The Kill Team - Movie Review by Ben Cahlamer

Photo Credit: A24 Studios with Nat Wolff, left, and Alexander Skarsgard on the right.

Written and Directed by: Dan Krauss

Starring: Nat Wolff, Adam Long, Jonathan Whitesell, Brian “Sene” Marc, Alexander Skarsgård

From Academy Award winning director Dan Krauss comes “The Kill Team,” a docudrama about the Maywand District murders during our conflict in Afghanistan. The drama centers around Private Andrew Briggman’s (Nat Wolff) moral conflict over the platoon’s participation in the murder of innocent Afghan civilians.

Krauss, who directed the documentary this film is based off, has an exceptional eye for unfolding drama in a natural setting and his experience with the documentary this film is based on made him the ideal choice to explore a dramatized version.

The story we get is a psychological look at conflicted soldiers, who are first out to prove they are worthy, second to protect their own hides and those of their team and third, are loyal to a fault. Wolff gives a very convincing performance as someone who is trapped under their own skin, not just as he is acclimatizing to his new surroundings, but dealing with familial pressures at home with a father who was a desk jokey during Vietnam and an over protective mother.

Interestingly, Alexander Skarsgård’s Sergeant Deeks serves as the stronger father figure to Andrew than his own father. While this serves to underpin the dramatic conflict Briggman undergoes, it undermines the most basic answer to the character’s challenge: should I take action or not.

Skarsgård and Wolff are formidable when they are onscreen together. Deeks is a hard case, someone who thinks he can get away with whatever he wants. He engenders loyalty in order to build his troops to his own cause. That cause is not exactly made clear in the story, but Skarsgård gives a convincing performance otherwise, having fun with the boys.

Adding to Briggman’s internal conflict are his teammates, namely Rayburn (Adam Long) and Coombs (Jonathan Whitesell).  From Briggman’s perspective, they were wildly out of control, the fears of war and conflict worn on their sleeves. Krauss uses this to deflect Briggman’s attempt to report the situation to his family, bringing Briggman closer to Deeks.

Briggman’s psychosis was reminiscent of Doug Liman’s “The Wall,” in which two snipers are pinned against each other in a mortal struggle for survival; here, the only way out for Briggman was through his own wall, Deeks, who thinks he is invincible.

That invincibility clouds the justification for their actions and strangles any meaningful resolution.

Krauss’s story spends far too much time with story threads that meander, tamping down on the drama. There is a realism to what happens on the screen because Krauss has seen the situation unfold in front of in in real time. There is also a realism in Wolff’s performance, that convincingly makes his struggle interesting, but to a fault. Life can’t be edited down to the sum of its parts, but that’s what they tried to accomplish here.

If anything, the fictionalized “Kill Team” compels one to consider the 2014 documentary if nothing else then to better understand the rationale behind this group of elite soldiers committing crimes such as this.

“The Kill Team” has a strong cast and solid performances but doesn’t make for compelling drama.

1.5 out of 4

Parasite - Movie Review by Monte Yazzie

Photo Credit courtesy of NEON CJ Entertainment.

Dir: Bong Joon-ho
Starring: Kang-ho Song, Yeo-jeong Jo, So-dam Park, Woo-sik Choi, Sun-kyun Lee, and Seo-joon Park 

Some films make you laugh, some films make you cry. Some films make you scared, some films make you think. Every now and then a film tries to make you do all these things, all in one movie. Even less frequently a film successfully does all these things, separately and at once. These are the films that stick with you, these films make an impact; director Bong Joon-ho’s masterful multi-mood drama, comedy, thriller, horror is one of those memorable moments in cinema.

To call the Kim family “down-on-their-luck” would be an understatement. In fact, if “down-on-their-luck” was street level the Kim’s home, which is located with windows looking up at the street level, would be the better description of their current place in the South Korean city they live in, however, that social status can be universally placed in any big city in the world in Bong Joon-ho’s narrative design here. 

We are introduced to the family sitting in squalor, moving about the crowded living space looking for a Wi-Fi signal to steal from someone living in the spaces above them. The family makes money folding pizza boxes for a delivery company, they aren’t good at it, but they stick together and support one another even when things seem to look bleak. The patriarch of the family is Kim Ki-taek, a brilliant performance from long-time Joon-ho collaborator Kang-ho Song, who doesn’t have much going in his favor beyond the affection of his wife Chung-sook (Hye-jin Jang) and the respect of his daughter Ki-jung (So-dam Park) and son Ki-woo (Woo-sik Choi). 

Things turn in favor of the Kim’s when Ki-woo (Woo-sik Choi) gets a job as a tutor for the Park family (Sun-kyun Lee and Yeo-jeong Jo). The Park’s live in a house that belonged to a famous architect, the design of the home is lavish and the Park family is well-off enough to afford a lifestyle the Kim family could only dream of. And Ki-woo recognizes that opportunity is in the palm of his hands the moment he moves across the boundaries of the world he knows into the wealthy new community. Ki-woo’s charm and lies gets his sister a job as an art teacher/therapist for the Park family’s only son. Ki-jung jokingly talks about knowing nothing about art therapy until she Googled what it meant and then just simply made up the rest. Before long Ki-taek and Chung-sook infiltrate jobs within the family, using underhanded schemes and manipulations to gain jobs as a chauffeur and housekeeper.

“Parasite” is a film about social status, class systems, family dynamics, human decency and dignity, manners, respect, history…if that sounds like too much narrative politics for one film, it never feels that way. The beauty and masterful quality of this film is that even though it is clearly trying to make a point about different things, Bong Joon-ho never pushes his points in exhaustive ways. It’s the subtlety of his narrative, Joon-ho shares screenplay credit with Jin Won Han, that makes the film as entertaining as it is unnerving, as naturally comical as it is boldly serious.

Joon-ho has always told intriguing stories by meticulously understanding the visual language used within the frame of his picture. Many times, the framing of characters and the position of shapes and objects in view offer as much visual explanation as a purposeful line of dialog would. “Parasite” is consistently interesting to observe; the contrast between two worlds is told with shapes and the concept of space, where the Kim family operates in tight quarters, often hunching and crouching to get into places that allow them a sense of freedom, the Park family has so much room to explore in their mansion, so much space to lose themselves in their giant world. The identity of two families is explored with how they occupy the frame with one another, where the Kim family is often times positioned close to one another, the Park family is separated and distant from one another. Bong Joon-ho is a master of using space to show and dissect relationships and motivations, it’s all present here.

With everything Bong Joon-ho is doing with the fantastic actors, who all give fantastic performances, and is trying to say with his multifaceted narrative, the core of the film is simply about the complicated lives of two families (plus another twist that will not be revealed here).  Joon-ho taps into uneasy subject matter and then easily finds a way to see the unflinching humor within these truths, it’s a fascinating exploration of humanity regardless of the subtitles and cultural differences found in this film. Bong Joon-ho simply has a keen understanding of people and what motivates them to do both beautiful and disgusting things.

Bong Joon-ho is a brilliant filmmaker and “Parasite” is absolutely stunning film.

Monte’s Rating
5.00 out of 5.00

The Lighthouse - Movie Review by Jeff Mitchell

Photo Credit: Eric Chakeen / A24 / The Everett Collection

‘The Lighthouse’ is a mesmerizing visual feast…and a rudderless waste of time

Directed by:  Robert Eggers

Written by:  Robert and Max Eggers

Starring:  Willem Dafoe and Robert Pattinson

“The Lighthouse” – Robert Eggers’ follow-up to his eerie, creepy horror film “The Witch” (2015) (4/4 stars) is an equally eerie, creepy drama about two weathered men watching over a lonely lighthouse.    

There’s little doubt that this visual feast sets a disturbing tone, as “The Lighthouse” has an Ingmar Bergman-“Hour of the Wolf”-thing working greatly in its favor.  Filmed entirely in black and white and almost exclusively with a 1:1 aspect ratio (or very close to it), Eggers delivers a horrible sense of doom on a teeny, tiny island near the coast of who knows where (although, imdb.com says that New England is the setting) around the turn of the 19th century.  The cloudy, windy weather never seems to break, and for anyone hoping for a pleasant four-week stay in calm isolation, a one-way trip to a federal prison under solitary confinement is a better alternative. 

Two lighthouse keepers – a crusty, elderly Thomas Wake (Willem Dafoe) and a young, brooding Ephraim Winslow (Robert Pattinson) - willingly choose to occupy their time on this rock and tend to a loyal lamp for nearly a month.  This seems simple enough, except Wake constantly barks orders at Winslow, and “please” and “thank you” aren’t listed in his personal dictionary, so his protégé’s patience wears terribly thin, like an arsonist standing in a barn full of hay while eyeing a book of matches at his feet.  

Wake and Winslow’s partnership could become violently combustible at any moment, but the painfully long 109-minute runtime feels a lot closer to the aforementioned four weeks. 

Well, most moviegoers will easily predict the film’s conclusion after four minutes, so the hook has to reside with Wake and Winslow’s journey, and the screenplay purposely sends the audience into confusion.  When’s he’s not pushing a heavy wheelbarrow, climbing a ladder to fix some roof shingles or running around to complete dozens of other chores, Winslow succumbs to bizarre visions of his troubling past during his downtime.  Meanwhile, Wake has zero self-reflection on his gruff – but not malicious – temperament.   He makes Winslow work long days but then shares several drinks for long, boisterous evenings, as the two sometimes burst into drunken-song, so their relationship is a seesaw of extremes. 

