Won't You Be My Neighbor - Movie Review by Ben Cahlamer

Won’t You Be My Neighbor

Directed by Morgan Neville

Starring Fred Rogers, Joanne Rogers, McColm Cephas, Jr, Francois Scarborough Clemmons, Kailyn Davis, Yo-Yo Ma, Joe Negri, David Newell

Today, it is difficult to think that the greater American public was served through one man, his music, his imagination, his understanding and his kindness. More importantly, Fred Rogers was able to pierce the façade of a television camera. He was a man who understood the power of the medium and worked to offer children a place to have a discussion with them, actually, with me. I was his audience in the 1980’s.

Oscar-winning* and Emmy-winning** documentarian Morgan Neville takes us on a journey of not only a man, but someone who proved the power of simple acts of kindness and understanding can have on people. His latest documentary, “Won’t You Be My Neighbor” uses archival interviews with Mr. Rogers, who sadly passed away in 2003 after a life of public service.

Neville takes us back to Fred Rogers’ humble beginnings. There have been many myths surrounding Rogers, which Neville clarifies, yet it is Rogers’ lasting impression on the public, at large, that the narrative focuses on.

Fred had an avid interest in music and entered seminary after college. He then discovered television. In the 1950’s he worked on several children’s programs, focusing on music. Though he was not interested in preaching, he realized that he could offer a sermon to young people through the power of very simple sets, puppets and music. For the five year old me, he ignited my own overactive imagination as he took the audience to far off places. He did it in such a way that I could understand it.

One of the most familiar memories for me was the Challenger disaster in 1986. Though the event was plastered all over the news, it was Mr. Rogers and his ability to reach me that made the tragedy make sense. He also taught me tolerance, something that Neville devotes large swaths of his documentary to. Much to my surprise, one of his many actors who had a recurring role on the show reveals something that, while it did not surprise me, it left my heart even more full of appreciation for who Fred Rogers was.

One thing that did surprise me was his appearance before congress in 1969 to preserve the funding for the Corporation for Public Broadcasting (PBS). As easily and as naturally as he could talk to a child, he was able to talk to a senator. The way Rogers was able to communicate was so very unique, it has not been repeated and Neville drives this point home. He was a defender of the greater good, and I am forever grateful for his impact on my life.

Another facet that Neville focused on was Rogers’ need to be doing something. He eventually produced 912 30 – minute episodes over 31 seasons from 1968 to 2001 out of WQED Studios based in Pittsburgh. He took breaks over the years and downshifted to specials that focused on events. His show made use of a SINGLE camera for nearly 30 years before moving to a multiple camera set up; that is the power of his ability to communicate with an audience.

It goes without saying that Morgan Neville’s “Won’t You Be My Neighbor” is a trip down nostalgia-lane. I’d be remiss if I didn’t say that wasn’t completely the focus of his documentary. I learned more about a man who left his heart and soul on the screen long after each episode was over. There wasn’t a single dry eye during my Phoenix Film Festival screening back in April. Neville manages to carry Rogers’ legacy, his imprimatur is left for another generation to experience his gift of communication. There will never be another like Fred Rogers and Morgan Neville’s “Won’t You Be My Neighbor” is a gem best shared with friends.

*Academy Award for Best Documentary Feature for “20 Feet From Stardom” (2014)

**Outstanding Historical News & Documentary Emmy Award for “Best of Enemies” (2017

4 out of 4 stars.

Ten Nice Movies - Part One by Jeff Mitchell

“Ten Nice Movies – Part 1”

The groundbreaking and absolutely delightful “Mister Rogers’ Neighborhood” ran for decades on public television, and this children’s program helped positively shape millions and millions of kids’ outlooks and moral compasses.  In 2018, the new documentary “Won’t You Be My Neighbor?” is a wonderful, sentimental trip down memory lane for adults who grew up watching the show and its creator, writer, producer, and star:  Fred Rogers.

Rogers passed away at 74 in 2003, but “Won’t You Be My Neighbor?” director Morgan Neville includes many, many interviews with Fred’s surviving family, castmates and crew about the program’s messaging, direction, style, and the man himself.  Although Rogers was a gentle soul, the film reveals that he addressed troubling issues on his show, and Elizabeth Seamans – who played Mrs. McFeely - adds, “He was radical.  I know everyone says that, but he was radical.”

Accompanied by moving – and not radical - soundtrack, the documentary raises genuine emotion for “Mister Rogers’ Neighborhood”, its creator and the hope that more caring, nice people like Fred Rogers exist in the world in 2018.  Yes, they do exist, because the millions and millions of children who watched his show are now living and breathing adults. 

In celebration of “Won’t You Be My Neighbor?”, here are 10 nice films to enjoy at home.  This article is just Part 1, because there are so many movies that could contribute to “a beautiful day in (your) neighborhood.”

“Won’t You Be My Neighbor?” (4/4 stars) arrives in theatres on Friday, June 8.

“Buck” (2011) – During the 1950s, westerns ruled the big and small screens, and countless kids thought of cowboys as their heroes.  In the 21st century, Buck Brannaman is a modern-day cowboy, and he is this critic’s hero.  In a heartfelt and engaging documentary, director Cindy Meehl opens up her camera and lets Brannaman tell his story.  He is a horse trainer/real-life whisperer (who was also a consultant on Robert Redford’s “The Horse Whisperer” (1998)), and he takes a revolutionary approach to his craft.  Rather than employing traditional cracks of a whip and barking angry demands, Brannaman works with horses by offering love, respect and whispers.  This doc takes unexpected emotional turns during Brannaman’s biography, and many of these moments will resonate long after the end credits.

“Gentlemen Prefer Blondes” (1953) – This musical/comedy features two women - Dorothy (Jane Russell) and Lorelei (Marilyn Monroe) – taking their lounge singing act on a cruise ship, and it might be the most breezy and fun picture of Monroe’s illustrious career.  Now, Dorothy owns a heady and steady pragmatism, but Lorelei dives head first into relationships.  She has a purpose though: she loves rich men!  Monroe’s iconic performance of “Diamonds are a Girl’s Best Friend” is just one of many highlights with these two fabulous characters and their associated nautical escapades.  They are polar opposites, but they share marvelous cinematic chemistry and an agreeable comradery despite their differences during their joyful trip.

“Going My Way” (1944) – St. Dominic’s, a New York City church, is in trouble.  Financial trouble.  Father Fitzgibbon has fallen behind on the mortgage, but enter Father Chuck O’Malley (Bing Crosby)!  With a spry skip in his step, a smile, oodles of good advice, and an occasional song, Father O’Malley might live a humble existence, but he’s as reliable as the sun rising over the eastern horizon every morning.   Although, is he the right man for the job?  Well, Crosby was right for this all-around, good guy role, because he won the Best Actor Oscar!  “Going My Way” won seven Oscars all together, including Best Picture, and hey, it looks like nice guys and nice movies finish first.

“Jiro Dreams of Sushi” (2011) – It’s fair to say that job rotation does not exist in Jiro Ono’s vocabulary, because this 85-year-old sushi chef (who is now 92) has worked in his particular vocation for 75 years.  Yes, 75 years!  Not only has Ono spent over seven decades preparing sushi, but food critics and patrons agree that his work is the best that they have ever tasted.  Director David Gelb’s fascinating documentary shows us how this sushi master devotes time towards his life’s work, and Ono still insists that he is striving towards making the perfect sushi or “union between rice and fish.”  Gelb’s picture will certainly push hunger buttons, and Ono’s tenacious discipline and work ethic might just push all of us to always give our best.  The best part?  Jiro Ono proudly exclaims, “I feel ecstatic all day.”

“Kedi” (2016) –  “Though cared for by many, they live without a master, and whether adored, despised, or overlooked, they are undeniably part of everyone’s life.”  This quote from director Ceyda Torun’s documentary explains Istanbul’s human/cat relationship, and her warm and soothing film is a must-see for everyone who loves animals.  Well, admittedly, dog-only people will probably not feel in tune with this movie, but cat people will adore it.  Torun follows several street cats and their travels at ground level and then interviews their human friends who lovingly discuss the times that these felines stop by for frequent visits.  During its 79-minute runtime, “Kedi” organically captures the love, caring and respect between the two populations, along with precious minutes of adorable cat and kitten screen time.  Sure, Istanbul might need a more robust spay and neuter program, but that’s a different movie.  For now, just enjoy this one.

“Kitchen Stories” (2003) – Director Bent Hamer’s oddball, playful import is as fresh as a breath of crisp Scandinavian air.  Just after WWII, Sweden’s Home Research Institute – a technological leader in improving home efficiencies – wishes to understand the kitchen habits of single Norwegian men.  Who knows how they tick, right?  This pits an elderly hermit named Isak (Joachim Calmeyer) against Folke (Tomas Norstrom), who has been assigned as his observer during a frigid winter in an isolated, snowy village.  The weather plays the role of a third character in this already awkward circumstance and elevates the movie to a new level of comedic discomfort.  Hey, progress requires sacrifice.  Actually, experiencing “Kitchen Stories” is the exact opposite of sacrifice, so grab a space heater, a cup of hot chocolate, and a blanket and curl up with this unique little comedy.

