Burden - Movie Review by Ben Cahlamer

Forest Whitaker in ‘Burden’. Photo by 101 Studios.

Forest Whitaker in ‘Burden’. Photo by 101 Studios.

Written and Directed by: Andrew Heckler

Starring: Garrett Hedlund, Forest Whitaker, Andrea Riseborough, Tom Wilkinson, Tess Harper, Usher Raymond IV

Deeply personal, intimate narratives have the power to tell a story that, often, connects with an audience. Whether through a character, a relationship, an actor’s performance, the story itself or the technical side of filmmaking, the intimacy allows a film to build trust with an audience; a genuineness that isn’t very easily replicated, even in real life.

“Burden,” based on the true story of Mike Burden (Garrett Hedlund, “Tron: Legacy”), is the kind of story that should fit the description above. There is a genuineness in the performances; there’s a trust that first time writer-director Andrew Heckler brings to the screen in his direction.

An orphan raised by the Ku Klux Klan, Mike comes across the screen as dimwitted. Yet, behind the sway and the drawl, the actor’s calculating eyes betray a more noble purpose. Hedlund’s quiet personality doesn’t boast, even when his temper breaks. He knows that there is a moral ambiguity behind his actions.

This makes it a bit easier when Judy (Andrea Riseborough) enters his life. When we first meet her, she is in the middle of a break-up with another low life parked on her couch. Mike, who is there to repossess her TV, witnesses her just go all-out on the low life boyfriend who left her kid without a TV. Riseborough gives the impression that she’s not going to put up with anything that stands in the way of she and her son. And although the sparks don’t immediately come, there is some affection between Mike and Judy.

The story gets this connection out of the way, perhaps just a bit too quickly, or even too easily.

Despite that, the connection between the two works in the film’s favor, in that it eases the underlying tensions between the Reverend David Kennedy (Forest Whitaker) and the leader of the Klan, Tom Griffin (Tom Wilkinson), who just happens to be Mike’s adopted father.

The Klan has purchased an abandoned movie theater and turned it into a Klan museum for all to see. The theater, which has an interesting and humorous involvement in the story, is a beacon. As a focal point, it draws each of the opposing sides in. It also creates a unique barrier, for which Mike alone holds the key, so it creates some space with which Heckler can work with the characters and the brewing situation.

It also creates a vacuum in which the relationship between Judy and Mike takes a bit more center stage than the story could support. The narrative works because the characters are real, visceral if you will. As Mike makes the conscious decision to break from the Klan to pursue a life with Judy, the Klan acts, putting pressure and strain on not only their relationship, but with the Reverend and his family.

All throughout the story though is a timely examination of race relations and the importance behind the social acceptance of one another, as humans first. This is where Heckler got his adaptation of Mike Burden’s real story right. The right blend of humor and action makes that portion of this journey, the acceptance of a more noble cause and the actions that go with that, worthwhile.

The film’s burden, if you’ll pardon the expression, is carrying the rest of the story, Mike’s story. And though Hedlund’s performance is exceptionally strong, the story couldn’t carry the weight of that part of his journey. As the credits roll and we see the photos of the rea- life people this story represents, you appreciate their struggles because the performances are so strong.

“Burden” struggles to find light underneath the power of change. For a moment, it succeeds only to remind us that, many years later, we are still struggling to be the change.

2.5 out of 4

Greed - Movie Review by Jeff Mitchell

Steve Coogan, Isla Fisher, and Asa Butterfield in ‘Greed’.

Steve Coogan, Isla Fisher, and Asa Butterfield in ‘Greed’.

‘Greed’ isn’t that great

Directed by:  Michael Winterbottom

Written by:  Michael Winterbottom and Sean Gray

Starring:  Steve Coogan, Isla Fisher, David Mitchell, and Asa Butterfield

“Greed” – “Greed is good.”  - Gordon Gekko (Michael Douglas), “Wall Street” (1987)

Sir Richard McCreadie (Steve Coogan) – the head of Monda, an international apparel corporation – is filthy rich. 

How rich? 