The good and bad times don’t seem to follow a designed pattern, however, so Eggers leads us into madness of sorts, and reality becomes opaque.  His camera lens certainly is not, as he captures truly haunting images throughout the picture and dazzles us with framing.  He also plays with light, as “The Lighthouse” doesn’t exactly feel like a black and white picture.  Instead, it’s filled with miserable shades of gray. 

This is a film-lover’s movie.  A visual one, and Dafoe and Pattinson absolutely transform into two unrecognizable, memorable characters, but they are trapped in a directionless script.  Other than the obvious end, writers Robert and Max Eggers don’t offer any guardrails for the audience, so the barrages of endless, tiresome confrontations and occasional warped dream sequences lack focus and coherence.

Similar to last year’s “Suspiria”, there is something deeper afoot from beginning to end.  Eggers has a master plan at work, but in the moment, it’s not easy to grasp.  Multiple viewings are mostly likely needed, and keen attention to Wake’s constant diatribes should be a top priority. Then again, Eggers may be simply diving into deep oceans of self-indulgence. 

These are legitimate arguments…for someone else.  For this critic, “The Lighthouse” is a rudderless waste of time. 

(2/4 stars)

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

"The Politician" interview with Laura Dreyfuss and Theo Germaine by Jeff Mitchell

From left to right: Theo Germaine, Jeff Mitchell, and Laura Dreyfuss.

2019 is not a presidential election year, but political discussions are dominating news cycles and hovering over the nation.  Leaping headfirst into today’s tribal divides can be tricky, but Netflix offers a reprieve through an enjoyable and thought-provoking slant on the aforementioned topic in its new, eight-episode high school comedy/drama “The Politician”. 

Ben Platt plays Payton Hobart, who feels destined to win his high school’s presidential election, but the road to capturing the top student government post at Saint Sebastian in Santa Barbara, Calif. is not an easy one.  He needs a campaign team for support, and McAfee Westbrook (Laura Dreyfuss) and James Sullivan (Theo Germaine) are his biggest backers. 

Laura and Theo champion their new show “The Politician” too, and they arrived in Phoenix to sit down and chat with the Phoenix Film Festival and other movie outlets for a welcoming and insightful group interview.   We talked about McAfee’s and James’ relationship with Payton, working with several supportive directors, the show’s parallels with national politics, and much more! 

“The Politician” – from the creators of “Glee” and “American Horror Story” -  is currently streaming on Netflix, and Dreyfuss, Germaine, Platt, Gwyneth Paltrow, Jessica Lange, Zoey Deutch, and David Corenswet star.

Q:  James and McAfee are loyal to Payton and his candidacy.  Were they friends first, or did they gravitate to Payton because of his presidential ambitions?

TG:  James and Payton have been friends since the second grade, and when they got to high school, they probably started to take stuff more seriously.  Maybe they began working together, and it just got more and more intense, but it did start off as a friendship, a long time ago. 

LD:  I think McAfee came in a little later, but it’s still a friendship.  They were kids, when they met.  They had a very common goal and shared that interest.

TG:  I feel they probably all found each other because of their similar drive.  A sense of:  “We’re going to move mountains.”

Behind the scenes of “The Politician” starring actress Laura Dreyfuss.

Q:  There’s a recurring theme throughout the show where a handful of characters question if they are authentic people, or if they are solely defined by their actions.  A number of times the answer is:  Does it matter?  So, my question is…does it matter?

LD:  I always equate it to volunteer work.  If you are (volunteering) but doing it for a self-serving purpose - because it makes you feel good - does it really matter?  You are making a difference.  You are still doing something.  You are helping, (and) just because the intention feels a little false to you, it doesn’t negate the work.

TG:  It feels like that question itself is one of the show’s themes, and I hope when people watch it, they will constantly have that question in their heads.

LD:  When we are electing leaders, what are we looking for?  What qualities are we looking for?  Are we electing them, because we think they are good people, or are we electing them, because we think they can get the right things done? 

Q:  I loved “The Voter” episode, because it is such a departure from everything we had seen up until that point.  Do you think that episode was a reflection on the American voter?  Are there any lessons learned?   The more one specific voter was pushed to vote, the less he wanted to step into the booth and pull the lever.

LD:  I think it’s such an interesting comment on apathy. 

TG:  In that episode, both candidates are doing whatever they can to get the undecided (voters) to pick a side.  It’s not a good thing, because you see them (operating) for personal gain. 

LD:  What I took away from (the episode) is every vote does count.  It’s easy to feel that your vote doesn’t matter, but it does in the end. 

TG:  It’s important to not be apathetic.  If you’re apathetic and then you get pushed, you still are not going to care.  Even if you don’t want to be invested, we can’t afford to not be invested. 

LD:  It’s also very funny, because it kind of zooms out of the world that is so tightly created in the first couple episodes, and so you almost get a chance to see how ridiculous these people are.   That’s what makes it so funny to me, because you get to really laugh at these children, who are so hyper-focused on this one goal. 

Ben Platt acting as Payton Hobart in the series “The Politician”

Q:  Scandal is one of the recurring themes of the show.  With most political TV shows, there’s always a scandal of some kind, but in this show, there’s a scandal in almost every layer of the cake.  Does it reflect our current political climate, or is “The Politician” heightening scandal for dramatic effect?

LD:  Very early on, we learn that Payton reads the biographies of all the presidents, and he starts with Ronald Reagan, because he believes that he created the modern presidency.  He did that by the use of television and making it entertaining.  So, we now ask ourselves this question, when we are invested in politics:  How much has become entertainment, and how much is real?  

TG:  The Romans killed people and had gladiator battles for fun.  That was their entertainment, and we’re not doing that obviously, but politics can be entertainment, and I don’t know if that’s a good thing.

LD:  I think it’s an interesting reflection on how (political) scandals have become like a TV show. 

TG:  Humans love scandal, and that makes us not pay attention (to what’s important), because we are excited about the televised scandal. 

Q:  I’ve been reviewing movies for several years and hardly watch television, so binging “The Politician” is a new experience, and I noticed that several directors contributed to the first season.  By working with multiple directors, did you have opportunities to look at the same material differently, episode to episode? 

LD:  Absolutely!

TG:  Yes, it does!

LD:  Ryan (Murphy) directed the first (episode), so that was wonderful, because we were able to set the tone with him and understand the world that he created.  As we started to move on, we got to work with these brilliant, brilliant people.  The women, in particular. 

Janet Mock, Helen Hunt and Gwyneth Horder-Payton.  Ryan gives such a voice to so many people, and a very diverse group of people, so it’s really important to have them tell the story.   We got that with the directors, so it really did change our view and our perspective, and also our level of comfort.  We felt incredibly comfortable to have these brilliant women using their vision to tell the story. 

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

Zombieland: Double Tap - Movie Review by Ben Cahlamer

Photo Credit: Jessica Miglio © 2019 CTMG, Inc.

Directed by: Ruben Fleischer

Written by: Rhett Reese, Paul Wemick and Dave Callaham

Starring: Woody Harrelson, Jesse Eisenberg, Abigail Breslin, Emma Stone, Rosario Dawson, Zoey Deutch, Luke Wilson

There’s a point midway through Ruben Fleischer’s “Zombieland: Double Tap” when I asked myself how our fearless group of survivors managed to get so lucky  to have supplies to survive in the first place.

Then I remembered that it doesn’t matter how they survive, just that they do survive.

“Zombieland: Double Tap” picks up ten years after “Zombieland” with Woody Harrelson, Jesse Eisenberg, Abigail Breslin and Emma Stone all reprising their roles. In an early scene, Columbus (Eisenberg) offers a voice over with an explanation of each type of zombie, committing to the fact that the group has become adept at identifying and killing each particular zombie type.

Screenwriters Rhett Reese, Paul Wemick and Dave Callaham use Columbus’s rules as the basis for the story as each character is reintroduced to us. Tallahassee (Harrelson), Little Rock (Breslin) and Wichita (Stone) are all holed up in the abandoned White House.

One thing that stood out for me in this film is the chemistry between each of the four actors – there was an energy between them that, even when they split up, they had fun doing this film and that translates to the fun atmosphere.

Zombies can be pretty serious business (just ask Edgar Wright and George Romero). Fleischer uses the character’s chemistry and the constant pop culture references peppered into this story, along with Columbus’s rules to carry the story, which is really the dressing for an unfortunately limp narrative.

I respect the ambition behind bringing the cast back together after a ten – year hiatus. It gave Fleischer and crew a chance to introduce new characters in a very unique way; Zoey Deutch plays Madison. If you’ve seen the trailer, you have some sense of the type of character she plays, but she’s an absolute gem of an addition to an already stellar cast. Rosario Dawson plays Nevada, who gives Tallahassee a run for his money. So much so, that he’s ‘all shook up.’

The Southwest gets some more love in this story, namely Albuquerque (Luke Wilson) and Flagstaff (Thomas Middleditch). These reflective characters serve to keep our loveable heroes on track, but also remind us to stick to a script.

Although zombies don’t have a schedule, they don’t think. They just feed. Mercilessly. The introduction of Nevada, Albuquerque and Flagstaff all remind us that our heroes are just as resourceful as they are determined to survive. This connective section of the film, brought home the realization for me that

“Zombieland: Double Tap” is more than just a fun romp; it is a reminder of our resourcefulness and ingenuity when our backs are up against the wall. Oh, I know you’re going to want to go to the rest room after the movie, but don’t rush off – stay through all of the credits. You’ll thank me.