“Queen to Play” (2009) – Sandrine Bonnaire absolutely shines as a housekeeper who attempts to break from her daily routines to pursue a passion and – perhaps – accomplish an extraordinary achievement.  At the beginning of the picture, writer/director Caroline Bottaro quickly reveals Helene’s (Bonnaire) story.  Helene’s life may be fine, but something is missing.  She has more to offer.  By random chance, Helene stumbles upon the world of chess.  Chess?  Sure, why not?  Her husband unfortunately doesn’t approve of her new hobby, but an eccentric widower (Kevin Kline) takes her under his wing.  In turn, Helene begins to spread hers.  An empowering and inspiring story, “Queen to Play” chronicles one’s passion and showcases that desire cannot always be easily explained.  It may just simply and internally burn brightly.

“The Great Buck Howard” (2008) – “I love this town!”  These are the genuine words declared during each show by the traveling performing mentalist: the one, the only…The Great Buck Howard (John Malkovich) in writer/director Sean McGinly’s wonderful comic gem.  McGinly’s picture offers a sincere PG-rated atmosphere that feels like storytelling from a past era, as Howard hires a young assistant named Troy (Colin Hanks) to travel the country with him and perform scores of thankless jobs.  A public relations manager (Emily Blunt) softens Troy’s bumpy ride, but Howard’s OCD-rituals, enthusiastic handshake and abrasive persona never quite smooth out the young man’s journey.  A surprise A-list cameo makes a welcome appearance, and Buck Howard – with all his quirks – is one of Malkovich’s most memorable characters.  Yea, there’s a good chance that you will say, “I love this movie!”

“The Greatest Showman” (2017) – Hugh Jackman, Zac Efron, Michelle Williams, Zendaya, and Rebecca Ferguson star in a gorgeous, vibrant musical about P.T. Barnum and his famous circus.  Director Michael Gracey and his crew present beautiful sets that match the outstanding and very catchy production numbers in this pomp and circumstance-wonder.  The film offers lessons of reaching for stars and embracing our own unique selves and is anchored by two love stories:  P.T. Barnum (Jackman) and his wife (Williams) and also a young protégé (Efron) and a trapeze artist (Zendaya).  Of course, in the world of musicals, these couples run into rocky patches that are admittedly predictable, but the glorious visual and musical experiences outweigh any familiar plotlines.  “This is Me” was nominated for a Best Song Oscar, but this critic would argue that “Rewrite the Stars” and “Never Enough” have more staying power.   No matter.  Sit back and enjoy the show!

“Unfinished Song” (2012) – Arthur’s (Terence Stamp) pain runs deep.  The way he sees it, his loving wife Marion (Vanessa Redgrave) is his life’s only bright light, but with her health rapidly deteriorating, he doesn’t have much to smile about these days.  Worse yet, he detests Marion’s frequent musical caucuses with her choir club at the Smith Hall Community Centre, and he takes out his frustrations on his son (Christopher Eccleston).  In writer/director Paul Andrew Williams’s picture, he engenders a battle of wills between a group of positive-thinking elderly choir members including their infinitely likable – and much younger - teacher (Gemma Arterton) versus Arthur and his determined, hovering dark cloud.  Will Arthur see life through a more constructive, optimistic and cheerful lens?  Geez, this movie doesn’t sound like a nice experience.  Well, you’ll have to watch it to know for certain.

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.

Bernard & Huey - Movie Review by Ben Cahlamer

Bernard & Huey

Directed by Dan Mirvish

Written by Jules Feiffer

Starring David Koechner, Jim Rash, Mae Whitman, Nancy Travis, Eka Darville, Richard Kind, Bellamy Young

There’s a story that I think I’ve shared before. If not, I’ll share it here. Before I started writing movie reviews, I would see a movie and people would ask me how I liked something. I would always say “I liked it a lot.” When I would tell my dad this, he would reply, “you like everything.” I guess I do like everything because there’s not a director or a producer out there who sets out to make a bad movie. They make the best movie they possibly can with the resources they have, which makes finding a “diamond in the rough,” a more difficult but enjoyable task.

Then “Bernard & Huey” makes the 2018 Phoenix Film Festival line-up, and redefines “diamond in the rough”. It’s an absolute gem of a film.

Bernard (Jim Rash) is a successful New York bachelor. His college buddy, Huey (David Koechner) is on the rocks and lands on Bernard’s doorstep. They haven’t seen each other in a number of years and much like Felix and Oscar, they learn they need each other far more than the other is willing to admit. Not before hilarity ensues.

The story goes that Pulitzer and Academy award winning author Jules Feiffer had been commissioned to write a screenplay for Showtime. That screenplay ended up in a desk drawer until recently. The characters Peiffer created were based on a long-running comic strip that he writes for the Village Voice (New York) dating back to 1957.  The beauty in Mirvish’s film is that he intersperses college aged Bernard and Huey with modern day Bernard and Huey. It was refreshing to see the younger versions of themselves to build up the modern drama.

The humor is what makes the drama so strong, and Feiffer’s word is as witty and acerbic as I’ve heard in a long time. Bringing these comic strip characters to life is in the capable hands of Academy Award winner Jim Rash, whose stoicism and reserved charm are refreshing. David Koechner is big, bold and brash and it’s a nice counterplay for Rash. The supporting characters Mirvish surrounds our cast with are equally as acerbic. Zelda is in a relationship with Bernard and is also Huey’s estranged daughter. She is the lynchpin to our story. Mae Whitman does a superb job playing off of both Rash and Koechner. Mona is a recurring character in both timelines. As the older version of Mona, Nancy Travis seduces the screen and Bernard and Huey.

In a post-screening Q & A, Mirvish mentioned how he was able to shoot the film, achieving the look that he did, and while that question was location – specific, Todd Antonio Somodevilla’s cinematography was striking for the mixture of film and digital; the transitions between the two were seamless and added an authenticity to the story and the film.

This timely and timeless story really struck home. The strong characters, the comedy and the drama all work so expertly thanks to Dan Mirvish’s deft direction and a witty, brazen and acerbic script from Jules Feiffer, both are national treasures and their story is a true polished diamond.

3.5 out of 4

Hereditary - Movie Review by Monte Yazzie

Hereditary

Director: Ari Aster

Starring: Toni Collette, Gabriel Byrne, Alex Wolff, and Milly Shapiro

Family…that word holds a unique meaning, it’s a word that comes with a different set of responsibilities depending on how the individual defines it. We all know that one family that loves to be together and we all know that family that needs to call the authorities at Thanksgiving dinner. Whether your immediate household or that distant cousin from your third uncle’s second marriage, family comes with a heap of emotional baggage. 

Horror films have utilized this aspect of family, mostly broken beyond repair, to build visions of invasive family structure terror. Think of films like “The Omen”, “The Shining”, or even more recently “The Conjuring”, all have families thrown into chaos because of the supernatural that consumes their peaceful lives. What makes director Ari Aster’s film “Hereditary” different from most is the structure concerning the family dynamic, specifically the historical structure and the ongoing trauma and despair that has permeated the foundation of this family’s ancestry. 

Annie’s (Toni Collette) mother, a private and secretive woman, has passed away. While not completely unexpected, grandma’s death brings about some strange occurrences. Annie, struggling with her relationships and the mourning process, begins to discover some strange happenings concerning her family history; aspects that become increasingly sinister and evil as more is revealed about her mother. 

Let’s get this out of the way before you read any further, “Hereditary” is disturbing and extremely affecting, a film that cares more about embedding itself in your subconscious mind than simply offering a jump scare, although it has a few of those as well. The less you know about this film the better the experience will be. 

This is Ari Aster’s first feature length film. This is simply impressive considering how deftly the director executes the little elements that really make “Hereditary” shine. The technique incorporated into the film editing and photographic design is a blend of ingenious framing devices that hint and wink at scare tactics before playing against type, clever transitions that drastically manipulate tone and atmosphere, and amusing influences to the familiar aspects of contemporary horror design concerning the expectations associated with the setup and payoff. These aspects are demonstrated from the very first scene of the film, a slow push through a window, past a workshop full of miniatures, and into a dollhouse that seamlessly blends into the bedroom of one of the family members. 

Mr. Aster does so much work to keep the tension high throughout the film, slowly dragging while at times shoving the viewer forward into the experience. It’s a grueling emotional kidnapping for the viewer who is forced to experience the traumatic relationship between grief and despair that the family is going through. The fear and the scare of it all happens during emotionally devastating moments, when your heart is already being manipulated, the terror is thrown in for a final punch. Ms. Aster handles it with precision. 

The sound design makes great use of relatively silent moments by adding small details into the backgrounds or through the voices of the characters. In one scene Annie's son Peter (Alex Wolff) reaches a breaking point, the sounds of terror through the whimpering and moaning of a young man is completely unnerving.

The character design is also fantastic, it’s what helps the narrative achieve an authentic feel amidst its completely bizarre horror touches. Toni Collette is exceptional as Annie, providing one of the best horror movie performances in years. Her movements from despair to lunacy then compassionate to heartlessness are absorbing. It’s another technique that pulls the audience into the darkness embraced by the film. Everyone understands the trauma associated with loss, loneliness, and despair, the film utilizes this to bring aspects of true terror into the mix of the story. These heart wrenching emotions are further embraced by the cast of characters, each of them handles the increasingly threatening situations with their own coping mechanisms. Gabriel Byrne is tasked as the anchor of reason for the family, the stress of holding the family together is palpable because of Mr. Byrne’s solemn steadfastness. 

