents appreciate how much we were able to shoot in Arizona.  I did have to shoot in California for a lot of the movie, but I was fortunate that the producers let me go to (Arizona).

I think people who know Phoenix will recognize different places.  We went to the Phoenix Public Library.  The Botanical Gardens are in there.  A bulk of the early part of the movie has Josh setting out and making his own documentary.  He hits the streets in Phoenix and talks to as many people as he can.  I think that you will recognize parts of town in that respect.

PFF:  It’s funny, when people think about crime or violence, they immediately point to large metropolitan cities.  On the other hand, a classic staple of horror films is a remote location, a cabin in the woods or places in the middle of nowhere like in “Friday the 13th” (1980), “The Evil Dead” (1981) and “The Blair Witch Project” (1999).  Josh and his friends head out to the remote desert to follow the lights, so what makes remote locales scary and downright eerie?

JB: Well, there’s no one there to help you, when things go south.  I think that’s what it comes down to.  For me, I remember one of the first times that I drove across the United States. You hit a patch in Utah and see a road sign that says, “No gas for 150 miles.” 

You are in the middle of nowhere, and that’s an unusual experience when you grow up in the suburbs or live in a big city.  Now, I do like getting out to those parts of the country for fun, but yes, you are on your own.  If you are in trouble, it is up to you to survive.  Essentially, the last half of the movie is a survival story. I think that’s part of it.  I think also there is a lot of lore about the desert, specifically.  There is character in the movie who is an Apache storyteller.  Native people have their own lore about lights in the sky.  We explore that in the movie.  What is it about the desert where there are so many UFO sightings and strange things happening?  It’s just a mysterious place, and our characters try to get to the bottom of it.  

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.

Tommy's Honour - Movie Review by Jeff Mitchell

‘Tommy’s Honour’ birdies, pars and bogeys 

Directed by:  Jason Connery

Written by:  Pamela Martin and Kevin Cook

Starring:  Jack Lowden, Peter Mullan, Ophelia Lovibond, and Sam Neill

“Tommy’s Honour” – “I love the way the game of golf is lived and played in Scotland.  I always have.” – Tom Watson

Many, many fans rightfully consider Tom Watson as golf-royalty, but “Tommy’s Honour” is a biopic about another athlete of the links, Tommy Morris (Jack Lowden), a 19th Century prodigy from Scotland. 

He is also known as Young Tom, because his father – naturally – is nicknamed Old Tom (Peter Mullan), a masterful greenskeeper at the legendary St Andrews golf course.  Director Jason Connery chronicles Tommy’s rise as a professional golfer against two main themes.  His struggles in a frictional relationship with his father and a spoken - not unspoken - financial class system alive and well in the 1860s and 1870s. 

Mullan is perfectly cast – while sporting memorable facial hair - as a vastly knowledgeable man who is resigned to “knowing” his place within the golf community. 

For example, after Tom wins a caddie tournament, one of the club members exclaims, “Now, you got work to do.  Get the scorecards.” 

Tom accepts his given, preordained place in the world.  On the other hand, Tommy does not. Lowden capably portrays Tommy as an idealist pioneer who loves golf and wants to make money as a professional, perhaps play in England for “money, glory and fun!”

Connery clearly paints a picture of professional golf as very different from the PGA Tour that we know today.   No Titleist sponsorships and Golf Channel television coverage exist in 19th Century Scotland.  Instead, golfers make money via gambling props.  The aristocratic gamers assemble matches and distribute winnings like hucksters arranging street fights, and their paying “customers” circle and cheer the combatants while tightly gripping their betting slips.   

Connery includes some unusual sights, such as fans standing on the fairway and watching drives land just a few yards in front of them.  Additionally, we see occasional jeers from those losing bets and an actual fistfight or two breaking out.  Tommy accepts all of this, because golf is a route to make his own way. 