2.75 out of 4

Maleficent: Mistress of Evil - Movie Review by Monte Yazzie

Angelina Jolie as Maleficent. / Courtesy of Disney

Dir: Joachim Rønning

Starring: Angelina Jolie, Elle Fanning, Chiwetel Ejiofor, Warwick Davis, and Michelle Pfeiffer

A group of men are walking through a dark and mystical forest carrying lanterns. They are entering a forbidden territory in hopes of stealing something magical for the human world. Before these trespassing men can accomplish their goal, they are confronted through the shadows by a horned creature with fiery eyes, massive wings, and glowing green supernatural powers.

While this may sound like a perfect premise for a spooky Halloween movie, this introduction, the scariest moment of this otherwise overly tame fairytale, belongs to Disney’s sequel “Maleficent: Mistress of Evil”. Angelina Jolie, returning as the re-envisioned villain who demonstrates more heart and sympathy than anger and vengeance, brings a calm yet intimidating demeanor to the iconic villain of the animated “Sleeping Beauty”.

Maleficent (Angelina Jolie) and her goddaughter Aurora (Elle Fanning) have been living a peaceful existence. Aurora is the ruler of an enchanted land, a forest-like domain where fairies fly with water droplets and fields of glowing dandelions grow in majesty. Aurora becomes engaged to Prince Phillip (Harris Dickinson) which disrupts the already complicated bound with Maleficent. The ensuing nuptials bring about the hope of peace between the human and fairy world, however, Queen Ingrith (Michelle Pfeiffer) has other devious plans in mind for Maleficent and Aurora.

Director Joachim Rønning, who last helmed 2017’s “Pirates of the Carribean: Dead Men Tell No Tales”, handles the difficult task of continuing the story, which seemingly didn’t need a sequel, of the Disney villainess. Though the cause for story continuation here is assisted by three extremely talented actors who are doing their absolute best to bring life to this familiar tale.

The role of Maleficent seems tailored for Angelina Jolie, her grin is especially utilized with numerous emotions fluctuating throughout. Unfortunately, much of the character development in this film is a retread from themes from the first film, still, there are a few moments where Jolie is provided room to expand the character. Elle Fanning adds some much-needed character charm to the film with Aurora, the character becomes the vessel for peace between two worlds, the primary conflict of the film. Michelle Pfeiffer is a good choice to counter Jolie here, she plays evil with glee in almost every scene.

Unfortunately, all these great actors are stuck in a film without a strong narrative standpoint. While the film is aiming to display themes of accepting differences and embracing family in whatever form it may take, these components are often undercut by the need to adhere to the familiar fairytale, storybook steps. There are a few interesting moments involving the evolution of Maleficent, which allows the character to find the emotional conflict to bridge towards the finale. And whenever Maleficent is allowed to be vulnerable, which doesn’t happen enough, the film finds its stride in displaying its core theme of embracing difference and the dedication one has to family. 

“Maleficent: Mistress of Evil” has a great cast who are stuck within a story that never allows them to grow into anything different from everything we already know them as.  This doesn’t help the journey this sequel is trying to promote but instead makes it seem somewhat one-note which is unfortunate when you have such a unique character like Maleficent, played by a dedicated Angelina Jolie, holding the frame.

Monte’s Rating
2.25 out of 5.00

Pain and Glory - Movie Review by Jeff Mitchell

Photo Credit: Sony Pictures Classics

Almodóvar gets personal in ‘Pain & Glory’, his best film since ‘Broken Embraces’

Written and directed by:  Pedro Almodóvar

Starring:  Antonio Banderas, Penelope Cruz, Asier Etxeandia, and Leonardo Sbaraglia

“Pain & Glory” – “The cinema of my childhood always smells of piss, and of jasmine, and of the summer breeze.” – Salvador Mallo (Antonio Banderas)

Pedro Almodóvar’s latest film is about living with pain, both physical and emotional.

It’s about reflecting on childhood. 

It’s about him….mostly. 

“Pain & Glory” is not an Almodóvar autobiography, but he pours his feelings, shades and experiences into his on-screen character, director Salvador Mallo. 

It’s 2019, and Salvador is in his 50s or 60s.  He suffers from a back injury and complains of other ailments.  He lives alone in a beautiful Madrid flat, surrounded by stylish, modern future, and enormous artworks are displayed across the walls.  He does not entertain, does not pursue relationships, does not seek out friends, and does not call family, and the latter, because his parents have both died.

Salvador is not writing a screenplay or filming a movie, so solitude is his most loyal companion, and he contemplates the present and past, as well as the logical and illogical links between the two. 

To ground and fill this personal picture, Almodóvar calls upon his two most-trusted actors, Antonio Banderas and Penelope Cruz, and they have starred – together and separately - in so many of his movies, including “Women on the Verge of a Nervous Breakdown” (1988), “Tie Me Up!  Tie Me Down!” (1989), “All About My Mother” (1999), “Volver” (2006), “Broken Embraces” (2009), and “The Skin I Live In” (2012). 

Cruz plays Salvador’s mother Jacinta in a supporting role, and - most appropriately - supports her son, as he grows up in their small Spanish town, a place where modern creature comforts are woefully absent.  For instance, we see Jacinta washing clothes in a nearby stream rather than pressing “Wash” on her in-house Whirlpool.  She is stripped-down and usually worn-out, but Salvador’s happiness and growth are her top priorities.  Piles of cash may be nonexistent in their humble abode and lives, but love between mother and son is plentiful and real. 

Love without total understanding. 

Although Jacinta feels a sense of belonging in this nestled community, Salvador doesn’t fit in, and she is acutely aware.

“Pain & Glory”, however, spends most of its time with Salvador as an adult, and after watching Banderas on-screen for just a few minutes, we become acutely aware that he’s channeling Almodóvar.  If nothing else, Salvador’s/Banderas’ highly-perched hair gives it away.  Although vastly successful, Salvador still does not fit in with his surroundings.  For different reasons, but that sentiment still lingers years and years later.  

This is a gentle picture. 

Without explosive reveals, mysteries or a family crisis, the film embraces a man who just might stumble into inner peace through a pair of old connections and a temporary stillness in his restless mind that strings thin, but determined, threads towards his past.

The film’s joy comes from Banderas’ nuanced, quiet performance, as he attempts to navigate Salvador through previously-unexplored waters, while also offering a bona fide opportunity to live through some of Almodóvar’s struggles and triumphs, and not through stark peaks and valleys.  Small discoveries without blatantly-obvious aha moments.  All cannot be ascertained with a 115-minute runtime, but significant understandings can be held. 

In 1992’s “A River Runs Through It”, director Robert Redford narrates author Norman Maclean’s words, “Long ago, when I was a young man, my father said to me, ‘Norman, you like to write stories,’ and I said, ‘Yes, I do.’  Then he said, ‘Someday, when you’re ready, you might tell our family story, only then will you understand, and what happened and why.’”

“Pain & Glory” carries a similar, rich theme, and the film is also blessed with swathes of Almodóvar’s life, without telling a pure autobiography.  After the watching the film, dive into his 2019 interviews with The Guardian, The British Film Institute and The Jakarta Post to help discern between film-fact and film-fiction. 

In the meantime, walk into a “Pain & Glory” screening for a lucid, gratifying tale about the fogginess of being human.

(3/4 stars)

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

Where's My Roy Cohn? - Movie Review by Jeff Mitchell

Photo Credit: Sony Pictures Classics

The documentary ‘Where’s My Roy Cohn?’ finds an answer to its question

Director:  Matt Tyrnauer

Starring:  Ken Auletta, Roy M. Cohn and Roger Stone

“Where’s My Roy Cohn?” – Roy Cohn died in 1986, but 33 years later, this American lawyer’s influence is shaping U.S. policy, dominating 24-hour news cycles and infuriating or bringing joy to a politically-split United States’ electorate. 

You see, Cohn was Donald Trump’s lawyer in the 1970s and 80s, and decades later, when Attorney General Jeff Sessions recused himself from Robert Mueller’s investigation in 2017, the current President of the United States allegedly asked a question.  

Where’s my Roy Cohn?    

Director Matt Tyrnauer’s informative documentary – that also doubles as a 97-minute on-screen case of déjà vu – answers this question: Who is Roy Cohn?

Born into wealth in the Bronx, NY, this only child graduated from Columbia University Law School at 20, and – because of his age - the state made him wait a year to take the bar exam.  (Geez, and what were you doing at 20?) 

After prosecuting a hyper-infamous trial in 1951, Cohn became Sen. Joe McCarthy’s trusted chief counsel.  During the McCarthy hearings, Cohn was regularly seen in courtrooms and whispering shadowy advice to the aforementioned lawmaker, the most polarizing political figure of the 1950s.

From there, Cohn’s career takes off into murkier, darker heights in New York City.  Tyrnauer does not whisper, but - grabs a microphone and a couple dozen megaphones and - shouts from the tallest skyscrapers about this lawyer’s relentless, grimy panache of self-absorption and persistent ambition.  All the while, Tyrnauer interviews journalists, Cohn’s relatives and even conservative pundit Roger Stone, as they dissect and reflect on the man’s wholly controversial, but massively effective, philosophies.  

Never admit you’re wrong.

Always claim victory, even in defeat. 

Know the political value of wrapping yourself in the American flag…and more.

Certainly the parallels between Roy Cohn and Donald J. Trump become frighteningly or beautifully (depending upon your political stripe) clear, and although Tyrnauer’s film is a straight-up documentary, he carries a slanted view while proving his thesis.  The filmmaker, however, does score points by including Cohn’s friend Stone, and journalist Ken Auletta’s audio interview is the movie’s backbone, as we hear Cohn’s first-hand perspectives. 