“Hereditary” embodies everything I admire about the genre. Specifically how absolute terror doesn’t need to come at the hands of a stalking monster or a scary entity; instead the fear associated with effective horror tales is always the trauma caused by human emotions. Just think about the film images that stick with you, the moments that linger in your mind late in the evening; the singing man in “The Wicker Man”, the screaming father in “The Mist”, the terrified mother in “Rosemary’s Baby”. Add “Hereditary” to the esteemed list of movies you will be hard pressed to shake.

Monte’s Rating

5.00 out of 5.00

How to Talk to Girls at Parties - Movie Review by Ben Cahlamer

How to Talk to Girls at Parties

Directed by John Cameron Mitchell

Written by Philippa Goslett and John Cameron Mitchell based on “How to Talk to Girls at Parties” by Neil Gaiman

Starring Elle Fanning, Alex Sharp, Nicole Kidman, Ruth Wilson, Matt Lucas
 

Let us be honest. Most of us just floated through our high school years, being awkward towards each other. Some found love. Some found passion. Some found validation. Some struggled just being. I am certain that the social aspect of high school has changed since I graduated in 1994, but the clustering of social groups and tendencies has not.

What is interesting about John Cameron Mitchell’s “How to Talk to Girls at Parties” is how Philippa Goslett and Mitchell’s script, based on the short story of the same name by Neil Gaiman tries to bisect a hippy – sci fi feel with modernized characters. Unfortunately, it does not always work.

Enn (Alex Sharp) likes to rock it out with his friends, but does not know how to court a companion. Zan (Elle Fanning) is a member of an alien collective sent to observe Earth. When Enn and his chums stumble on to their abode, it is as if two star-crossed lovers reached out through space-time to find one another.

Though Enn’s mum (Joanna Scanlan) is a part of his life, she really just keeps the lights on for him. There is a hilarious scene where Enn and Zan have slept together, unbeknownst to his mum and when Zan waltzes down the stairs, the look of incredulity on his mum’s face is priceless.

The surprising casting in this film is Nicole Kidman as Queen Boadicea who is Enn’s surrogate mum. She keeps the ruckus in her club to a minimum as she tries to find a hole for Enn and his chums to play their sets (badly, of course.)

While the fireworks go off between Enn and Zan, the story careens just as wildly. Not that I have experienced this, but the best way to describe the happenings in the story is like an acid trip gone bad. You are lucid enough to know that the love is real, but the politics of the alien visitors, especially towards the third act, are so ludicrous that Congress should actually take notes.

While the story’s energy just does not support the character’s energy, the movie never really stumbles in terms of pacing. Brian Kates’s editing does a solid job of using the performances to move the story forward.

Mitchell (“Hedwig and the Angry Inch.” “Shortbus”) uses his rock n’ roll sensibilities to create a quirky atmosphere, which I appreciated. Looking back at my screening, there is an opening CGI shot of the universe, which slowly coalesces into several colored molecules; the effect reminded me of Relativity’s logo trailer when it is in fact part of the films’ opening shot. I am laughing at myself now for even admitting this, but the cheekiness of the effects worked on me.

The quirkiness of the performances and the direction, which feels much like a stage play will work on most audiences, but the story itself is far too light to carry the film to its logical conclusion.

Rating 2 out of 4

The Seagull - Movie Review by Jeff Mitchell

‘The Seagull’ does not exactly fly

Directed by:  Michael Mayer

Written by:  Stephen Karam (screenplay), Anton Chekhov (play)

Starring:  Annette Bening, Saoirse Ronan, Elisabeth Moss, Corey Stoll, Billy Howle, Mare Winningham, and Brian Dennehy

“The Seagull” – “It’s hot.  It’s quiet.  No one does anything.  Why does no one do anything?” – Irina (Annette Bening)

After experiencing “The Seagull”, a film adaption of Anton Chekhov’s play, one might ask Irina’s question about the movie itself.  Sure, the A-list cast members - Bening, Saoirse Ronan, Elisabeth Moss, Corey Stoll, Billy Howle, Brian Dennehy, and Mare Winningham – do something.  More than something.  They bring their acting A-games to director Michael Mayer’s picture, but the uninspired and sometimes muddy visuals match the pedestrian pacing, and the film feels like no one is actually doing a whole heck of a lot.

Moscow is a bustling city with millions of people engaging in an equal number of activities, but the film is set in the tranquil countryside outside Moscow (actually filmed in Upstate New York) at the turn of the 20th century.  Irina, a terribly successful actress, travels from Russia’s biggest metropolis to her family’s estate where her brother Sorin (Dennehy) lives, and they host a number of friends and her son Konstantin (Howle) for some days of drinking, singing, reading, and relaxing.  Lots of relaxing.

Within closed spaces, the characters converse - without any hint of Russian accents - about careers, lost dreams, family, and love. 

Sibling love, romantic love and – most of all - unrequited love.  

In fact, three characters truly have love for another, but their feelings are not reciprocated, so the film’s main themes paint despair for these individuals whose hearts are slightly tearing or flat out breaking. 

Moss is perfectly cast as Masha, and her character suffers from terrible dismay, but in tragic and comedic ways.  Masha always wears black, because the dark shade agrees with her disposition.  Still, she feels completely unrestricted to explain her misery to anyone who sits down and begins a conversation with a simple hello.  Moss – who was hilarious as an overlooked lover in 2017’s “The Square” – plays a lonely woman who is simply overlooked.  Masha, however, carries a sarcastic plan to remedy her pain and plans on “tearing this love from her heart” by getting married.

Speaking of marriage or courtship, “The Seagull” looks and feels like a Jane Austen film.  These types of period pieces center around courtships, ones that ever-so-briefly unfold - perhaps for a few minutes of screen time during a leisurely walk or a gentle boat ride - before undying love for the other is confessed.  In this case, these said courtships transpire, but each potential relationship carries an air of doom rather than hope.  There is nothing wrong with the chosen tone, but the narrative lacks playful nuances.

Actually, the movie feels like a Jane Austin B-movie.

Nearly the entire picture is set at the aforementioned estate, and despite ornate costumes and atmosphere, Mayer gives us very little visual pomp and circumstance to enjoy.  The night scenes seem to only use natural candlelight, so Irina, Nina (Ronan), Konstantin, and the others promenade and saunter in and out of shadows. 

During the daytime, seven or eight characters may assemble in the main room, converse and grumble, but without much celebration or movement.  Several scenes do take place in the great outdoors, and although the lake and acres of deciduous trees are pleasing to the eye, the potential for spectacular, period piece filmmaking never materializes. 

Now, “A Quiet Passion” (2017) – a story about Emily Dickinson (Cynthia Nixon) - was primarily set in one location too.  The Dickinson family home.  Every frame of that picture, however, visually pops and the ongoing runtime within the same bedrooms, living room, dining room, etc. does not elicit audience-ADD.  Whether it was the script, Nixon’s extraordinary performance or writer/director Terence Davies’s aptitude with lighting and his camera, “A Quiet Passion” does not feel limited or claustrophobic.  “The Seagull”, however, does.

Also, this film presents and then squanders two golden opportunities to step outside the estate to watch Irina perform, but instead of showcasing her talents inside a large, beautiful theatre, we only see very small glimpses of her work. 

Tight budgets and the self-contained nature of adapted plays could be the reasons.  Adapted play or not, movies are a visual medium and skillful filmmaking can help fill monetary voids and/or small sets.  See also “Glengarry Glen Ross” (1992). 

Still, the talented actors voice Chekhov’s and screenwriter Stephan Karam’s words with passion and vigor for 94 minutes, and these actors – especially Moss, Bening, Stoll, and Dennehy – offer a wonderful treat for those who appreciate ensembles in which words tied to close relationships matter.  These characters have the potential to find love, and yes, “The Seagull” has the potential to be great.  Unfortunately, that potential was lost somewhere during the film’s shoot.  Sure, “The Seagull” does not lay around and do absolutely nothing, but it never flies either.

(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.

Adrift - Movie Review by Monte Yazzie

Adrift

Director: Baltasar Kormakur

Starring: Shailene Woodley, Sam Claflin, Grace Palmer, Jeffrey Thomas, and Elizabeth Hawthorne

In 1983 Tami Oldham and Richard Sharp set off from Tahiti to deliver a yacht to San Diego. During the voyage the couple encountered a furious hurricane that capsized their boat, forcing a fight for survival adrift in the open ocean. Director Baltasar Kormakur takes this premise and organizes a film that functions in part as a melodrama about a passionate budding relationship between two free spirits and a raw tale of survival amidst the treacherous and vast ocean.

The film focuses on Tami’s (Shailene Woodley) journey; she's a free spirit from California, working odd jobs to move from one exotic locale to another. Tami is reluctant to let anything get in the way of her experience in the world, she operates on the ambition to be immersed in the world. While on a Polynesian adventure she meets another free spirit named Richard (Sam Claflin), an experienced sailor who has his own yacht. They fall in love and are soon making new experiences together. Richard asks Tami to sail the world with him.

“Adrift” utilizes an interesting narrative device, jumping around the timeline of the couple’s relationship, specifically between their romance and survival. It’s an interesting technique that helps to balance the film’s themes and keep it from becoming another sappy romantic film that happens to have a third act that turns into a harrowing battle of life versus death. In one scene we get a moment to see the couple enjoying a beautiful excursion on a small beach and in the next scene we see a desperate couple rationing food to survive. It’s a great emotional split that helps with establishing the characters and their relationship. Unfortunately it also separates some of the better emotional aspects, especially some of the passionate and intense moments that sell the romantic believability for these two people. While it doesn’t ruin the experience it does leave some moments hallow. 