Along the way, Tommy is faced with the challenges of his father and breaking through a cast system of sorts, but the script does not cinematically contest him enough, and that is a problem with the picture.  Yes, Tommy engages in an occasional argument with his father or St Andrews Captain Alexander Boothby (Sam Neill), but one never really feels that the young golfer’s destiny is significantly challenged.  The movie’s narrative barriers are not steep enough, and therefore the tension rarely rises to its intended level.  Well, it does during the third act, but with a runtime of 1 hour 57 minutes, the film takes a while to get there. 

Tommy’s journey takes a leisurely path during his reign as a professional golfer in a sport sometimes noted for the same tones.  Similar hushed tones are reserved for his three younger siblings, two brothers and a sister.  The script includes them in multiple scenes - in and out of the Morris home - but without meaningful screen time.  Other than Lizzie’s (Kylie Hart) sisterly affection for Tommy’s love interest, Meg (Ophelia Lovibond), and one brother’s unfortunate inability to walk, the audience does not receive many chances to learn about them. 

On the other hand, Connery provides the audience many, many opportunities to experience Scotland’s scenic beauty, including the film’s jaw dropping opening shot of the country’s coastline, several rustic moments during matches, our first memorable look at Old Tom emerging from the ocean, and even a momentary pause from golf to watch a pack of horses rumble past the camera.   While Connery and cinematographer Gary Shaw present Scotland’s best looks on display, Robert Macfarlane’s impeccable touch with costume design completely transports us 145 years into the past.

This includes the golf courses as well, with all of the challenging, countryside nuances that links golf can provide.  We see sand traps, rock traps, puddle traps, and the occasional duck standing in the field of play.  Golfers will enjoy soaking up much of the pastoral surroundings, putts cutting through long green blades and drives from the tee boxes.

Connery gets so much of the sights and sounds right, but unfortunately, does not become creative enough during match play.  We see Tommy and others repeatedly drive from the same camera angle, just a few yards away from every golfer, which almost made this moviegoer want to step out of my seat, walk into the big screen and stand behind them or perhaps stare down from overhead.  A special effects shot or two that follows a golf ball’s path would have added to the wonder and drama of the matches.    

Having said that, “Tommy’s Honour” certainly brings light to an extraordinary, influential athlete and an understanding of Tom Watson’s aforementioned love of the sport in its homeland. The picture generates a polite golf clap from me, and I do have an itch to pick up Kevin Cook’s 2007 book about Tommy Morris, grab my clubs and hop on plane to Scotland.

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 Blackcoat's Daughter - Movie Review by Jeff Mitchell

‘The Blackcoat’s Daughter’ will form a kinship with horror fans  

Directed and written by:  Oz Perkins

Starring:  Kiernan Shipka, Lucy Boynton and Emma Roberts

“The Blackcoat’s Daughter” – “Creepy is better than just plain scary, because you can’t look away from creepy.  You want to know the truth.” – Ransom Riggs

First-time director Oz Perkins made a confusing film. 

He made a sinister, spooky, atmospheric, and confusing film. 

Throughout much of its 1-hour 33-minute runtime, Perkins barely explains why events are set in motion and deliberately leaves the audience stranded at the mercy of the narrative.  Perkins simply walks away, while we scramble to discern which room in Hades he just placed us.  Truth be told, however, every single living and breathing second of “The Blackcoat’s Daughter” is creepy, and in the horror world, sometimes, creepy is enough. 

Oh, we cannot look away either.

The Bramford School is where Perkins wants the audience to look.  It is an all-girls boarding school, and winter break finally arrives.  We know its wintertime, because crunchy snow covers the campus and not a leaf can be found on any of the surrounding dormant trees.  School can be a place of great joy and camaraderie, but from the dour weather outside and the antiseptic rooms and hallways inside, every single girl might want to make a dead sprint for her parents’ car and ask them to run through every red light on the way home. 

Two girls - a freshman named Kat (Kiernan Shipka) and an upperclasswoman named Rose (Lucy Boynton) - do not have a ride home, and the dean clearly explains that they cannot live here during the break.  Somehow, they need to get home, but alas, Kat and Rose stay at Bramford anyway, sans any parental figures willing or able to pick them up. 