Still, comparing President Trump to Roy Cohn is far from a moral compliment.  Quite the opposite.  The doc presents that Cohn courted nefarious clients, bathed in scandal and committed high larceny in plain sight, while also bellowing the biggest lies to newspapers and telling the smallest ones - without a second thought - to his closest allies and confidants. 

For those who loathe President Trump, “Where’s My Roy Cohn?” is reliving a daily nightmare, as Cohn is that irresponsible uncle who babysits his nephew on weekends.  Instead of putting together puzzles or playing catch in the backyard, he’s preaching hard lessons, sharing packs of cigarettes and hustling tourists out of their money in Time Square. 

“Where’s My Roy Cohn?” is not a pleasant, temporary reprieve from the news, campaign ads and the latest but he said-but she said-but they said-but we said-but the dog said.  This eye-opening tutorial convincingly draws a line – even more permanent than a Sharpie – between Cohn and Trump, and the answer to the film’s title is obvious. 

For better or worse, President Trump should look in the mirror.  

(3/4 stars)

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

An interview with Claes Bang and Giuseppe Capotondi from ‘The Burnt Orange Heresy’ by Jeff Mitchell

Claes Bang and Elizabeth Debicki in The Burnt Orange Heresy.

A wealthy art collector (Mick Jagger) summons a struggling art critic/dealer (Claes Bang) to his opulent villa on Italy’s Lake Como and hands him an offer that he cannot refuse in the highly-engaging thriller “The Burnt Orange Heresy”. 

After catching the movie, this critic could not refuse a chance to chat with Claes (“The Square” (2017)) and director Giuseppe Capotondi (“The Double Hour” (2009)) on the 2019 Toronto International Film Festival’s (TIFF) Roy Thomson Hall red carpet.  Claes and Giuseppe were so generous with their time, and we talked about the marvelous cast, the leads’ cryptic motivations, the gorgeous locale, and more!

“The Burnt Orange Heresy” stars Bang, Jagger, Elizabeth Debicki, and Donald Sutherland.  It played at the Venice Film Festival and TIFF, and Sony Pictures Classics picked it up. 

Director Giuseppe Capotondi at the 2019 Toronto International Film Festival.

PFF:  I appreciate that your film is set in the art world.  Do you have a favorite artist?

GC:  (Laughing) I have many favorite artists.  I am small collector of photography, including   Wolfgang Tillmans’ work, which I hope one day will be worth millions. 

PFF:  Claes, you play a museum curator in “The Square” (2017), and an art critic/dealer in “The Burnt Orange Heresy”.  Is there an ongoing art-theme with your career that we should know about?

CB:  I only do films that are set in the art world.  No, it’s a coincidence, but the fun thing is that this could be the continued story of what happened to Christian in “The Square”, because he loses his job in a big museum, and in this film, James just lost his job in a big museum.  So, there is a connection, but I think that Christian in “The Square” has a very big heart, and James has a very dubious moral issue going on.

PFF:  James meets Berenice (Debicki), a new love interest, and I could not read their motivations.  I was guessing all the way.  

CB:  I love you saying that, because I really thought that the script was so intriguing.  There’s this weird thing going on between (James and Berenice), and that drew me into (the story) from the very beginning.  I found out that Elizabeth was going to play Berenice, and I thought, “This film is going to be so, so interesting.”

PFF:  I love the cast with Claes and Elizabeth, and Donald Sutherland and Mick Jagger play critical supporting roles. 

GC:  First of all, Donald is such a generous man.  A fantastic actor, he really helped me a lot on this one, and Mick, it was luck, I suppose.  We knew, from common friends, that he was looking for a last film to make, so we sent a script.  He liked it.  I went to London and was very nervous to meet Mick Jagger from The Rolling Stones, but he’s such a gentle soul.  He put me at ease immediately.  It was a pleasure to work with him.

CB:  Donald Sutherland has been a hero forever, because he’s made some of the best films that I’ve ever seen.  He’s amazing.  (Now), on the day (of a shoot), I can’t sit there thinking that this is Donald Sutherland or Mick Jagger.  I’m with the person who I’m working with on (that) day, so it was more before they came on-set, but they were so lovely, so great and so professional.  It was really cool. 

Claes Bang at the 2019 Toronto International Film Festival.

PFF:  It seems like Cassidy (Jagger) is a man with all the answers.  Does James know that he’s starting at a disadvantage?

CB:  No, I don’t think so.  It’s quite important that he does not know.  

PFF:  If you could reach into the screen and give James advice, what would it be?

CB:  When James has been given the offer by Cassidy, I would say to him, “Take the girl (Debicki) and run!  Take the girl and run!  She’s lovely.”

PFF:  Speaking of lovely, Cassidy’s home and its location were amazing. 

CB:  It’s crazy, crazy beautiful. To be shooting in (Lake Como), I can only recommend that to everybody in the world.   

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

3 From Hell - Movie Review by Monte Yazzie

Richard Brake as Winslow Foxworth Coltrane, Sheri Moon Zombie as Baby Firefly and Bill Moseley as Otis Firefly on the set of, “3 FROM HELL,” a Lionsgate / Saban Films release.

Dir: Rob Zombie
Starring: Bill Moseley, Sherri Moon Zombie, Richard Brake, and Sid Haig

Amidst a barrage of bullets and backed by the theme of “Free Bird” by Lynyrd Skynyrd, director Rob Zombie pulled a cinematic magic trick with his 2005 horror film “The Devil’s Rejects” by making the vile, disgusting, psychotic murdering road show threesome into characters that strangely, in those final minutes of the film, have the poise and demeanor of folk heroes rushing into their final battle.

Rob Zombie, a director whose style has fluctuated from music video motifs to major Hollywood gleam, continues his savage saga of murder mayhem with the Firefly Family in “3 From Hell”. The film is far more introspective than the other films in the trilogy; where “House of 1000 Corpses” crafted a funhouse with horror maniacs and “The Devil’s Rejects” aimed to humanize the cartoonish killers into grungy 70’s outlaws. “3 From Hell” attempts to create a family dynamic with these characters by further delving into their demented intentions and motivations. Unfortunately, the film often loses perspective and balance amidst the mixture of ideas and themes proposed throughout.

The film begins moments after the gun smoke lifts revealing the bullet riddled convertible carrying the Firefly Family members Otis (Bill Moseley), Baby (Sheri Moon Zombie), and Captain Spaulding (Sid Haig). Zombie wisely uses vintage footage of television reports and newspaper clippings to resurrect his characters and update the viewer on the happenings after the capture. All members of the murderous clan are serving life sentences, Otis is planning escape, Baby is tormented by a vengeful prison guard (Dee Wallace), and Captain Spaulding spouts boastful soliloquies for news reporters explaining the many reasons the Firefly Family is necessary for the world. It’s a haunting introduction that does a great job of moving the film from the late 1970’s into the early 1980’s.

Zombie combines more than a few themes throughout this film but the prevailing focus remains steadfast with the idea of family, both the severe dysfunction and deep-seated connections family members have with one another. When Zombie takes time to let this narrative focus breathe, “3 From Hell” exudes such an interesting blend of character driven ideas that makes the eventual road trip film have insight into the composition of these outlandish characters, even if the outcome is that their chaos is bred by the chaos they are inflicting onto the world.

In terms of violence and brutality, and may I emphasize that this film is NC-17 rated for a reason, this is a far more restrained film considering Zombie’s penchant for pushing the limits of sadism in his films. There is one moment that allows the group to indulge in their specific brand of bloody menace, it’s a scene that is photographed with jolting chaos in an effort to portray tormenting tension and it’s completely unnerving and uncomfortable.

The performances throughout are a mixed bag of emotions, each portrayed with different levels of success. Bill Moseley is mostly effective playing the leader of the group Otis, his sinister swagger and piercing eyes do most of the heavy lifting. Sheri Moon Zombie has the difficult task of playing the broken member of the group, in the big moments her blend of shrieking laughter mixed with playful pandemonium is pitch perfect, however in other quieter moments the performance just doesn’t connect like it should. Sid Haig, in his final performance, struggled with health concerns prior to shooting this film so his Captain Spaulding is only found in one short yet completely effective scene which displays why his character will always be a horror icon.

“3 From Hell” seems like a film that resisted every attempt to exist, yet it still came to life. That seems to be the quality that defines Rob Zombie as a filmmaker, an artist who will push to make his specific blend of horror come to life no matter what. While “3 From Hell” may not connect from moment to moment, with lapses in narrative cohesion and themes lost amidst the big ideas trying to be expressed throughout the film, fans of Rob Zombie’s films should still seek this one out.

Monte’s Rating
2.50 out of 5.00

Judy - Movie Review by Ben Cahlamer

Renée Zellweger as Judy Garland in JUDY. Photo Credit: David Hindley

Directed by: Rupert Goold

Screenplay by: Tom Edge

Based on the stage play “End of the Rainbow” by: Peter Quilter

Starring: Renée Zellweger, Finn Wittrock, Jessie Buckley, Rufus Sewell, Michael Gambon

As a kid, I remember “The Wizard of Oz” being a film about hope, that there was something better for all of us if we had the courage to persevere over evil. Judy Garland always impressed me with her voice. It was, unfortunately the only performance I can remember seeing her Ms.Garland’s.