Shailene Woodley is good in the lead role, holding the far and wide emotions with ease. There are moments that require the actress to handle some very raw moments of despair and other moments that require a more subtle approach to aspects of fear. Sam Claflin plays Richard opposite Ms. Woodley; the actor has an undeniable charm but the chemistry between the two just doesn’t come together as nicely as it should. This is particularly because of the bisected structure of the storytelling but also because the script demands that the romance be told through short snippets that occur during adventures taken by the couple, which mostly consists of a series of the two people looking longingly into one another’s eyes or embracing amidst beautiful landscape. It’s picturesque but never more than surface level romance.

Still, Mr. Kormakur delivers a human tale throughout the film, one that focuses less on the extravagance and spectacle of nature and more on the resilient aspects of the human spirit. When the storm eventually comes, the emphasis never turns to the action heavy set piece but remains on a couple entangled in a fight for their lives. It’s during this terrifying moment in the film that the love story and survival story complement each other the best.

“Adrift” may not always work as a romantic drama about two unique people who encounter one another in the vast world or as story of survival aboard a broken ship in the ocean. However, when the film eventually connects the emotional dots between the relationship of love and survival, it works quite nicely.

Monte’s Rating

2.75 out of 5.00

First Reformed - Movie Review by Ben Cahlamer

First Reformed

Directed by Paul Schrader

Written by Paul Schrader

Starring Ethan Hawke, Amanda Seyfried, Cedric Kyles, Victoria Hill, Phillip Ettinger

Though I am not fully versed in his catalog, and it has been many years since I’ve seen “Taxi Driver,” writer – director Paul Schrader has never really shied away from bold, life – altering themes and characters who go through morally questionable decisions in times of personal crisis.

“First Reformed” is no exception and as Toller, Ethan Hawke is exceptional.

A man of faith, in a small community where the congregation is but a few of the citizens, a conflicted . . . no, torn Toller is pressed to question his own faith as he struggles with not only the demons of others, but his own struggles. One could point out the connection to another Schrader character, Travis Bickle.

The difference between Toller and Travis Bickle (Robert De Niro, “Taxi Driver”; 1976, d. M. Scorcese) is that Bickle is a veteran who is trying to reintegrate into society following a traumatic, emotional act that he witnessed directly. Toller, on the other hand is coping with the loss of another and thusly takes on the suffering of others.

It is in this vein that Mary (Amanda Seyfried) and Michael (Philip Ettinger) enter his life. They are a young couple who seek Toller’s counsel. In an early sequence, as Michael loosely confesses his sins, we never get to understand who Michael is. Nor should we, for it is Toller’s to take on that burden which is not necessarily ours to bear. Key to this interaction though is the fact that Michael is not seeking absolution. Toller could not offer it as such.

Within this interaction, it strengthens the trust between Toller, who as a disgruntled man of faith and Mary, a woman seeking comfort, but not salvation. Toller will not allow physical contact nor will he allow himself to seek the counsel of others. Especially his senior pastor, Jeffers (Cedric Kyles), who has concerned himself with the business of the 200th anniversary of their small, historical church.

I found it rather interesting that within Toller’s monologue he maintains a journal, specifically stating that he would do so for a year and after that year, he would destroy it. It serves as a foundation for his descent into his crises of faith while struggling to maintain his façade. The allegory on modern society’s commentary is not lost within this context and is a powerful message.

Amidst the chaotic world we live in, Toller never loses focus of his own resolve. Schrader has seen to that. Within his resolution is a confession stuck in catharsis. It is such a beautifully crafted catharsis that we can all endure Toller’s pains. He need not seek absolution from us either, for we are reformed.

4 out of 4 stars

On Chesil Beach - Movie Review by Jeff Mitchell

‘On Chesil Beach’ refreshingly strays from typical romance themes

Directed by:  Dominic Cooke

Written by:  Ian McEwan (novel and screenplay)

Starring:  Saoirse Ronan, Billy Howle, Emily Watson, Samuel West, Lionel Mayhew, and Anne-Marie Duff

“On Chesil Beach” – “Actually, I’m a little bit scared.” – Florence (Saoirse Ronan)

“I think I am too.” – Edward (Billy Howle)

Chesil Beach, a natural barrier made of pebbles, stretches for 18 miles in Dorset along the English Channel.  This thin landmass of small rocks looks delicate from the air, but Chesil Beach is not an environmental wonder that just materialized overnight.  It has a solid foundation with eons of history.

Edward and Florence (or Flo), in their very early 20’s, get married and then honeymoon at an inn next to this picturesque locale.  Although marriage is supposedly built on an already-existing solid foundation, the two discover that their relationship is much more delicate.    

Director Dominic Cooke and writer Ian McEwan – who adapted his 2007 book “On Chesil Beach” for the screen – carefully address the themes of finding the right partner, establishing open lines of communication and clearly understanding the baggage that each person brings to a marriage before the actual ceremony.  Although this emotional checklist appears logical and straightforward, formal training manuals for picking a spouse and establishing a solid foundation are not uniformly handed out to aspiring young couples.  

Additionally, Cooke and McEwan introduce a fairly unique issue in contemporary cinema that will not be named in this review.  It is a sensitive, tricky subject, but it’s one that the characters can properly address through honest and respectful communication, and the filmmakers handle the topic with maturity and smart camerawork.  

“On Chesil Beach” is not an everyday, flowery romance story, and those expecting Ronan’s Flo to enjoy a breezy relationship - like her character Ellis in “Brooklyn” (2015) - will be disappointed.  It does recount the leads’ initial meeting and courtship during the early 1960’s, but theirs is not a romance where they grasp heated moments in a doorway, movie theatre or grassy field.  Their dating period is filled with more wholesome moments of quality time spent in each other’s worlds.  Worlds slightly divided by class. 

Howle and Ronan play the couple as polite, considerate and caring, and Flo wins over Edward and his family with her grace and kindness.  These actors make it very easy to like their characters, while we wish that their marriage will last 60 years…on the low-end.  Of course, no marriage bathes in perfection, and the narrative establishes that Edward’s mother and Flo’s father are imperfect role models.  Whether we all like it or not, our parents unwittingly impact and program our choices as adults, and Edward and Flo are not exempt from this phenomenon that has existed as long as humans have roamed the planet.

Cooke does a nice job of capturing his on-screen planet, the 60’s.  With costumes, attitudes, atmosphere, and selected bright color palates, he properly frames this more innocent time leading up to and during this couple’s honeymoon.  It is also a period when the fault of just about anything in a relationship unfortunately falls upon women.  Compared to today, the early 1960’s was a time of greater innocence, which also inversely means less enlightenment, and that plays a key element in the story.  

Cooke and McEwan display cinematic enlightenment, as the picture runs a healthy 1 hour and 50 minutes.  The time feels about right, because it could have dragged on for 2 hours and 15 minutes.  Now, the third act does seem condensed and rushed – with much more material probably left in the book -  but the filmmakers used good judgment by choosing frugality during the film’s closing steps.

The pivotal moment does transpire on Chesil Beach, and hence the film is aptly named.  While standing on that beach, the hope is that Edward and Flo have built enough of a foundation to proudly and bravely face the storm.

(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.

Solo: A Star Wars Story - Movie Review by Monte Yazzie

Solo: A Star Wars Story

Director: Ron Howard

Starring: Alden Ehrenreich, Woody Harrelson, Emilia Clarke, Donald Glover, Thandie Newton, Phoebe Waller-Bridge, Jonas Suotamo, and Paul Bettany

“You know, sometimes I amaze even myself.” The epitome of cool, the tough guy, the rebel in the original Star Wars universe has always been Han Solo. The character is an icon of pop culture, a science fiction superstar that brought charisma and attitude into the cockpit of the Millennium Falcon alongside a furry companion named Chewbacca. Han Solo’s journey into the Star Wars universe was always one of mythic proportions; a history only partly introduced with off topic remarks or unexpected meet-ups with past foes/friends. Amidst battles between galactic forces and duels with light saber wielding Jedi’s, Han Solo was consistently one of the most intriguing and appealing characters.

“Solo: A Star Wars Story”, directed by Ron Howard and written by Jonathan Kasdan and Lawrence Kasdan amidst a troubled production, takes the viewer back to the beginning of the journey; back to understand how Han Solo became a pilot, how he won the Millennium Falcon, and how Chewie became his partner in crime. Unlike other films in the “Star Wars” canon, the stakes aren’t world or life threatening, the mythology doesn’t boast a battle between light and dark forces, but instead the film focuses on a young man wrapped up in a world of loners, thieves, backstabbers and smugglers.

Han (Alden Ehrenreich) is a juvenile delinquent, stealing speeders and running scams for bad guys who don’t like failure. Han is trying to escape his life of crime, leave the planet Corellia, and start a new path with his girlfriend Qi’ra (Emilia Clarke). Things don’t go as planned and Han is separated from Qi’ra; he promises to return for her one day. This leads Han to enlist in the military only to leave and join the gang fronted by a thief named Beckett (Woody Harrelson). Qi’ra finds her own path, secured in service to a scarred gangster named Dryden Vos (Paul Bettany).