Kat and Rose do not really know each other, and Rose could care less about Kat, but they both stay at school overnight, amidst of collection of darkly lit hallways and rooms.  Now, institutions like schools or hospitals might feel safe and comfortable during the bustle of a busy workday.  Conversely, try walking down the same corridors, but with zero souls accounted for in any direction, and the sound of one’s breath as one’s only companion.  Attempt that same activity at night with barely any florescent light illuminating the hallways, and that is a surefire recipe for anxiety-ridden panic attack.  (See also “Halloween II” (1981) or “The Exorcist III” (1990).)

Speaking of sounds, Perkins employs a disturbing score that seems to constantly drum during the entire picture and resembles industrial noise emanating from an oscilloscope via Guillermo del Toro’s or David Lynch’s laboratory of ideas.  This otherworldly and unnerving racket clutters up our senses but perfectly fits with the film’s shadowy setting.

The film is dark, figuratively and literally.  When trying to cut through the shadows, it is sometimes difficult to visualize what we are actually observing.  Since the accompanying soundtrack is constantly buzzing as well, the end result is a hypnotic effect.  Thankfully, Perkins snaps us out of the trance and introduces a third character to the mix, Joan (Emma Roberts).  She resides off-campus, but we soon discover that she might be closing in on destiny, tied to the school in some way. 

“The Blackcoat’s Daughter” has its way with us, and we are helpless to fight it off.  This raw, low budget affair borrows from a couple classic movies of the genre, but in the end, it stands on its own with its disturbing style and tones.  Walking away from the movie, one will probably have more questions than answers.  I wrote this review with a designed vague intent, because quite frankly, I still have questions.  More importantly, I did not want to give away the film’s main secrets.  Well, it is no secret that “The Blackcoat’s Daughter” will sit in the pit of one’s stomach, as it extends its tentacles when taking root.  Yes, creepy horror movies can have that effect, especially if one never really grasps the entire truth.

(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 Zookeeper's Wife - Movie Review by Jeff Mitchell

‘The Zookeeper’s Wife’ is an insightful war story, told from a female perspective

Directed by: Niki Caro

Written by:  Angela Workman (screenplay), Diane Ackerman (book)

Starring:  Jessica Chastain, Johan Heldenbergh and Daniel Bruhl

“The Zookeeper’s Wife” – “You can never tell who your enemies are or who to trust.  Maybe that’s why I love animals so much.  You look in their eyes, and you know exactly what’s in their hearts. They aren’t like people.”  - Antonina Zabinski (Jessica Chastain)

Antonina (Chastain) and Jan Zabinski (Johan Heldenbergh) run a zoo in Warsaw, and life couldn’t be better for them during the summer of 1939.  A place of beauty and wonder, and on any typical morning, one might see Antonina ride her bike through the zoo and greet all of the animals with her sweet, nurturing voice.

When she says, “Good morning, my sweethearts,” the animals seem to smile back. 

In a recent interview with the Phoenix Film Festival, director Niki Caro spoke about the Zabinskis, and said, “They were zookeepers.  Jan was a doctor, very much the brains of the operation, but (Antonina) was the heart.  He admired her so much for the person that she was and the gifts that she had.” 

Antonina was an animal whisperer of the most unique sorts, but the Zabinskis’ lives became completely unsorted on Sept. 1, 1939, when the German military began bombing Warsaw and World War II arrived in Poland.  Great conflict can beget even greater courage, however, and in the interest of saving lives, the Zabinskis turned their place of business and love into “a human zoo”. 

Based upon true events, “The Zookeeper’s Wife” is a war story.  Like all war stories, an incredibly difficult and emotional one in many respects, but the film is a gift, because it reveals the Zabinskis’ heroism in a time of crisis. 

Animal lovers will be instantly drawn to the material from the opening shot.  Caro captures Antonina sitting in a chair and watching over her sleeping son, Ryszard (Timothy Radford), while two little lion cubs lay next him on his bed.  Caro and Chastain immediately succeed in establishing Antonina’s kinship with animals. 