Rupert Goold’s “Judy,” based on the musical drama “End of the Rainbow,” recounts the last months leading up to her premature death in 1968.  Tom Edge’s screenplay infuses the child, Judy Garland (Darci Shaw) with the adult Garland (Zellweger) as she struggles to take care of her children while continuing to perform.

Unlike “IT: Chapter II” which makes use of similar flashbacks to connect the characters, Goold and Edge use the flashbacks with a purpose, building the motivations of the adult Garland; driving her to continuously drink and use drugs to control her lack of sleep and her lack of appetite. Zellweger disappears completely into the character; she is stunning and gorgeous.

As Garland, Zelwegger is a range of emotion, whether she is addressing her children, talking to her ex, Sidney Luft (Rufus Sewell) or on stage, performing there is a level of confidence in Zellweger’s performance that is magical; my heart fluttered at her pain and delighted when she belted out a tune. There was a tenderness in her approach that gave the character a flawed, human touch, which is reinforced by the ongoing struggles she had as a child actor. There is an early scene with Louis B. Mayer on the “Wizard of Oz” set.  Goold uses this early scene to set us up for the constant bullying she endured along with defining the screen character’s own rebellious streak. One thing that the story doesn’t necessarily make clear is whether the rebellion as a child is due to the demands of the job or if she was naturally a rebel, but it is a small concern.

The flashbacks do not limit the pacing of the film, but the lack of a focal center for the story does; often I felt as if Judy was a character on the sideline of her own story, and perhaps with the drugs and alcohol involved, that was the point. Yet, there were times when the film was lucidly aware that Judy was a star, that she was a performer first, but that she also needed support, even when she didn’t want it, namely in the form of Rosalyn Wilder (Jessie Buckley).

There were several times during the film where Ms. Wilder looked at Garland with bewilderment as the performer suffered through her stupors, but managed to maintain her composure. There was an awkwardness between the two ladies during the earlier parts of the film that seemed off putting, but also gave Finn Wittrock an opportunity to shine as Mickey Deans, Garland’s second husband and business manager. Sadly, Mickey Deans comes just as quickly as he goes and the film seems content to not go into further details surrounding their brief marriage.

“Judy” doesn’t seem interested in questioning her last days beyond the constant abuse of drugs and alcohol, or even why she took her own life. There are questionable editing issues in the third act and some camera shots that look positively out of focus that I found distracting.

It does, however celebrate the life of an amazing performer who touched lives in an exceptionally positive way, especially as a gay icon.

The film has a smaller story thread of a gay couple who have the opportunity to interact with someone of Garland’s caliber. The couple, portrayed by Andy Nyman and Daniel Cerqueira, are her biggest fans, but they represent the most beautiful, and lasting impact she had on people, especially when Nyman’s character, Dan breaks down over how the government has treated his relationship with Stan (Cerqueira); my heart melted. I swooned over Zelwegger’s performance of “Somewhere Over the Rainbow.” It is both uplifting and heartbreaking at the same time.

“Judy” is a character study of the struggles Judy Garland went through. It is a flawed look at those aspects. Ms. Zellweger, who just absolutely inhabits Ms. Garland’s personae, is as good as it gets.

I’m in tears just finishing up this review, that’s how much I loved her performance.

2.75 out of 4

The Burnt Orange Heresy - Movie Review by Jeff Mitchell

Claes Bang and Elizabeth Debicki in The Burnt Orange Heresy. Photo Credit: TIFF

‘The Burnt Orange Heresy’:  Bang, Debicki, Sutherland, and Jagger draw up a highly-engaging thriller

Directed by:  Giuseppe Capotondi

Written by:  Scott B. Smith, based on the novel by Charles Willeford

Starring:  Claes Bang, Elizabeth Debicki, Donald Sutherland, and Mick Jagger

“The Burnt Orange Heresy” - “I’m gonna make him an offer he can’t refuse.” – Don Vito Corleone (Marlon Brando), “The Godfather” (1972)

“Let’s get a little crazy here.” – artist Bob Ross 

From the very beginning, it’s difficult to get a read on James Figueras (Claes Bang) and Berenice Hollis (Elizabeth Debicki).  Assured and knowledgeable, James delivers a slick and measured art lecture – with explanations of brushstrokes and hues that tie to a remarkable history lesson – but in the process, he twists the room of engaged, wide-eyed listeners into knots, but in a most gratifying way. 

James orchestrates a magic trick of sorts…and then reveals his secrets. 

If this magician - wrapped in art critic/dealer clothing -  figuratively escapes from a straitjacket while trapped in a water tank today, these fascinated patrons would drop serious coin to watch him saw a lady in half next week.  Apparently, James is particularly skilled at delivering surprises, or from another perspective, maybe he’s comfortable swimming in pools of deceit. 

Berenice wanders into his classroom, and through an initial physical attraction, a fascination with the art world or perhaps a long ago-decided calculation, she willingly wishes to be his trusty assistant, one on equal footing.  This eye-catching pair – who could double as Prince Charming and Cinderella – might look like royalty, but they – individually - carry grifter-vibes which invite trouble. 

In director Giuseppe Capotondi’s highly-engaging noir thriller, James and Berenice step into jaw-dropping opulence in the form of a massive villa at Lake Como, Italy.  Here, art collector Joseph Cassidy (Mick Jagger) presents James with an offer that he cannot refuse, and it involves a character – who will not be described in this review – played by Donald Sutherland. 

In a case of the immovable object versus the irresistible force, James has to fight an uphill battle while Berenice – who somewhat sits on the sidelines - may or may not be sharpening her own sword.

Writer Scott B. Smith introduces several prickly points and warm creature comforts that lay the groundwork for mixed emotions.  Rather than stretch the material into 150 minutes, Capotondi keeps the picture at 99.  The film delivers flurries of strikes within a shorter-than-expected window, so the pain pierces deeper, not because of long periods of exposition that allow the audience to bond with the leads, but just the opposite.  James and Berenice do not truly know one another that well.  We don’t either, and hence, as the events unfold, we need to play catch-up, and like James’ opening scene, the film offers surprises. 

What might be a terrific surprise is how accomplished Jagger is on the silver screen.  The Rolling Stones frontman is certainly not shy of a big stage, and he dazzles here as Cassidy, a smooth aristocrat (in the monetary sense) who seems to have all the answers.

In 1982, director Werner Herzog said of Jagger, “(He’s) not a good actor, that would be wrong to say.  He’s a sensation, and no one has realized that.  What a performer…just incredible.”

Herzog’s words ring true, as Jagger’s Cassidy intimidates by conveying unwelcome personal truths with a soothing suave grace and smiling eyes, that will instantly trigger an immediate desire to retreat. 

Cassidy and Debney (Sutherland) reveal more to the audience in a few minutes than James and Berenice would divulge over a month of Sundays.  This, however, is all by Capotondi’s and Smith’s chosen design, and Bang, Debicki, Sutherland, and Jagger hold on tight to the movie screen’s four corners, because “The Burnt Orange Heresy” gets a little crazy which – like art – leaves a lasting impression.

(3.5/4 stars)

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

Raising Buchanan - Movie Review by Ben Cahlamer

Cathy Shim, Jennifer Pfalzgraff, and Amanda Melby in Raising Buchanan. Photo Credit: Raising Buchanan/PBATHW LLC

Written and Directed: by Bruce Dellis

Starring: Rene Auberjonois, Amanda Melby, Cathy Shim, Terence Hines, M. Emmet Walsh, Jennifer Pfalzgraff, Steve Briscoe

If you were so desperate to solve a financial challenge, would you consider stealing and ransoming a dead president’s body?

This is the situation that confronts, and confounds Ruth Kiesling (Amanda Melby) in “Raising Buchanan.” If Bruce Dellis’s film sounds like a horror story gone wrong, you couldn’t get further from the truth. Dellis’s screenplay is full of witticism, cynicism, and wisdom as Ruth, a donut shop employee with anger management issues tries to figure her way out of serval messes, including how to get away with the aforementioned theft and ransom.

Dellis’ ingeniously manages to portray Ruth in two lights – the first is in her irrational physical world, those filled with the problems that plague many of us, which makes the film relatable. In this world, Ruth has friends, namely her roommates, Meg (Cathy Shim) and Holly (Jennifer Pfalzgraff) along with Philip Crosby (Terence Hines), her probation officer.

The way the characters interact with Ruth is imaginative; Meg and Holly are the “plucky comic relief” characters in that they know Ruth and try to support her through her ordeal as best as they can, especially when it comes to her father, Larry (M. Emmet Walsh). The story works Meg and Holly’s comedy in with Ruth’s allowing Melby to shine; even in her most depressive state, she is a hoot.

Ruth is portrayed in a second light that relates to both James Buchanan (Rene Auberjonois) and an egotistical ventriloquist, Errol (Steve Briscoe). As she comes across his body and hatches her scheme, Dellis places us in Ruth’s head, allowing us to see the higher reasoning behind what makes her tick. In the physical world, Ruth plays cello on a series of popular You Tube videos featuring Errol.

Within this, we see Ruth interacting with Buchanan in his own time, using the cello as a gateway between the two sides of Ruth, making for a unique look at how we rationalize irrational thoughts. Auberjonois, who has a long history of comedic roles and is known for his dry humor was the perfect actor to play Buchanan; he has an aristocratic way about himself that plays beautifully off Ruth, who is just a snide and snarky in her mind as she is in the real world.