Director Ron Howard handles the material here with delicate hands, perhaps a little too delicate considering the film struggles to make the wild stories of Han Solo resonate with the kind charisma and coolness associated with the savvy star pilot seen in “Star Wars: A New Hope”. It’s the bits of forced nostalgia, the intentional callbacks to the past (or future depending on how you look at the timeline), which create a rift in the tone of the story. Han’s character has always had the benefit of the doubt; his stories about winning spaceships and accomplishing challenging feats in 12 parsecs were legends told through word of mouth, many times the mouth of Han Solo himself. Still, they were stories given the bare minimum of information and told through the vessel of a character that oozes confidence. When these stories come to life it’s amusing yet altogether unnecessary and somewhat insignificant.

Still, Mr. Howard populates the film with some interesting characters. Woody Harrelson is good as Beckett, the lifetime thief whose sage words of advice are “Assume everyone will betray you”. Mr. Harrelson’s calm and natural demeanor fits this particular universe of loners. But the scene-stealer here is Donald Glover playing Lando Calrissian. Mr. Glover has a suaveness that shines through even when the character may not handle all the situations with the same kind of self-assured personality one might expect. Unfortunately Alden Ehrenreich, and this is no fault the talented actor’s ability, just doesn’t evoke the same quality of the character Harrison Ford composed. Trying to emulate the nostalgic sentiments of a character like Han Solo is nearly impossible considering the stranglehold that time and the ever growing grasp of pop culture hold over these beloved characters. Mr. Ehrenreich’s choices feel out of sync considering the character that will eventually come to the aid of the Resistance and Luke Skywalker in a few years to come.

“Solo: A Star Wars Story” is mixed with moments that want to have fun, want to provide fan service, and want to prepare for the eventual return of the character for another adventure. It doesn’t always work. Still, in some places everything just fits so nicely that it’s impossible not to enjoy yourself. When Chewie and Han meet in a muddy pit during a chaotic war scene everything clicks for a moment, everything feels right knowing the future progression of these character’s intermingled storyline. It’s when the film actually resonates most like a Star Wars story.

Monte’s Rating

3.25 out of 5.00

New Trailers for Memorial Day Weekend

In the last day or so, we've seen the release of a fresh batch of trailers. We thought we would pass them along just in time for the weekend. 

First up from Focus Features is the latest trailer for "Won't You Be My Neighbor". The film hits theatres on June 8th. 

The next trailer is for "The Sisters Brothers". This one is from Annapuna Pictures and releases this Fall. 

Up next is a teaser trailer for "A Simple Favor" starring Anna Kendrick and Blake Lively. This one releases in September.

And finally something for the families, Disney's "Christopher Robin"  by Clicking here

Deadpool 2 - Movie Review by Monte Yazzie

Deadpool 2

Director: David Leitch

Starring: Ryan Reynolds, Josh Brolin, Morena Baccarin, Zazie Beetz, Julian Dennison, and Briana Hildebrand

“Deadpool” arrived into theaters in 2016 during a time when comic book movie fatigue was beginning to settle in. It arrived at the the perfect place; the raunchy comedy, the explicit language, and the bloody bits and pieces were unlike the superhero films viewers were getting comfortable with in the cineplex. At the core of the film was a court jester with dual ninja swords and an itchy trigger finger; Ryan Reynolds, with his comedic swagger and verbal lambasting, shook up the structure of what a comic book movie could be. In the world of movie roles perfectly suited for a particular actor,  Deadpool was made for actor Ryan Reynolds.

 “Deadpool 2”, amidst the amped up gore and explicit language, is very much a comic book comedy that is funny enough that you’re bound to miss numerous jokes because of the laughter in the auditorium. The breakneck style of comedy here is also reflected in the action scenes, it’s kinetic to the point of chaos throughout the entirety of the film. But that’s what makes this franchise so much fun, it doesn’t play by the rules.

Wade Wilson (Ryan Reynolds), aka Deadpool, has expanded his vigilante ways into global markets. But Deadpool is trying to change his deadly ways, and with the help of some superhero friends he is given an opportunity to try a new, less violent, form of justice. This introduces Deadpool to a young boy named Russell (Julian Dennison) who is trying to escape a reform school for young mutants. Unfortunately some one else takes an interest in Russell, a time-traveling mercenary named Cable (Josh Brolin) wants to destroy Russell before he grows into an unstoppable super villain.

“Deadpool 2” has a charming and mischievous quality that keeps the film entertaining from the start until the final frame. It’s also quite funny, everything from sight gags to foul-mouthed banter populate every inch of the film. The film understands exactly what it is trying to achieve, which is a playfulness amidst some of the more serious comic book movie franchises out there. Through its self-deprecating style, fourth wall breaking moments, and knowing nods to every comic book universe present and past, these qualities have been turned up to eleven, “Deadpool 2” is bound to please anyone who loved the first film.

But through all the fun and laughter it’s hard not to question why the journey feels so unsatisfying. Deadpool’s super power is regeneration, the character functions as somewhat indestructible throughout the film. While we are given a moment to see Deadpool without powers, the fact that the character can lose limbs and get riddled with bullets without much consequence never makes any of the foes in the film feel threatening. Even Cable, who shows up with a big weapon and a mechanical arm, is a non-consequential bad guy who shows up mostly for amusing banter and to introduce time travel into the narrative of the film.

Because “Deadpool 2” never functions within any set boundaries, it’s easy to forgive the obvious lapses in storytelling. Convenience becomes a narrative weapon to wield to get from one scene to the next, and when the audience begins to question the details the film takes the red suited character and turns him to the audience to express, “that’s just lazy writing”. Yes, it’s acceptable, but it’s still flimsy storytelling.

Ryan Reynolds is fantastic throughout the film, Josh Brolin should be in more of these types of films because he adds such gravity to these characters, and young Julian Dennison sells the aspect of a character on the verge.

“Deadpool 2” will please those who enjoyed the simplistic entertainment and adult humor of the first film. Unfortunately, while the character can be amusing in all his rage, violence and humor, there is far less of a complex composition to the character and more of a one dimensional aspect. While this may be what the character, and writers, are ultimately aiming for, it may also be what keeps the franchise from building this character into something more substantial. That doesn’t mean it won’t be fun to see the foul-mouthed superhero every few years.

Monte’s Rating

3.50 out of 5.00

Pope Francis: A Man of His Word - Movie Review by Jeff Mitchell

‘Pope Francis:  A Man of His Word’ is a great opportunity and a missed one

Directed by:  Wim Wenders

Written by:  Wim Wenders and David Rosier

Starring:  Pope Francis

“Pope Francis:  A Man of His Word” – “I think he might be the coolest pope ever.” – Conan O’Brien

O’Brien is not alone. 

With his progressive stances on climate change, gay marriage, women in the church, and more, Pope Francis is helping bridge the gap between traditional Catholicism and life in 2018.  Whether or not every individual Catholic church in the world is more accessible and flexible, well, at least this pope – whose papacy began in March 2013 - has set a new direction. 

Sensible.  Likable.  Approachable.   

These words all describe Pope Francis, at least from Catholics and non-Catholics who are not threatened by his beliefs. 

Revolutionary might be another word. 

There may have never been a pope like him, but in director Wim Wenders documentary, Pope Francis draws comparisons to a saint.  Saint Francis of Assisi.  The famous saint lived 800 years ago, and in a recent interview, Wenders said that Saint Francis and Pope Francis share three common principles:  solidarity with the poor, respect for nature and peace with other religions.

Wenders defends this observation in two ways. 

First, Pope Francis speaks right to the camera and directly explains his beliefs in a casual, relaxed setting.  Second, Wenders shows the pope traveling all over the globe and speaking on the aforementioned three principles.  Despite, this tremendous opportunity to listen to Pope Francis state his core values, this film plays loose with its narrative, and it unfortunately seems directionless and sometimes endless over the course of a long 96 minutes. 

It’s not like the audience does not receive positive messages and a direct feed from this sensible, likable, approachable, and revolutionary world leader, because we do. 

Pope Francis speaks out – with straight talk - on a number of topics.  For instance, he worries about the lack of meaningful work in economically-challenged countries which can cause havoc on individual self-esteem and intrinsic dignity.  Climate change and pollution bring him stress.  He pleads that Mother Earth is not in balance, and “the world is mostly deaf” on the issue. 

He also speaks to income inequality and greed and says, “No one can serve two masters. We either serve God, or we serve money.”

These are just a few of the many pearls of wisdom that Wenders’s film wonderfully and profoundly offers.

As much as these messages resonate, it is difficult to connect with the picture as a whole, as the film regularly volleys between a few minutes of Pope Francis’s valuable discourse and then shifts to his road trip footage that all seems to blend together without cohesive tissue.

Pope Francis travels to Brazil, Bolivia, Jerusalem, and Philadelphia, to just name a few locales, and big, smiling crowds greet him at every turn. 

We definitely feel the love! 

These individual moments inspire and simultaneously showcase the global popularity of this holy man, but collectively, these appearances feel like a repetitive concoction of his greatest hits, rather than for a designed purpose.  The many, many appearances mostly fit the same pattern:  Pope Francis looks out an airplane window, the plane lands, he walks towards a large crowd, greets some individual followers, and delivers a sermon.  Wash, rinse, repeat.

Now, organically – through the solo discussions and B-roll from the road - the picture does lay out a solid case that Saint Francis and Pope Francis share thoughtful, altruistic traits, but through the prism of the recurring said pattern.  Quite frankly, this particular Francis-Francis bond could be explained in 30 minutes, rather than an entire feature film, and when dedicating a movie to this particular pope, why not explore additional intriguing topics? 