Once the Germans occupy the city and form the infamous Warsaw Ghetto, Jan and Antonina form another kinship, with the persecuted Jewish people.  The film chronicles Jan and Antonina’s determination to save as many lives as they could by moving them from the ghetto to the basement of their home, right underneath the Germans’ noses.  Although the picture offers some very tense moments – with a cloak and dagger feel during those movements from harm’s way to refuge - “The Zookeeper’s Wife” does not necessarily unfold as a thriller because of its overall construction.

Instead, the picture is broadly built, as it attempts to cover several aspects of the Zabinskis’ lives and the war itself. We see several of Jan’s tactics to free the Jewish people from the ghetto, their stay at the Zabinskis, Antonina’s struggle with a German zoologist, Lutz Heck (Daniel Bruhl), the strain on her marriage, bigger developments and consequences of the war, the outcome of the zoo’s animals, and more. 

Alas, in an attempt to cover a breadth of events, the film does not dive deeply in certain places.  I wanted to see more time in exploring the day-to-day events within Jan and Antonina’s house and developing the relationships between the Zabinskis and the people who they saved.  We get a good sense of these rich and complex stories, but not completely fulfilling ones.  On the other hand, the movie is beautifully filmed, and during the Zabinskis’ brave deeds, Jan and Antonina managed several moving parts, as Caro does a splendid and noble job of opening up the material and allowing the audience to see into their lives. 

The three leads, Chastain, Heldenbergh and Bruhl are perfectly cast in playing the lives of Antonina, Jan and Lutz.  Bruhl gives Lutz a conflicted, somewhat-ineffectual flair that allows the Zabinskis to work their rescue-magic.  Heldenbergh brings a grounded authenticity to Jan, a pragmatic zoologist, who suddenly – beginning in Sept. 1939 – needs to dramatically think outside the box, and “The Zookeeper’s Wife” - as denoted in the title - is Chastain’s picture.  Chastain commands every scene that she steps into with a strong, feminine spirit, and delivers so many moments – of tears, wonder and joy - that help define Antonina, a hugely important female voice during the darkest times of war. 

Antonina may have prided herself on loving animals, but in “The Zookeeper’s Wife”, the audience also sees that she loved people.

(3/4 stars)

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

An interview with Niki Caro, director of The Zookeeper's Wife by Jeff Mitchell

Director Niki Caro’s (“McFarland, USA” (2015), “Whale Rider” (2002)) new film is about a zoo, a very unique and historical zoo.  In “The Zookeeper’s Wife” - starring Jessica Chastain, Johan Heldenbergh and Daniel Bruhl - she tells the story of Antonina (Chastain) and Jan Zabinski (Heldenbergh), two zookeepers who saved hundreds of lives during the days of World War II’s Warsaw Ghetto.  Niki spoke with the Phoenix Film Festival about Jessica’s bond with the animals, how this war story is told from a female point of view and more.

“The Zookeeper’s Wife” arrives in theatres on Friday, March 31.

PFF:  I really appreciated the first shot - at least, I remember it as the first shot - in which two lion cubs are lying on a bed with Antonina’s (Chastain) sleeping young son, Ryszard.  The scene instantly identifies Antonina as having a kinship with animals.  How did that moment strike you as a storyteller but also as a filmmaker?  Did you say to yourself, “How do we mechanically do this scene?”

NC:  It’s an interesting story.  The first image of Antonina, as scripted, was to be her in a chair feeding two lion cubs with a bottle.  That classic Madonna image but with little lions.  On the day the little lion cubs came to the set, they had already been fed.  So, they didn’t need to be fed again and like all babies, they were sleepy.  Rather than force them to do something (that) they weren’t prepared to do, we changed the script, and this was the philosophy of all the filmmaking with the animals.  The animals dictated the shots in many ways. 