The snarky side plays beautifully off of her probation officer. There’s a hilarious scene as he visits Ruth at the donut shop as they discuss her anger issues and how she’s dealing with them. As she gets deeper in to her own mess, though, she realizes that no one seems particularly interested in Buchanan’s body, giving rise to antics that matches the ongoing chase in Stanley Kramer’s “It’s A Mad, Mad, Mad, Mad World” – the characters are all so crisscrossed that the prize becomes less important than the goal – finding the best in ourselves.

“Raising Buchanan” was a highlight at the 2019 Phoenix Film Festival, full of laughter and is an excellent example of how our creative outlets can help us cope even when the situation is bad. The film plays exclusively at Harkins Scottsdale Shea.

3 out of 4

Monos - Movie Review by Jeff Mitchell

Photo Credit: NEON

‘Monos’ is an unorthodox teen spirit war movie

Directed by:  Alejandro Landes

Written by:  Alejandro Landes and Alexis Dos Santos

Starring:  Sofia Buenaventura, Moises Arias, Julianne Nicholson, and Julian Giraldo

“Monos” – Writer/director Alejandro Landes’ picture, about eight teens manning a military post in the middle of nowhere, is a visual stunner. 

The film heavily leans on the great outdoors and plays on sights, sounds and feelings rather than intricate storytelling.  Sitting alongside the clouds, this camp resides on a mountainous, rocky swathe of terrain that must frequently see rain, because everything feels incessantly damp.  Damp, like dewy grass in the morning, except this soaked state lingers throughout the day and night. 

If your sneaker – along with your foot  – ever accidentally fell into a puddle during at 9am hike at summer camp, you know the uncomfortable feeling of carrying a soggy wheel around all day.  At best, “Monos” will make you relive that unpleasant memory, and at worst, the film will desperately call to your better angels, because the on-screen societal norms are in dire need of a massive yoga class.  Please throw in a civics lecture for good measure. 

During times of war, yoga and civics apparently have to wait. 

The eight young soldiers, led by Wolf (Julian Giraldo), have heaps of time on their hands and no specific orders, other than to watch over their prisoner, a 40-something woman named Doctora (Julianne Nicholson).  Not only is Doctora significantly older than her adversaries, but she’s also Caucasian, while the kids are persons of color.  The differences between age and race are not explicitly called out, but both could be symbolic.

Although the teens have adult roles, their adolescence shines through the forced, imperfect masks of maturity, and when events do not follow the designed plan, these cracks become more pronounced and the grown-up shells are sometimes shattered.  The parallels between “Monos” and “Lord of the Flies” are obvious, but these kids are tethered – albeit a thin line - to a military hierarchy, so hey, marching orders are marching orders.

During times of war, chaos sometimes reigns supreme.

Bigfoot (Moises Arias), who may be third or fourth in command, fills a leadership role through his own volition.  As one can imagine, following his supervisors’ direction is not his first priority, and instead, satisfying his own warrior-id takes precedence.

Throughout the uncomfortable times, idle times, challenging times, and chaotic times, Rambo (Sofia Buenaventura) is the group’s moral compass, but this soldier’s message will only resonate if others look to it.  Despite the name, Rambo is not the alpha but is the film’s protagonist.  Curiously, Rambo is played by a young woman, but blurred pronoun lines, a short haircut, and a unisex wardrobe can bring our initial assumptions into question. 

Much less uncertain is Alejandro Landes’ message about this society.  In an early scene, Landes centers the young people – one at a time - squarely in his frame, as they run in place for training purposes.  Conversely, in the third act, Rambo meets a family watching something mindless on television, so perhaps no matter who you are – fighting a war or sitting on the sidelines - we are all going nowhere.

During times of war, life might not have a purpose.

(2.5/4 stars)

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

Ad Astra - Movie Review by Monte Yazzie

Photo Credit: Francois Duhamel / Twentieth Century Fox

Dir: James Gray
Starring: Brad Pitt, Tommy Lee Jones, Ruth Negga, Liv Tyler, and Donald Sutherland 

In the first few minutes of director James Gray’s deliberately paced, visually intriguing space exploration “Ad Astra”, the image of a person uncontrollably plummeting to earth is witnessed. The tumbling, somewhat lifeless, figure falling from the blue heavens towards the green earth seems poetic in a film that aims for insight over intensity, that examines the journey of the exploration instead of the joy of the destination.

“Ad Astra” is an often quiet and utterly controlled film, one that is pulling influences from other methodically structured films like “2001: A Space Odyssey” and most often “Apocalypse Now”. The isolation from the world, the journey of self-discovery, and the fear of the unknown are all themes explored in all these referenced films. “Ad Astra” has all of these concepts clearly apparent from the opening minutes, sometimes even using a voice-over narrative to make these ideas extra focused.

The narrative mission is simple, an astronaut has gone rogue and his exploits are threatening life on earth. His son, a famous space scientist named Roy McBride (Brad Pitt), is tasked with traveling to the moon and then onto Mars to deliver a heartfelt message/plea to try and thwart the efforts if his father (Tommy Lee Jones).

The composition of the film is completely stunning, a visual treat of the “not-too-distant” future that seems completely genuine in the portrayal of what the arrival terminal would look like on the moon, how massive an antenna tasked with searching for extraterrestrial life would look, and how business would find a way to make a quick dollar with airline luxuries. Add to this the beautifully composed photography with striking color bursts and intriguing geographic angles, and the film is a complete pleasure to look at.

Director James Gray has a distinct quality that can be felt in the design elements but the narrative for “Ad Astra” depends heavily on actor Brad Pitt, who is fantastic here, to progress the scenes from one moment to another. Pitt does an interesting job of composing his journey of self-discovery, the subtle emotional touches seen with mannerisms during the crumbling connection with his wife (Liv Tyler) and the calm demeanor displayed during tense scenes help to display the focus of the character who is in search of answers outside the normal. But it is solely Pitt doing the heavy lifting throughout the film as many of the other actors in the film are crafted with minimal depth, sometimes no depth at all.

Even with great performances and some fantastic designs, the narrative for “Ad Astra” struggles consistently throughout the film in connecting its themes of loss, fear, abandonment, and isolation in more meaningful ways. Instead the film turns into a bland story about fathers and sons. And while it searches for more meaning, it begins to meander aimlessly. This severely affects the pacing of the film which starts with promise but very quickly slows to a crawl. Scenes begin to feel overly drawn out and, most disappointing, the investment in Roy McBride and the journey to find his father dwindles and ultimately is lost by the time the final act arrives.

“Ad Astra” is a beautiful film to look at with an exceptional performance from Brad Pitt. Unfortunately, the promising theme of self-discovery becomes, like it’s primary character, lost in its own search into the unknown.

Monte’s Rating
3.00 out of 5.00

Joker - Movie Review by Jeff Mitchell

This image released by Warner Bros. Pictures shows Joaquin Phoenix in a scene from Joker. (AP)

Directed by:  Todd Phillips

Written by:  Todd Phillips and Scott Silver

Starring:  Joaquin Phoenix, Robert De Niro, Zazie Beetz, and Frances Conroy

“Joker” – “Is it just me, or is it getting crazier out there?” – Arthur Fleck (Joaquin Phoenix)

Filled with grime and crime, Gotham City is a mess. 

Piles of garbage lay in alleyways, a couple generations of crowded graffiti proudly shout from concrete walls and no present-day corporate pleasantries – like Time Square, with its welcoming, Las Vegas-like showmanship – can be found anywhere.

Director Todd Phillips’ camera points at a movie theatre with Brian De Palma’s “Blow Out” appearing on the marquee, so the year – presumably - is 1981.  The air is cold, moods are sour, work is scarce, money is tight, and crime is rampant.  Walking anywhere on your own, even in the middle of the afternoon, might invite a mugging, and police and ambulance sirens act as constant white noise for a populous without much reason to celebrate…anything.

This is Arthur Fleck’s current environment, and when we first see him, he’s celebrating “Everything Must Go” for a local business.  He’s dressed as a clown on a chilly street and spinning a sign with the aforementioned message, when a few kids grab it, smash it and then mash Arthur for no particular reason.  This isn’t Arthur’s first beating, because the world has been kicking him around for decades, and his face (with scratchy etched lines, a grayish skin tone and hollowed-out checks) speaks to a lifetime of hardship, probably complete with a steady diet of ramen noodles and soft drinks. 

This is Phillips’ mad scientist-creation, a bleak origin story for Batman’s foremost nemesis, The Joker, and Phoenix is the director’s monster.  Certainly, this celebrated villain has a long history in print, television and movies, but “Joker” has a story to tell.  Arthur descends into criminal madness, but more importantly, Phillips outlines the character’s cracked foundation and cursed circumstances that provide legitimate, explainable grounds for his turn into a sinister baddie. 

Meanwhile, Phoenix provides sympathy for the man, one who has been cast away by a grinding, unforgiving Darwinesque system.  Still, a publicly-funded therapist does listen to Arthur voice his problems, but as he points out, his issues fall on deaf ears. 

“You don’t listen, do you?  You just ask the same questions every week.  How’s your job?  Are you having any negative thoughts?  All I have are negative thoughts,” he says.

Physically, Arthur looks sickly and frail with a twisted pipe cleaner’s frame that seems to contort without provocation.  A body that matches his mind, pumped with several medications that trip over one another and most certainly cloud and confuse his perspective.  He’s searching for logic and light but routinely fines indifference, cruelty and shadows.  Phoenix shows some of the ferociousness of Freddie Quell, a massively imperfect protégé in Paul Thomas Anderson’s “The Master” (2012).  Quell, however, was askew from the get-go, while Arthur slowly finds his way into spaces of malice. 