Well, Monda just paid a 1.2 billion (British) pound dividend to its owner, McCreadie’s wife Samantha (Isla Fisher).  Samantha then purchased a yacht for 100 million that proudly scoots around Monaco with no apparent altruistic purpose, and hey, that leaves 1.1 billion to fund her favorite 2020 U.S. Presidential candidate!  Okay, don’t expect the latter, although one has to imagine that Richard and Samantha donate a few quid to some shifty British politicians from time to time.

Actually, Richard and Samantha are divorced now, but “Greed” shifts so many times to the distant and recent past, it’s hard to keep track of essential, important facts.  Then again, director/co-writer Michael Winterbottom does center his film around Sir Richard’s 60th birthday party (and the planning for it) in present-day, so we can anchor ourselves there. 

Yes, the grand to-be celebration on a heavenly Greek island is a gaudy illustration of extreme excess, complete with a team of paid celebrity lookalikes – like a fake-Rod Stewart, fake-Simon Cowell and fake-Kylie Minogue - and a treehouse version of a coliseum that also includes a full-grown lion. 

This, of course, begs the question:  Is the real Kylie Minogue not available? 

Naturally, the film’s perspective is clearly available: the filthy rich can get awfully dirty to find their fortunes.  At least Sir Richard did, and Coogan is smartly-cast as The King of High Streets.  Coogan can deliver on-screen insults and grievances faster a motivated, well-oiled Tommy gun can spit out bullets.  Sir Richard regularly rips apart his clothing suppliers and yanks any traces of profit out of their pockets to suit his own needs.

He doesn’t have a conscience, and Winterbottom argues that Richard never had one, as we see his life as a teen and throughout his working years through several questionable business deals.  These flashbacks – that sporadically splash across the screen in five-minute increments over the movie’s 104-minute runtime – help recount Sir Richard’s dubious history that led him to become the full-fledged bully that he is today. 

“Greed” is a morality tale, and one constructed with organic slews of memories from an intrinsically-provoked capitalist, but Coogan finds help through a couple key supporting players.  Shirley Henderson ages herself 30 years to play Richard’s mother, as she carries a chip the size of Dublin on her narrow shoulders, and Dave Mitchell is an author/journalist who shadows Mr. McCreadie to discover nuggets of knowledge for his readers.  Nick (Mitchell), however, usually has figurative doors slammed in his face, and while he struggles and bumbles for answers, Margaret McCreadie (Henderson) seems to know where all the bodies are buried, but no one would dare ask her. 

On the other hand, Richard’s kids Finn (Asa Butterfield) and Lily (Sophie Cookson) aren’t given much to do other than mope and complain, and anyone working for McCreadie feels pretty much the same.  

“Greed” attempts to be a comedy, but other than random over-the-top, disparaging remarks or occasional gaffes from Nick, there’s not much to laugh about.  The movie feels a bit schizophrenic too, because it also delivers its piercing, cynical view of money and corruption through sobering illustrations between the haves and have-nots.  Truth be told, the gilded streets of Monaco and the UK dismiss (or are unaware of) the Sri Lanka, Bangladesh and Myanmar sweatshops. 

Other than a peek into the troubling economic strife at the aforementioned locales, “Greed” doesn’t offer a wealth of reasons to sit through 104 minutes of Richard’s unchecked bad behavior.  On the other hand, maybe we’ll look at a “Made in Bangladesh” t-shirt tag when doing our next load of laundry and pause for a moment to recall this movie’s clothing supply chain.  Then again, maybe not.  Regardless, this movie isn’t that great.    

(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.

Emma - Movie Review by Ben Cahlamer

Mia Goth and Anya Taylor-Joy in ‘Emma’. Photo courtesy of Box Hill Films

Mia Goth and Anya Taylor-Joy in ‘Emma’. Photo courtesy of Box Hill Films

Directed by: Autumn de Wilde

Screenplay by: Eleanor Catton

Based on “Emma” by: Jane Austen

Starring: Anya Taylor-Joy, Johnny Flynn, Josh O’Connor, Callum Turner, Mia Goth, Miranda Hart, Bill Nighy

Walking out of Autumn de Wilde’s “Emma,” a smile on my face, I couldn’t help but reflect fondly on my first experience with Jane Austen’s classic story of manners, matchmaking and tomfoolery.