It’s one of the most wonderful ways to work, because the animals are really like babies.  You can’t make them do what you want them to do, and neither should you.

So, we changed the shot.  I put the little babies on the bed with little Rys (Timothy Radford), and I put a camera behind Antonina, which is, in fact, a better image.  It was very appropriate, I felt, to introduce Antonina in a very enigmatic way, because she was such an enigmatic character, and also to express her maternal nature.  Then, of course, when (Jessica) left the room, the little lion woke up and watched her move across the room.  That’s interesting too, because Jessica has an identical gift with Antonina Zabinski.  Jessica is a genuine animal whisperer, and there was a very, very strong…unusually strong bond with her and the animals.  I was very confident in being able to do all of the animal work, and nobody is doubling for Jessica. 

PFF:  Jessica was completely effective and believable as Antonina, a person who devoted her life to animals.  She expressed this in many ways, like her joyous bike ride through the zoo and helping in the elephant area during one critical scene.  Jessica established this strength, a feminine strength.  When Jessica and you dove into the material, did you have discussions about portraying Antonina as being strong with a feminine spirit?

NC:  That was the driving force.  Her femininity.  War stories in cinema are almost never told from the female point of view.  Almost all war stories express the male experience, and that is absolutely appropriate, but this one was about a woman who was both very, very soft and very, very strong.  Jessica and I totally committed to her femininity and even more than that, all of the filmmaking is inspired by that.  Femininity was explored in the lighting, in the way things were (shot) and in expressing what Antonina’s experience was.  Her husband, Jan (Johan Heldenbergh), was with the resistance and had a lot more (wartime) action.  Her experience was no less important, and you could argue maybe, more important, because she had - at any given time - up to a dozen people living in their house, in (secret) places and everywhere in the zoo, while the zoo was being patrolled by German soldiers.  The short answer is that this (story) is told very much from the feminine point of view and very proudly so.

PFF:  The film takes place in Warsaw, the zoned-off ghetto from that period, but there was a hugely important moment in the movie that reminds the audience of what happens after the ghetto.  At a train station, Jewish children were looking to adults – including Jan - to help “lift them up” onto the train.  Was it important to include that particular scene? 

NC:  Yea, that was hugely important.  As a filmmaker, I’m always reaching for an image that speaks loudly without using words, and as a parent, I’m kind of hyperaware of when a child puts (his or her) arms up to you.  It’s all trust.  It’s pure trust and confidence that you are going to pick them up and take care of them.  So, it was an important image for me to bring to the film and give to Jan.  Of course, (for the) audience and Jan, the context is so brutal, and yet, we still have to (meet the) trust of the children and help them onto the train.      

PFF:  Jan and Antonina seemed to enjoy a partnership, an equal partnership in their marriage.  Thinking back to the time (1939) and wrongly perhaps, power centers in marriages may have been frequently very one-sided, but their relationship was not.  Was that a key theme? 

NC:  I’d say that Antonina – in many ways – was a traditional wife at that time.  She did defer to her husband, but what happens in wartime is that women come into themselves.  She became, over those years, incredibly strong, and by the end of the movie, they - of course - are totally supportive of (each other).  They were zookeepers.  Jan was a doctor, very much the brains of the operation, but she was the heart.  He admired her so much for the person that she was and the gifts that she had.   

PFF:  And that’s how a marriage should work.

NC:  Yea, different but equal.

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.

Personal Shopper - Movie Review by Jeff Mitchell

‘Personal Shopper’ somewhat works as thought-provoking window shopping

Writer/director:  Olivier Assayas

Starring:  Kristen Stewart, Lars Eidinger and Ty Olwin

“Personal Shopper” – Maureen (Kristen Stewart) lives in Paris and spends most of her days volleying between two activities.  One should be exciting and fun, while the other usually is a frustrating affair, but – surprisingly - Maureen finds both sides of her work-coin unsatisfying and a little maddening. 