While Phillips paints a gloomy, cheerless setting throughout the movie’s 122-minute runtime, Phoenix allows Arthur to grow more self-assured and embrace - rather than fight - his surroundings. 

This is the film’s hook. 

Well, and of course, this is a Joker movie.  You won’t, however, see The Caped Crusader and his trusty sidekick, and there are no big budget, CGI “Justice League” (2017) or “Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice” (2016) entanglements…thankfully.  This is a personal, solitary journey between a misunderstood soul versus a nonsensical society, although obvious elements from the comics proudly reveal themselves. 

One obvious nod to 80s cinema does not have a superhero origin at all, as Robert De Niro plays Murray Franklin, a Johnny Carlson-like television host who Arthur idolizes.  Franklin feels similar to TV talk show host Jerry Langford (Jerry Lewis) from Martin Scorsese’s “The King of Comedy”, and in that movie, De Niro plays a struggling but ambitious comedian named Rupert Pupkin, a guy desperately striving for fame.  Arthur, who is always trying to make people laugh, in some ways is Pupkin, and note that “The King of Comedy” was released in 1982.  Probably not a coincidence.

In 2019, one might say that it’s getting crazier out here at the moment, because who would have thought after Heath Ledger’s Oscar winning performance in “The Dark Knight” (2008), another actor would come along and possibly earn Academy Award gold playing the same character?  Well, after watching “Joker”, another actor will have to give a superhero-like effort to wrestle the 2020 Best Actor Oscar away from Phoenix.

(3.5/4 stars)

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

Downton Abbey - Movie Review by Ben Cahlamer

Photo Credit: Jaap Buitendijk / © 2019 Focus Features, LLC

Directed by: Michael Engler

Screenplay by: Julian Fellowes

Starring: Hugh Bonneville, Jim Carter, Michelle Dockery, Elizabeth McGovern, Maggie Smith, Imelda Staunton, Penelope Wilton

Television turned film is a touchy subject because you don’t necessarily get to see your favorite characters utilized as well as they once were, whether it be because the film format only allows for so much story to be told or because of logistical challenges that don’t allow for a character to breathe. I suppose this is why binge-worthy programming on the likes of Netflix have bloomed recently.

British television on the other hand has managed to capture the essence of serialized television and tell compellingly funny and sometimes blunt stories. Take for instance the famed comedy “Mr. Bean,” a brainchild of Rowan Atkinson – the television series is world-renowned, yet the movie and its subsequent sequels have not fared as well. HBO’s “Entourage” is a good example of a show in the U.S. making a similar transition with limited results.

“Downton Abbey,” which ran on ITV in the U.K. and PBS in the U.S. ran from 2010 to 2015 over six seasons and has a devoted following. The story depicts the aristocratic Crawley family and their devout servants between 1912 and 1926. The film, which releases this weekend, picks up after the sixth and last season.

I confess that I have not seen the series it is based on, so homework is in order. Suffice it to say that as a newcomer, I was not entirely lost in this theatrical version of the beloved series. The story set in 1927 sees the Royal Family, King George (Simon Jones) and Queen Mary (Geraldine James) set to visit the humble Downton Abbey. The family, Robert Crawley (Hugh Bonneville), the Earl of Grathnam and Cora (Elizabeth McGovern), the Countess are less-than-excited to receive the Royal couple, but do so dutifully.

There are multiple story lines through the narrative, akin to a soap opera – the family preparing for the royal arrival above board along with the politicking that that tail ensues, the staff below board contending with the Royal Staff descending on their domain, and a subplot involving a threat to the king’s life.

Dame Maggie Smith as Violet Crawley, the Dowager (widow, yes I had to look it up) Countess of Grantham is the most boisterous and loveable of the upper echelon cast and story. She breathes life into a rather stuffy tale of the royal visit as she aims to confront her cousin, Lady Maud Bagshaw (Imelda Staunton) over an ongoing dispute over the heir apparent.

The juicy and far more operatic side of the story is the staff below the line, as the Royal Page of the Backstairs, Mr. Wilson (David Haig) informs them that their services will not be required during the Royal visit. Their honour at stake, they will do anything to ensure the integrity of the household by serving the Royal Family. Charles Carson (Jim Carter), the family’s retired butler is called into action before they are informed that their services were not required, but he has the confidence of the staff, especially Anna Bates (Joanne Froggatt) and John Bates (Brendan Coyle) and the Crawleys to pull off the Royal Engagement.

As the story bisects each line, we see the characters in their moments. There is a great deal of subtle humor throughout. There was a raw honesty in the third story line involving Thomas Barrow (Robert James-Collier) and Richard Ellis (Max Brown) that I didn’t expect. I’ll leave you to discover it for yourselves, but I think you’ll appreciate that story line as I did.

As interesting as the goings on were at Downton Abbey, I couldn’t help but feel that they stuffed too much into this film. For someone to play catch up, I wasn’t lost, but there were some of the nuances that I would have benefited from had I known the TV series before seeing this film.

Others have mentioned that Robert Altman’s “Gosford Park” is a better affaire, and I don’t think they’re wrong. It’s for just a well-established series like “Downton Abbey,” the film does justice to what I can only suspect is a very well-executed television series, which is currently streaming on Amazon Prime.

As you get ready to spend time with the Crawley’s and their staff, I’m going to get caught up with the series and I hope, we’ll meet over a spot of tea to talk shop. Cheerio!

2.75 out of 4

The Best of TIFF 2019 by Jeff Mitchell

Jeff Mitchell at the 2019 Toronto International Film Festival.

The Best of TIFF 2019

This Phoenician left for the Great White North on Friday, Sept. 6 to soak up the 2019 Toronto International Film Festival for nine days, and as usual, this massive celluloid celebration did not disappoint.  This year, I proudly represented the Phoenix Film Festival as our press contact, and day after day, I sprinted between theatres and took copious notes.  After catching 32 movies, here are my top 10 films.    

“A Hidden Life” – Franz Jagerstatter (August Diehl) enjoys a beautiful life with his wife Franziska (Valerie Pachner) and their kids in the quiet Austrian village of St. Radegund, but trouble begins when World War II breaks out, and he refuses to pledge loyalty to Hitler.  Writer/director Terrence Malick dives into the true story of the Jagerstatters by reaching to nature, classical music and the heart of Franz and Franziska’s relationship that gel into a dreamlike concoction of operatic splendor.  A masterpiece.

“About Endlessness” – Writer/director Roy Andersson’s unique on-screen perspective is back, as he bestows a series of oddball sketches that feature mankind’s everyday collisions with modern society.  A deliberately bland, brown color palette, stiff deliveries by the (mostly) amateur actors and bleak, minimalist sets run throughout the film’s 78-minute runtime.  “About Endlessness” feels like a surreal trip to Whoville, if the collective Who-population was in dire need of Prozac, and their surroundings – although cartoonish – are devoid of whimsy.  Repeat viewings are required.

“Jojo Rabbit” – Growing up in Germany in the 1930s and 40s, Jojo Betzler (Roman Griffin Davis) loves his mom (Scarlett Johansson) and plays with his best friend Yorki (Archie Yates).  In many ways, Jojo is a typical 10-year-old boy, except for one glaring difference: he’s a prideful Hitler Youth member.  Jojo, however, begins to question everything, when he discovers that his mom is hiding a Jewish girl (Thomasin McKenzie) in their home.  Director Taika Waititi also dons a Nazi uniform to play Adolf Hitler, so he pushes boundaries, but with hilarious slapstick, sarcasm and delicate touches of humanity.   

“Joker” – Director Todd Phillips takes a stark departure from comedies and ventures into a dark, dystopian 1981 Gotham City to tell the origin story of Batman’s foremost nemesis.  Filled with crime and grime, Gotham is a miserable, hopeless mess, and so is Arthur Fleck (Joaquin Phoenix), a man suffering from mental illness and surrounded by negative influences and triggers in all directions.  Arthur eventually cracks, and in turn, Joaquin should break into Best Actor Oscar-status with his hypnotic performance.  Quite frankly, another actor will have to give a superhero-like effort to wrestle Oscar gold away from Phoenix.

“Knives Out” – An extremely clever and entertaining whodunit!  Writer/director Rian Johnson thought up this murder/mystery story about 10 years ago, and after creating “Looper” (2012) and “Star Wars: The Last Jedi” (2017), he saved his best for last.  Crime novelist Harlan Thrombey (Christopher Plummer) dies on his 85th birthday, and detective Benoit Blanc (Daniel Craig) arrives on the scene to assess any foul play.  Johnson turns the genre on its head a bit and keeps us guessing, laughing and gasping in suspense, while an all-star cast - including Toni Collette, Chris Evans, Jamie Lee Curtis, Michael Shannon, Don Johnson, Ana de Armas, and more – seem to be having as much fun as the audience.

“Proxima” -  Sarah (Eva Green), a French astronaut, prepares for the mission of her life, as she’s part of a three-person crew heading to the International Space Station.  She’s also a mom to an elementary school-age daughter Stella (Zelie Boulant), so while Sarah looks to the stars, she also feels the pull here on Earth.  Writer/director Alice Winocour gives us a behind-the-scenes look at Sarah’s training while keeping Stella ever-present - but compartmentalized - in her mother’s thoughts.  So, while Sarah deals with frequent, subtle slights of sexism, she also copes with her out-of-this-world job taking time away from her daughter.  Green gives a very strong and graceful performance.