Pope Francis is the first pope from the Southern Hemisphere and the Americas, so why not interview experts about the previous exclusion, rather than just briefly mention it?

Pope Francis’s reformist stances beget both relief and controversy, so why not explore the arguments?

What do historians say about him?  How do church leaders feel?  What are John and Jane Q. Public’s thoughts?  What makes Pope Francis tick, and what brought him to his beliefs?

“Pope Francis:  A Man of His Word” really does not address these questions, but those answers will have to wait for a future movie.  For now, we have a good opportunity and a missed one. That’s too bad, because this pope is really cool.

(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.

Abducted in Plain Sight (previously titled "Forever 'B'") - Movie Review by Jeff Mitchell

‘Abducted in Plain Sight’ is a deeply troubling, unforgettable documentary

Directed by:  Skye Borgman

Starring:  Jan Broberg, Bob Broberg, Mary Ann Broberg, Karen Campbell, Susan Broberg, and Pete Welsh

“Abducted in Plain Sight” – “It’s such a bizarre thing, but we lived it.  It’s all true.” – Bob Broberg

“Horror is like a serpent, always shedding its skin, always changing, and it will always come back.” – Dario Argento

The Broberg family did live through a bizarre thing. 

A nightmare, actually. 

An unspeakable nightmare, but every member of the Broberg family – Bob, his wife Mary Ann and their three children, Karen, Susan and Jan – decided to bravely sit in front of director Skye Borgman’s camera and speak in great detail about a real-life horror show that forever changed their family during the 1970s in Pocatello, Idaho.  All five members of this loving family were gravely impacted, but Jan Broberg, the eldest daughter, who is now in her 50s, suffered far and away the most emotional and physical damage.

Jan was abducted in plain sight. 

In “Abducted in Plain Sight”, Borgman initially presents a warm introduction to the Brobergs, but then does not waste time announcing the real-life villain, a neighbor named Robert Berchtold.  Berchtold – who goes by Bob or B - and his wife Gayle are busy raising five kids of their own, but he somehow finds time to initiate and maintain a close friendship with the Brobergs.  In fact, Berchtold devotes much of his free time with the Broberg kids, and specifically Jan. 

Once Berchtold builds enough trust with the Brobergs, he finally executes his master plan.  On October 17, 1974, Berchtold, roughly 40 at the time, kidnaps Jan, who was only 12. 

Jan courageously reflects on the events of 44 years ago with a calm, direct and lucid demeanor, as she describes her feelings and thought processes at the time.  She trusted Berchtold, and therefore, already formed her future Stockholm Syndrome before the kidnapping.

This initial abduction is only the very beginning, as Berchtold’s said actions become infinitely more depraved, and the documentary leads the audience down his path of treachery and insidious schemes.  

The jaw dropping power of this movie – which originally was named “Forever ‘B’” and won the 2018 Phoenix Film Festival Best Documentary award along with 10 other wins from other festivals and competitions – mainly resides with two key elements. 

First, Borgman structures her picture as a slow reveal over the entire course of its 87 minutes. For example, let’s say at the 23-minute mark, we may believe that this family’s story could not possibly get worse, but five minutes later, another frank disclosure will result in a new collective gasp of disbelief.  This narrative continues to creep down a twisted and deeply uncomfortable path of deceit and perversion that raises both ire against Berchtold and his elaborate schemes and pure astonishment that he repeatedly slipped and slithered by without significant consequences.

Second, all five Brobergs disclosed the troubling and embarrassing specifics of their family turmoil with unselfish sincerity.  The love that Bob and Mary Ann have for their family shines through, but they also openly admit to their mistakes, naivete and blind spots to the Berchtold-red flags.  Their forthright, brutal honestly along with Jan’s courageous recount of the wickedly sorted events that plagued her childhood allows us to absorb just a tiny portion of this family’s deep and painful trauma. 

The Brobergs never asked for this trauma, but Bob and Mary Ann unwittingly opened the door to it.  At some points, their actions spur massive frustration, but enormous sympathy too.  Berchtold was a master manipulator, and remember, it was the 1970s, 30-plus years before the Internet, and they lived in a relatively pristine and unsoiled LDS community in Idaho.  Also, it’s difficult to spot a villainous snake, especially one cloaked with a gregarious, welcoming personality. 

Michael Myers, Jason Voorhees and Freddy Krueger are fictitious movie monsters, but they just act on pure instinct and visceral Hollywood-scripted violence.  Not Robert Berchtold.  He’s much worse.  Berchtold constructed elaborate, deceptive traps like a James Bond villain.  Rather than setting his sights on conquering the world, he microtargeted a vulnerable, happy family and crippled it.  Of course, he accomplished this with oceans of lies, delivered with a smile.

No smiles will be found during a screening of “Abducted in Plain Sight”.  It covers incredibly troubling, difficult material, but it is also an unforgettable documentary.  Borgman’s chronicle of this story was the very best competition film that this critic saw at the 2018 Phoenix Film Festival. 

Jan Broberg’s story needs to be heard. 

Very little will comfort a movie audience throughout the film’s duration, but the fact that all five of the Brobergs are emotionally healthy enough recount the details of this period is a blessing.  A miracle, actually.  Of course, the Brobergs are so much more than the dreaded, aforementioned events of the 1970s, but yes, they lived it, and it’s all true. 

(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.

Life of the Party - Movie Review by Monte Yazzie

Life of the Party

Director: Ben Falcone

Starring: Melissa McCarthy, Gillian Jacobs, Debby Ryan, Adria Arjona, Molly Gordon, Luke Benward, and Maya Rudolph

Nearly every college dorm room, way back when I wandered the campus, had two posters; the John Belushi “Animal House” poster with the “college” sweater or the poster for the movie “Old School”. Higher education comedies have been around since the early days of cinema, the Marx Brothers tackled the topic with the film “Horse Feathers” in 1932 and it seems like nearly every year since the early 1990’s we have seen a school comedy in the multiplex.

“Life of the Party” is the latest, and one the tamest, college comedies to come around in some time. Most of these specific school comedies fall into the realm of raunchy subject matter with heavy levels of explicit language. And the storylines either follow a group of underdogs in some capacity fighting against the college elite or follow a character who is on the verge of getting kicked out of school. It’s seldom the stories that make these college comedies memorable but rather the way the stories compose the reality, ordinary or outlandish, of the college experience. “Life of the Party” unfortunately takes the most basic characteristics of the college comedy, throwing in a lively Melissa McCarthy to make the most of it all.

Deanna (Melissa McCarthy) is a college dropout, mother of a college senior (Molly Gordon), and recently divorced. She regrets never finishing her  degree, archeology, and decides to enroll to finish. Deanna, now going to school with her daughter, utilizes this return to campus to sow some stowed away wild oats. She goes to big parties, dance battles some bullies, and finds herself a young man to get romantic with.

Everything college movies have taught viewers over the years is on display in “Life of the Party”. The familiar college “fish out of water” storyline, the comedy setups like a wild party that ends with regrets of too much alcohol, and the obvious bullies that try to stall the progress of our protagonist throughout her journey. While the similarity to other films is immediately recognizable it’s not the problem, it’s the execution of themes that sours the experience.

Melissa McCarthy’s character is the underdog throughout the film, but her journey throughout the different college triumphs and trials are never given the attention in order for them to really mean anything pertinent for the character. Most of the young people accept her without question, the mean girls are never really that threatening, and the actual reason she returns to college in the first place is given one scene that may cause a minimal amount of distress for her journey towards the final goal. The stakes aren’t high enough, but even this could be overlooked if the film executed the comedic aspects better. Unfortunately, even though Melissa McCarthy completely owns the character, the funny parts rarely hit like they should. With the exception of one scene that absolutely killed, to the point that it was really difficult to hear the jokes that followed the big punchline because of the laughter, the other jokes were simply unmemorable.

“Life of the Party” survives because of Melissa McCarthy. The actress works overtime to make the most of the character and the jokes throughout the film. Unfortunately the familiar angles and timid comedy keep this film from becoming the new poster for the college dorm room.

Monte’s Rating

2.00 out of 5.00

Measure of a Man - Movie Review by Jeff Mitchell

The ‘70s coming-of-age film ‘Measure of a Man’ stands up

Directed by:  Jim Loach

Written by:  David Scearce, based on the novel “One Fat Summer” by Robert Lipsyte

Starring:  Blake Cooper, Donald Sutherland, Judy Greer, Luke Wilson, Liana Liberato, and Danielle Rose Russell

“Measure of a Man” – “I hated summer vacation.  For me, it wasn’t about anticipation.  It was about preparation.” – Bobby Marks (Blake Cooper)

“For me, growing up and going to school and not seeing any anti-bullying posters and not hearing people talk about bullying was very desolate.” – poet Shane Koyczan

A lush, serene lakeside community – complete with canoes, a diving board attached to a dock, hiking trails sprawling in every direction, and families enjoying warm days, cool nights and plenty of laughs – sounds like a welcoming way to spend a summer vacation. 

Not for Bobby.  He dreads it.

Like many teenagers, Bobby is not comfortable in his own skin, and in his particular case, he is overweight and terribly self-conscious about it.  He feels that he should stay on “the edge of everything” rather than run in cool people-circles.  His lack of self-esteem also – unfortunately – attracts bullying like a magnet, and in director Jim Loach’s “Measure of a Man”, Bobby finds himself facing this miserable adolescent turbulence during the summer of 1976. 