She is a personal shopper for Kyra (Nora von Waldstatten), who is a fashion icon of sorts, and Maureen runs around the city’s arrondissements, buying expensive clothing and accessories.  Many women that I know would kill for that job, but Maureen seems dispassionate when handing over 4,500 EUR - of someone else’s money - for a belt and two handbags.  The horror, right?  Well, it is a bit unfair to judge too harshly, because Kyra has a reputation as a monster, although the movie audience never really sees that behavior. 

Well, the movie audience does hear what Maureen hears.  Ghosts.  When she is not plunking down thousands of euros for her “monster”, she is chasing ghosts.  She is a medium and finds herself on a challenging quest: to receive a “sign” from her departed twin brother, Louis.

Director Olivier Assayas (“Summer Hours” (2008), “Clouds of Sils Maria” (2014)) cooks up a mash-up, a contemporary drama and a ghost story in one of the fashion capitals of the world.  An odd mix, but an intriguing one, and Stewart is featured in most of the frames throughout the picture’s 1 hour 45 minutes. 

Maureen is icy and despondent, and Assayas portrays beautiful Paris in the same light, in grays, blues and shadows.  Nearly everywhere in town feels subdued and muted.  Unimpressed with the city that surrounds her, Maureen is much more preoccupied with hearing from her late-brother while also worrying about similar health concerns that he experienced.  Her bad vibes are not lost on her boyfriend (who she communicates with through Skype), local friends and the occasional acquaintance.  Critics and audiences have criticized Stewart for similar, sluggish portrayals in the “Twilight” series, but she has accomplished a lot of great work since, and here, her character’s persona is set by design to fit with a melancholy tone.

In addition to Maureen’s complaints about Kyra and general disinterest, she continues her quest to find a sign from Louis, while Assayas changes the mood during some tension-filled moments.  We hear things that occasionally go bump in the night (or day), and since Maureen is a medium, she and the audience wonder if the bumps and thumps are friendly ones or not.  One particular plot thread dominates the second and third act, and the film repeatedly tugs on it to attempt to ramp up our anxiety.  Assayas certainly weaves a mystery, but a slow-moving one, and since the collective onscreen energy feels low, that inevitably translated to this audience member.

Now, “Take Shelter” (2011), starring Michael Shannon and Jessica Chastain, has a comparable structure and possesses a similar restrained tone as “Personal Shopper”, but – in the end - it proves to be a more effective thriller.  Its story - about a man, Curtis (Shannon), in rural Ohio who has visions of a massive storm that no one else can see – deliberately builds up tension over its 2-hour runtime and feels more singularly-focused.  Also, Curtis emotionally explodes in the second act, and his shocking actions truly capture the turmoil that is gurgling inside of him.  At the moment of truth, the film more than delivers its expected payoff.

Unfortunately, the payoff in “Personal Shopper” – possibly due to a roaming narrative and persistently cool performances - unfolds as a curiosity rather than a dramatic conclusion. 

Krya’s boyfriend, Ingo (Lars Eidinger), pops in on a couple of occasions as a curiosity as well, but Assayas seems to clip those threads, and the opportunity for an effective, meaningful layer becomes lost.  We are left with Maureen’s general malaise in a story of shopping and ghost hunting duties. I do highly commend Assayas’ penchant for risk-taking, but neither storyline successfully sold me.  Then again, the film somewhat works as thought-provoking window shopping, especially in Paris.  

(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.

T2 Trainspotting - Movie Review by Jeff Mitchell

‘T2 Trainspotting’ is flawed, but fans will get their fix

Director:  Danny Boyle

Writer:  John Hodge

Starring:  Ewan McGregor, Jonny Lee Miller, Ewen Bremner, and Robert Carlyle

“T2 Trainspotting” – “It felt just like coming home.” – Ewan McGregor

In a recent group interview with the Phoenix Film Festival and other entertainment outlets, McGregor expressed his feelings about the “Trainspotting” (1996) cast returning to Scotland to film their much anticipated sequel, “T2 Trainspotting”.