“The Burnt Orange Heresy” – A wildly affluent art collector (Mick Jagger) invites a struggling critic (Claes Bang) to his massive Italian villa and offers a proposal that he cannot refuse.  James (Bang) brings along his brand new love interest (Elizabeth Debicki), but they barely know each other.  When high stakes are in play, the unknown can dramatically cloud and complicate the immediate present, and director Giuseppe Capotondi muddies the waters for James and Berenice (Debicki) in this twisty, nifty thriller.  Donald Sutherland co-stars. 

“The Song of Names” – Twenty-one years ago director Francois Girard brought “The Red Violin” to the screen, and now in 2019, he offers a different story on the same instrument in “The Song of Names”.  As kids, violin players Martin (Tim Roth) and Dovidl (Clive Owen) share a friendship and a love of music.  As adults, Martin looks for his friend, who disappeared decades before.  With World War II as a focal point and accompanied by an exceptional string score, Girard’s intricate drama sneaks up on you and strikes the right emotional beats.  

“The Two Popes” – Pope Francis and Pope Benedict XVI have personality and philosophical differences that reach a mile-long, but they both share the same job title and therefore, are card-carrying members of a most exclusive club.  Director Fernando Meirelles (“City of God” (2002)) gives us an insightful look at these two men through Anthony McCarten’s script that is generally conversational in nature.  Jonathan Pryce and Anthony Hopkins play Francis and Benedict, respectively during the Vatican’s transition of power in 2013, and the two Welsh actors might just share numerous conversations at the 92nd Academy Awards in 2020.

“Waves” – An affluent, hardworking family appears to have all the answers, but one’s teenage years - no matter how much support is felt - are anything but straight-forward.  Tyler (Kelvin Harrison Jr.) is a high school wrestler and his life is falling into place, but after an initial misstep, he takes a much larger plunge.  Writer/director Trey Edward Shults (“Krisha” (2015), “It Comes at Night” (2017)) pushes a modern score and free flowing camerawork that dives into the characters’ souls, as they struggle for answers.  This heavyweight drama packs a wallop. 

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

Wet Season - Movie Review by Jeff Mitchell

Photo Credit: Giraffe Pictures

Chen effectively reflects on life’s ‘Wet Season’

Written and directed by:  Anthony Chen

Starring:  Yeo Yann Yann, Koh Jia Ler, Christopher Lee, and Yang Shi Bin

“Wet Season” –  “I love walking in the rain, because no one can see me crying.” – Rowan Atkinson

Ling (Yeo Yann Yann) lives in Singapore - a vibrant, bustling place with over five million residents - but when this high school language teacher is not giving lectures and handing out assignments, she is often alone.  Ling sits by herself at lunchtime and slowly lumbers in the hallways between periods, as if she’s carrying three students on her back while her shoes are filled with concrete.

She’s depressed.  Not only because her students seem completely uninterested in learning Chinese, but the school does not prioritize it either. 

Her life at home is no better, and actually, it’s worse, because her husband Andrew’s (Christopher Lee) constant indifference to her well-being feels infinitely more personal.  He rarely spends time at home and seems more concerned with his golf game and entertaining clients into the wee hours of the evenings, rather than canoodling – or simply having polite conversation - with wife.

In life and love, Ling feels cheated and trapped, and to add insult to injury, she’s childless, despite trying to conceive for years.  We also meet Ling during Singapore’s monsoon season, as the rain reflects her mood in writer/director Anthony Chen’s absorbing, affecting drama “Wet Season”.

Chen establishes the film’s tone right away through Ling’s melancholy, as she shuffles between home, school and her fertility doctor.  Ling also cares for her elderly and incapacitated father-in-law (Yang Shi Bin) at home, so she never gets a break. 

Yeo perfectly captures Ling’s fatigue, but the actress also gives her character an ever-present grace in the face of on-screen adversity.  Both Chen and Yeo provide wide-open spaces of sympathy for Ling that allow us to emotionally connect with her straightaway and, therefore, hope that she forms any sort of new friendship to break her perpetual malaise. 

Her student Wei Lun (Koh Jia Ler) looks to be that person.  Although his schoolwork floats in a shallow pool of mediocrity, Wei Lun is polite, curious and respectful, which is more positive energy than Ling has probably received in years.  Ling usually keeps her emotions in check, because she’s unfortunately learned to blindly accept her current reality after nursing figurative wounds delivered by the Game of Life over the past four decades. 

Over the course of the film, Ling’s leaps of personal growth are packaged in nuance, so a rare, slight smile from her becomes a moment of on-screen treasure, one that will warmly elicit beaming grins from the audience through tender cinematic reciprocity.

Many of Singapore’s trademark sights and sounds are anything but tender, as this astonishing city-state – that sits one degree above the equator - bursts with towering concrete wonders and gorgeous tropical beauty.  Although Chen provides some scenes to capture this highly photogenic locale, he conveys Ling’s story within middle class neighborhoods and everyday life, as opposed to the pomp and circumstance of the larger scale surroundings.  His decisions feel tonally on target, because hopes for massive celebrations are not within Ling’s immediate grasp. 

It is, however, Singapore’s monsoon season.  Rain certainly may bring sorrow and hide tears, but it can also wash away the past. 

(3/4 stars)

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

Interview with ‘Wet Season’ writer/director Anthony Chen by Jeff Mitchell

Photo credit: Giraffe Pictures

“Wet Season”, a TIFF 2019 Platform film, takes place during Singapore’s monsoon season, and   writer/director Anthony Chen’s affecting movie is about a high school teacher named Ling (Yeo Yann Yann) who is struggling to have a baby.  To make matters worse, Ling’s career and marriage are going nowhere.  She feels quite alone but makes a connection with one of her students (Koh Jia Ler). 

The Phoenix Film Festival had a chance to sit down with Anthony in Toronto, and we had an enjoyable, engaging conversation.  We talked about Anthony’s inspiration for the movie, filming in the rain and much more!  

PFF:  The film shows Ling alone quite a bit.  She lumbers to school on her own and usually eats by herself.  This solitude is rather ironic, because she lives in Singapore, a bustling, busy metropolis.  They say that we can be lonely while standing in a crowd.  Ling seems to be going  through this experience.

AC:  I think you read it quite well.  Sometimes, you are lonely, because you haven’t made connections.  When there are so many things going on (in a big place), how could you feel lonely?  But if you are not making emotional connections, you don’t exist.  

PFF:  Singapore is a picturesque place with plenty of urban wonders and natural beauty.  The film does not focus on the bright, gorgeous surroundings and instead, spends time on everyday life in middle class neighborhoods and ordinary streets.  Can you talk about that choice?

AC:  Ling is under life pressures.  She has a busy job as a teacher.  She has to look after her half-paralyzed father-in-law who takes up so much time.  (She doesn’t have) any form of social life, and she’s been trying really hard - for years - to have a baby. 

That’s very much how I see her.  She works during the day, comes home, changes her father-in-law’s clothes, cooks, feeds him, puts him to sleep, and does the dishes.  Life has basically weighed her down, and there’s no time to have any other life.  It’s not so much about not showing Singapore’s (beauty) but showing her life.  

She is trapped, and she is stuck.  She’s in crisis.  She’s in crisis in her marriage.  She’s in crisis in her family life.  She’s in crisis in her career. 

Photo credit: Giraffe Pictures

PFF:  You’ve talked about your family’s challenges on having a baby.  Did that experience inspire you to make this movie?

AC:  Every time I make a film, at some point, “world-life” and my personal life will collide.  For a long time, we had (to cope with fertility treatments) and go to the doctor all the time.  It was very volatile.  It was very stressful, and I experienced all of that first-hand.  In a way, I started writing about this woman who was trying to have a baby, and somehow in my life, it sort of happened and collided. 

After I made the film, (my wife and I had) a baby.  We have a baby boy.  Literally, just as I finished editing the film, he was born.  I’m not a religious person, but I always believe that in filmmaking, there’s some kind of divine intervention.  

PFF:  Rain can obviously bring sorrow, but it can also wash away the past.      

AC:  I think you can see rain in different ways.  Personally, for the longest time, I wanted to use weather elements in a film.  In Singapore, we are a tropical country.  We have no seasons.  It’s always really, really hot, and the only time the weather changes – massively – is two months of rain during the monsoon season in December and January.  Now, it’s drifting because of climate change.  Sometimes, it starts in February. 

I always thought rain (would be) poetic and beautiful to capture in a film.  It’s a very appropriate metaphor to describe Ling’s emotional state.  That’s one way of looking at it.  In (the film), Singapore is completely shrouded in rain, and it’s sort of cold and a little bit heartless.  I think that there’s something to be said about that.  Singapore, over the past 10 years, has become a much colder place.

PFF:  How did you work in the rain?  Did you manufacture it?

AC:  I (really enjoyed) writing the script, but when I had to film with 80 percent (of the scenes) calling for rain, the execution was tough.  In this film, all the rain that you see (uses) practical effects.  So, there isn’t a single (moment of) CGI.  Of course, we couldn’t wait for the rain, so we had to create it.  The movie feels like a very small, intimate drama, but actually, beyond that frame, there was so much work.   

PFF:  Ling takes care of her father-in-law (Yang Shi Bin), while her husband Andrew (Christopher Lee) usually can’t be bothered.  Ling’s father-in-law can’t speak, but what would he say to his son?

AC:  There is one scene with Ling’s husband and his father.  He looks at his son, and in those eyes, you just knew that he was disappointed.  That one scene says so much.  I think this is a film where I try to say a lot with very little. 

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