The chosen time period for this coming-of-age picture (also accompanied by a terrific ‘70s soundtrack that sometimes really pops off the screen) plays a huge factor.  Life in the mid-1970s did not come with the safety nets that we enjoy in 2018.   

Dentists filled cavities with mercury, automobile passengers treated seatbelts as a nice option and smoking was allowed, um, everywhere! 

Although bullying has occurred in every era in human history, at least parents, teachers, students, and society at large now recognize it as a significant problem for kids and their emotional growth. 

Awareness and speaking out are up!

For Bobby, speaking out really isn’t his thing, and especially this summer, because much of his support system inconveniently is not present.   His best friend Joanie (Danielle Rose Russell) and her family suddenly head back home, and his dad (Luke Wilson) spends most of his time working in the city.   Not that Marty (Wilson) gives Bobby much support anyway, as he generally lays down the law, gripes about his son’s work ethic and then makes a quick exit.

The point is that Loach and screenwriter David Scearce ensure that Bobby spends much of his time alone, and they leave him to his own devices.  When the local jerk Willie Rumson (Beau Knapp) and his two buddies repeatedly snipe, tease and physically harm Bobby - other than one save at a carnival in the film’s first act - no one is really present to help. 

Even when his mom Lenore (Judy Greer) kindly probes Bobby to share his troubles, he clams up and provides no useful fodder.  Circumstances have left Bobby on his own, but he also chooses to be, as the film truly conveys his isolation.  Despite many, potentially helpful faces at his disposal, the chosen time period, Joanie’s split, and the filmmakers’ intentions, the movie leaves the audience with one conclusion:  Bobby has to face Willie man-to-man. 

Thankfully, he receives inspiration from an unlikely source, Dr. Kahn (Donald Sutherland), who needs a groundskeeper to care for his lawn and other related jobs and hires Bobby to work from 9am to 3pm, Monday through Friday.  Sutherland is a joy to watch as this aging taskmaster with oceans of life experience trains this green - but aspiring – green thumb using the cadence of some of his best work, like the mysterious X in “JFK” (1991).  The good doctor challenges Bobby by correcting his English, eliciting proper conversational responses and providing a platform for hard work with a steely, calm demeanor, and some of the best scenes in the movie contain the back and forth between master and student. 

At this age, Bobby is highly malleable.  Since his father’s dismissive, semi-tough love runs only one way and mainly downhill, Bobby can learn a lot through Dr. Kahn, who encourages an equal exchange, even though the end results do not immediately seem fair.  

It is fair to say that “Measure of Man” covers familiar coming-of-age ground, but the film excels (via its set design, characters, written and directed human interactions, and performances) as a time warp to yesterdecade, when we spent more time fending for ourselves.  Although the movie has some amusing moments, and many times they are engineered by small exchanges between family members and friends, it really functions as a drama, like 2009’s “Adventureland”.

Yes, this is Bobby’s adventure/journey, but Loach and Scearce ensure that all the main characters carry important threads, as they each harbor varying degrees of secrets.  Even though Lenore, Marty and Michelle do not receive substantial chucks of screen time, they have appealing depth.  After the credits roll, we hope that they communicate their internal concerns to one another more often, but then again, they do not live in 2018, a time when we probably share a bit too much.   Yes, life in 1976 was a simpler time, but as “Measure of a Man” shows, it was not necessarily easier. 

(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.

Interview with Jim Loach and Liana Liberato from "Measure of a Man" by Jeff Mitchell

Interview with “Measure of a Man” director Jim Loach and actress Liana Liberato

On Sunday, April 15, 2018, the Phoenix Film Festival screened the U.S. premiere of director Jim Loach’s “Measure of a Man”!   Adapted from Robert Lipsyte’s novel “One Fat Summer”, this comedy/drama centers around an overweight teen, Bobby Marks (Blake Cooper), and his struggle with bullies in 1976.  This coming-of-age movie stars Cooper, Liana Liberato, Judy Greer, Luke Wilson, and Donald Sutherland. 

Just before the April screening, Jim Loach and Liana Liberato (who plays Bobby’s older sister, Michelle) sat down with the Phoenix Film Festival, and we enjoyed a terrific conversation about Bobby’s journey, Michelle’s relationship with her brother, the groovy 70s soundtrack, and much more!

“Measure of a Man” arrives in theatres on Friday, May 11.     

PFF:  Bobby is overweight and self-conscious about his appearance.  In Lipsyte’s book, Bobby loses weight during his summer journey, but not in the movie. 

Now, Bobby could begin addressing his self-esteem issues by improving his physical appearance, but at the end of the day – regardless of his weight – he probably needs to be comfortable with himself as a person first.  His core.  Was that your thought process with Bobby’s story arc?   

JL:  I think that’s 100 percent right.  That’s why we didn’t want him to become magically thin by the end of the film, because I think that would be completely wrong.  All the characters, like Michelle and Bobby, are suffering in a way, finding out who they are and becoming aware and conscious of themselves.  

It would be really wrong if we did a film where (Bobby) ends up thin, and then he’s happy.  He (first) has to be comfortable within himself. 

PFF:  A good portion of Bobby’s support system is not available to him during this particular summer.  His dad (Wilson) is working a lot, and his best friend, Joanie (Danielle Rose Russell), left her parents’ summer cottage to go back home.  Michelle, however, is there and living with Bobby.  She seems to empathize with his plight, but was she more focused on herself?

LL:  Michelle gages the fact that their mom (Greer) was very doting over Bobby.  I feel that Michelle (was thinking), “Kid, you can do it.  Just buck up.  You got it.  If you need me, I’m here for you no matter what.  We’ll help each other out when we need to, but you can do this on your own.”

I feel that hopefully, in a way, Bobby will appreciate (her approach).  (When planning the film,) we talked about how Bobby’s age is a crucial time for a boy.  Michelle is 16 or 17 years old, and that’s a crucial time for her too.  I think that Michelle is in her own world, figuring out herself and her stuff as well.  (So,) I think it’s an equal balance.

PFF:  This movie is also about secrets.  A lot of the characters have secrets, but did Michelle have any that were not shown in the film, but you thought about when studying the character? 

LL:  Yes, this was Michelle’s first experimentation with the opposite sex, (as she starts seeing Pete Marino (Luke Benward)).  Also, Michelle’s mom became quite the feminist and decided to take her life back.  Even though our characters – as mother and daughter - butt heads, Michelle is trying to take control of her own life too, which comes with a fair share of secrets and choices.   

PFF:  Dr. Kahn (Sutherland) put Bobby to work over the summer, and the experience helped the young man learn responsibility.  Did you have a Dr. Kahn in your life?

LL:  My dad.  He was like a friend to me and still is.  He’s just so honest, and any mistake that I made, he would say, “Hey, let’s talk about it.  What’s going on?”

His first (approach during a teaching moment) was never discipline or punishment.  It was just about listening. 

PFF:  Lipsyte’s book was set in the 1950s, but the screenplay – written by David Scearce - was updated to the 1970s.  In an interview, Lipsyte talked about the changes to his book and said that the 70s had “better music.”

The soundtrack really resonated with me, and many times, the music just popped off the screen.  One example was “Sunshine” by Jonathan Edwards, and some of the lyrics are:  “He tells me, ‘I’d better get in line.’  Can’t hear what he’s saying.  When I grow up, I’m going to make it mine.  These ain’t dues I’ve been paying.”

I think this is about Bobby’s relationship with Dr. Kahn.  Is Dr. Kahn - basically - the conduit who helps him grow up?

JL:  We tried to (construct their relationship) in such a way that it wasn’t necessarily a conscious thing.  We didn’t think that Dr. Kahn saw (Bobby) as an opportunity to have a grand hand (in sorting) this kid out.  We just thought (their relationship) was more serendipitous, (and) their paths just crossed in that moment.  That particular moment in that summer, they both give each other something, but in an unconscious or barely conscious way.  Bobby (also) helps Dr. Kahn come to terms with something, and certainly, Dr. Kahn has sage advice – if nothing else - for Bobby.  We thought that (we would rely) on serendipity. 

PFF:  Lipsyte said, “Over the years, I’ve gotten a lot of mail about the book and some of it comes from 6-foot girls in Iowa who say they know how Bobby feels.”    

LL:  Wow!

PFF:  Yes, exactly!  Even though Bobby is a teenage boy, do you believe that his story is universal and why?

JL:  Obviously, (that universal quality) will be there.  Everyone remembers bullies at school.  Frankly, we are surrounded by bullies now, and they are in great positions of great power.  I think everybody who knows that feeling - who are willing to get their lives back - (can relate to Bobby’s story). 

LL:  I agree.  I think the beauty behind this film is that it appeals to all walks of life, whether you are a parent, a teenage girl, a preteen boy, or a bully who harbors a lot of anger.  It shines a light on everyone’s situation and what they are going through.  

I think it’s amazing that there is a such a diversity of people who connect to the book and hopefully the movie will too.

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.