Of course, the original movie – about a group of friends loitering in the game of life – is edgy and highly entertaining, and it still resonates with audiences everywhere.  These friends are Renton (McGregor), Sick Boy (Jonny Lee Miller), Spud (Ewen Bremner), and Begbie (Robert Carlyle), who – in the film’s third act – complete a drug deal for 16,000 pounds.  Under the tremendous weight of the group’s incredible dysfunction and a desire to get away from it all, Renton flees with the cash (sans 4,000 pounds, which he left for Spud) with an assumption that he would never return to Edinburgh.

In the new film, McGregor’s aforementioned “coming home” comment completely fits for his character too, because Renton returns to Edinburgh after 20 years.  After two decades, Simon (aka Sick Boy), Spud and Begbie’s life trajectories did not earn them riches or fame. 

Far from it. 

Even worse, the three are struggling in very different ways, and none of them are enjoying happy lives. 

Far from it.

The three also have not forgotten Renton’s getaway, and – at least initially – time does not heal all wounds. 

Far from it. 

Now, Renton rides into town on a collision course to face his past, and director Danny Boyle channels his past to deliver a new story about these four men, who are now middle-aged and emotionally scarred by the cruel reality of bad decisions and Father Time.  Renton attempts to make amends with Simon and Spud, while avoiding, avoiding, avoiding Begbie – a violent psycho – at all costs. 

Visually, the picture works very well.  Boyle employs a slick flair, peppered with eye-popping moments and beautiful touches.  Some showcase Edinburgh, almost a love letter to it, including Old Town, Scottish Parliament and a gorgeous shot atop Arthur’s Seat overlooking the city.  Others include daydream sequences and special effects, such as the unexpected sight of numbered floors from an elevator flashing on the outside of an apartment building.  Add various moments of visceral violence, and this feels like a “Trainspotting” film.

Not only does it feel like a “Trainspotting” film, but the four leads easily fall back into their characters.  It is as though McGregor, Miller, Bremner, and Carlyle took no other film roles over the last 20 years and specifically saved themselves for this picture.  For fans, observing these men stepping into their characters again is a joyous miracle, like witnessing the Loch Ness Monster jump ashore and sing Franz Ferdinand’s “Take Me Out”.  Rather than delve into how each character has changed physically and emotionally, those nuisances should be saved for the big screen.  Although, I will add that heroin use plays a very minimal part in this 2017 picture, but other seedy ill-gotten gains “thankfully” fill the void.

Speaking of voids, as far as the story itself, “T2 Trainspotting” – unfortunately - does not seem to have much of a point.  Now, the picture does offer insightful thoughts on the magnetic power of friendship.  In reaching that end, however, the movie seems to navigate from one set piece to the next, without much connective tissue. 

For instance, Spud develops a penchant for writing by scribbling short stories on scrap pieces of paper, but his arc hardly ties into the overall picture.  Sure, it connects to some extent and seeing Spud apply positive initiative is terrific, but he could have taken up scuba diving or become a master at Sudoku, and it would not have made much difference. 

Now, make no mistake, Boyle and the gang do offer wonderful set pieces.  One in particular has Renton and Simon caught in a thorny circumstance in front of a potentially very hostile crowd that will absolutely blow the movie house down.  Like a greedy junkie, I wanted to experience more of these moments, but did not see enough.  Additionally, while waiting for the inevitable confrontation between Renton and Begbie, the second half of the picture stalls in parts and a serious plot hole – to gather all four men together at the movie’s climax – exists. 

“T2 Trainspotting” is a flawed, imperfect film.  It’s spotty with its pacing and does not contain enough highs (pardon the pun).  

On the other hand, from a fan’s perspective, each moment is a pleasurable opportunity to absorb every word and every action from four celebrated antiheroes, or at least one antihero and three misguided others.  Perhaps, that’s the point.   This is a movie for the fans, with many, many references and nods to the first film and some very enjoyable surprises.  Coming home may not be as thrilling as the first go-round in life, but nonetheless, it can be satisfying.

(2.5/4 stars)

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