Tully - Movie Review by Monte Yazzie

Tully

Director: Jason Reitman

Starring: Charlize Theron, Mackenzie Davis, Mark Duplass, Elaine Tan, and Ron Livingston

“How did we do it?” The common question anyone who has young children proclaim when reminiscing about those precious days, possible months depending on how lucky you are, when you slowly lose your mind trying to maintain the backwards schedule of caring for an infant. And if you are honest, you’ll understand that the answer to the question of how one gets through these arduous moments of parenting is complex, which is why most parents strip it down to simply calling it “love”. And for mom, it’s even more complicated.

In “Tully” director Jason Reitman takes a detailed analysis of what it’s like being a parent, specifically a mom, with three kids and all the responsibilities that come along with maintaining a sense of normalcy amongst the chaos of everything. Who has time to clean the house, make a well balanced meal, or exercise when one child is crying, another is asking their one hundredth question, and the third child is nowhere to be found? Reitman and writer Diablo Cody, who also wrote 2007’s “Juno”, taps into these emotions in a raw, desperate way.

Marlo (Charlize Theron) and Drew (Ron Livingston) are parents of two young children with one on the way. Drew works a busy job that leaves Marlo with the primary responsibility of taking care of every aspect associated with the children. It’s stressful and Marlo is struggling to stay above water. Help arrives in the form of a night nanny named Tully (Mackenzie Davis), a free spirited young woman who helps Marlo rest and make sense of everything that is going on around her.

“Tully” has an interesting quality of being authentically tragic while also trying to be a humorous comedy at the same time. The surprise is that it actually accomplishes this extensive balancing act early in the film. The shifting tone operates in one moment as a call of despair for the lead character Marlo then in the next moment a steadfast battle cry that the gender roles that have come to identify the responsibilities women are “suppose” to occupy are no longer pertinent.

Things operate in standard fashion in the beginning, Marlo is doing her best to spin all the plates but when she gives birth to her third child, the plates come tumbling. And as Marlo begins to come undone by everything, a savior named Tully wanders in from the night. Tully is like Mary Poppins, she takes care of the children, cleans the house, and has time to make nicely decorated cupcakes while expelling a few thought provoking ideas about life. It’s hard not to appreciate the free spirited nature of the young woman, but the arrival of the character introduces some complications to the story.

Marlo and Tully are extensively constructed characters, which unfortunately renders the remaining characters as scenery late in the film. Also, the interesting aspects that concern Marlo’s struggle to maintain her identity as more than just a mother and wife is lost for a story that focuses on female friendship with pop music in tow. It’s a strange turn considering the film makes exceptional progress towards tackling the subject matter of postpartum depression in a honest yet humorous way. A late narrative shift in the third act almost derails the entire story, it’s a choice that will undoubtedly determine whether the film works or doesn’t work for the viewer.

Still, even when the film makes the occasional odd turn, everything remains fairly enjoyable partly because Charlize Theron and Mackenzie Davis are so good in their respective roles.

The wave of emotion for Marlo is easily achieved by the skillful talents of Charlize Theron who completely owns the role. Ms. Theron’s comedic timing is also well utilized during moments when the mom strikes a comment or glare in the direction of those that make assumptions about her many roles. Mackenzie Davis is also very good, playing Tully with charm mixed with a little bit of attitude.

“Tully” is an interesting character piece, proving that Charlize Theron is still at the top of her game. However, the shifting quality of the tone seems to dilute the power of the message that is trying to be proposed. Still, even when “Tully” strays, the film remains engaging, honest, and humorous about parenthood and more specifically motherhood.

Monte’s Rating

3.50 out of 5.00

RBG - Movie Review by Jeff Mitchell

‘RBG’ is a super documentary about a modern-day superhero

Directed by:  Julie Cohen and Betsy West

Starring:  Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Gloria Steinem and Nina Totenberg

“RBG” – “I ask no favor for my sex.  All I ask of our brethren is that they take their feet off our necks.” – Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, quoting Sarah Grimke

Ms. Grimke, a feminist pioneer, lived during the 19th century, and her feelings certainly were justified for the time.  Well, in the enlightening documentary “RBG”, we see that Justice Ginsburg took these words to heart in the 20th and 21st century, due to the state of women’s rights in the 1970s.  In the process, she became a pioneer too and a paramount champion for equal rights through her tireless work. 

“(She’s) the closest thing to a superhero I know.” – Gloria Steinem

Directors Julie Cohen and Betsy West worked hard to deliver a biography of this extraordinary 85-year-old woman from Brooklyn, and they strike a nice balance between Justice Ginsburg’s personal and professional sides via a breezy and informative movie experience.

Photos from yesterdecade, friends, family, colleagues, and Justice Ginsburg dive into her past to help explain how the woman known as Notorious RBG earned her nickname.   A first generation and second generation American on her father’s and mother’s side, respectively, Justice Ginsburg was only 17 when her mom passed away.  Although her mother was strict, she was loving and gave valuable advice that stayed with Justice Ginsburg to this day.  Her mother’s specific advice will not be named in this review (because why spoil the surprise?), but it absolutely helped shape her work ethic.

She studied at the best universities (Cornell, Harvard and Columbia), met the love of her life, Marty Ginsburg, and they started a family while in law school.  Justice Ginsburg may appear serious and soft spoken, and yes, these observations are absolutely true, but the film points to several examples that Marty was gregarious and outspoken.  Despite their personality differences, they were a loving couple, who also carried mutual respect for one another.  Although Justice Ginsburg did not necessarily need Marty’s support to succeed, she had it, and her career blossomed. 

In fact, one of Marty’s daily tasks was to ensure that his wife would come home for dinner and eventually sleep.  Apparently, she does not need sleep.  Only a few hours a night is a common practice.

Certainly, her celebrity is quite unique, and the film covers fun and healthy doses of current pop culture references, including “Saturday Night Live”, which the Supreme Court Justice appreciates and embraces.  These deserved accolades originate from her work on the Supreme Court, including her famous dissenting opinions, but her work during the 1970s truly defines her. 

Her landmark wins from 40 years ago are now mainstream views.

One of the documentary’s big surprises is the level of inequity (under the law) between men and women during that time, but Justice Ginsburg, as a persistent trial lawyer, pushed the right arguments and - more importantly – convinced the courts to agree with her.

The film begins with Frontiero v. Richardson (1973), and it chronicles several more cases that deserve applause and standing ovations.

Hey, “RBG” deserves applause and standing ovations too, because in just 97 minutes, this documentary successfully chronicles the personal and professional life of a superhero, one whose superpowers have lifted - and will continue to lift - countless feet off of women’s necks for generations.  

(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.

Disobedience - Movie Review by Jeff Mitchell

Weisz, McAdams and Nivola cope with ‘Disobedience’

Directed by:  Sebastian Lelio

Written by:  Sebastian Lelio and Rebecca Lenkiewicz

Starring:  Rachel Weisz, Rachel McAdams and Alessandro Nivola

“Disobedience” – After zero contact with her family for years and years, Ronit (Rachel Weisz) returns to England under gloomy, gray skies to attend her father’s funeral.  Almost everyone treats Ronit with strange, icy disdain and distance, except for her old friend Dovid (Alessandro Nivola), as she wanders through his home during shiva, a time of mourning.

Esti (Rachel McAdams) greets Ronit as well, but not warmly.  Instead of a hug or embrace, she looks at Ronit and - with a cadence of an overworked Walmart greeter at the end of a 12-hour shift - recites, “May you live a long life.”

Formalities over feelings.

While Ronit has been away, much to her surprise, Dovid and Esti are now married, and she asks if they are happy. 

Dovid replies, “Yes, we are very happy.”

Esti noticeably responds, “Goodnight.”

Esti again speaks with formalities.

This telling moment in “Disobedience” sets the tone for a riveting drama wrapped in mystery and compromise, but ultimately, director Sebastian Lelio’s picture purposely dives into a tug of war between religious traditions and the desire to break from them.  He introduces the audience to a London Orthodox Jewish community, one steeped in rituals that also treats family with the highest importance.  Sure, many other formal social circles do as well, but in this case, one particular person delivers instructions of fidelity and virtue that everyone is expected to follow. 

Ronit’s father, Rav Krushka (Anton Lesser), was this person.

The film establishes that Ronit - sometime in the distant past – became disgruntled with her faith, and her subsequent estrangement is the consequence.  Her family and friends are fully aware of the circumstances surrounding her disobedience, and the screenplay’s slow reveal effectively raises our curiosity about her unexplained truth.

The truth is that Ronit, Esti, Dovid, and others like Uncle Moshe (Allan Corduner) and Aunt Fruma (Bernice Stegers) carry a specific burden, shame or disappointment, and this uncomfortable silence rings loudly, while Lelio’s camera tightly winds through the temple’s hallways and various homes. 

While maneuvering through several indoor locations, it becomes impossible not to notice the director’s fixation on several doors.  Doors open, close and swing back and forth, as they seem to symbolize new possibilities, restrictions or reveal unexpected consequences of unwise actions, respectively.

Although the action moves through familiar constructs, Weisz, McAdams and Nivola drive the narrative with truly exceptional performances in two ways, defined by each half of the film.    During the first 45 minutes, Ronit, Esti and Dovid cope with secrets from the past, as these characters earn our collateral and respect.  We become invested in them, and once light shines on the mystery, our attention is surely steadfast, because their endings are deeply uncertain.   

Ronit’s initial defiance - from so many years ago – certainly engendered a chilly homecoming during her time of bereavement, and a second present-day disobedience clearly is the right path.  Of course, under the weight of family and religious rigors that trump freewill, the right path is not always the easiest choice.

Feelings over formalities.

(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.