Despite the differences between de Wilde’s film and the now-classic, modern interpretation, “Clueless,” the pieces of Austen’s story are there. The humor of Austen’s beguiling matchmaker, whose self-absorbed nature prohibits her from seeing beyond the bridge of her own nose is well-suited in this witty retelling.

Set in Victorian England, “Emma” follows the exploits of Emma Woodhouse, played wistfully by Anya Taylor-Joy. There is an elegance about Emma as she seeks to mate everyone but herself. She is loyal to her ailing father (Bill Nighy) and her friend, Harriet Smith (Mia Goth).

Eleanor Catton, a novelist herself imbues the story with an intricate layer of classic, regal dialogue while the goings-on of their day to day lives are splendidly captured through the eyes of de Wilde, a photographer herself, aided by cinematographer Christopher Blauvelt. Great care is given to the look and feel of the film enhancing the humor in the story. Bill Nighy’s performance benefits from de Wilde’s fantastic staging.

Through thick and thin, Emma is blissfully unaware that her efforts to match her friend Harriet are met with mixed signals and utter confusion. She is also unaware of an attraction to George Knightly (Johnny Flynn), whom de Wilde captures in such a striking way.

Emma is not without her foibles, silently admonishing Miss Bates, beautifully overplayed by Miranda Hart, while Mr. Elton (Josh O’Connor), the priest secretly wishes to be with Emma. There’s a hilarious misunderstanding involving Elton, a still painter, Harriet and Emma.

The farcical nature of “Emma” is such that the story eventually gives way to a breakdown in Emma’s defenses as she continues to deny herself the love that wills her name. It leads to some of the more awkward moments of the film with the vibrant look of the film outpacing the story’s own nature, especially during a key scene toward the end of the second act, as Emma’s true nature makes its presence known.

The style and characters of the time are perhaps better expressed in “Downton Abbey,” where the stakes for the characters were much greater. Here, love is the greatest reward, but “Emma” doesn’t capture the essence of love perhaps as well as it could have.  De Wilde certainly has a visual style that serves the film, while Catton tries to take the higher literary world, this being her first screenplay.

Anya Taylor-Joy is a breath of fresh air to watch, her graceful stature matched with her calculating eyes is a perfect match for George Knightley.  The story meanders just a bit getting there, but it is such a beautiful meander that one doesn’t mind getting lost for a couple of hours in the splendor that is “Emma.”

2.75 out of 4

The Invisible Man - Movie Review by Jeff Mitchell

‘The Invisible Man’ starring Elisabeth Moss. © 2020 Universal Pictures

‘The Invisible Man’ starring Elisabeth Moss. © 2020 Universal Pictures

‘The Invisible Man’: Sleeping with the Invisible Enemy

Directed by:  Leigh Whannell

Written by:  Leigh Whannell, based on the novel by H.G. Wells

Starring:  Elisabeth Moss, Oliver Jackson-Cohen, Aldis Hodge, Storm Reid, and Harriet Dyer

“The Invisible Man”  – “Death's got an Invisibility Cloak?"  Harry interrupted again.  “So he can sneak up on people," said Ron.  “Sometimes he gets bored of running at them, flapping his arms and shrieking.” – J.K. Rowling, “Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows”

“In fact, even among women who have experienced violence from a partner, half or more report that the man’s emotional abuse is causing them the greatest harm.” - Lundy Bancroft, “Why Does He Do That?: Inside the Minds of Angry and Controlling Men”

Ever wish that you had a superhuman ability?  Superspeed or unstoppable strength?  Flight, perhaps?  Always correctly choosing the quickest grocery store line?

Invisibility is a useful superpower too, but it is also a morally shaky one.  What’s the point, right?  Although, this covert gift would pay enormous crime-fighting dividends to police detectives everywhere, John or Jane Q. Public might tap into this transparent aptitude to eavesdrop on spouses, friends, frenemies, or coworkers, or maybe start a life of everyday mischief.  Pondering ways to collect buckets of loot might become an obsession, and sure, walking into an Arizona Diamondbacks game or Foo Fighters concert undetected has financial advantages too. 

In writer/director Leigh Whannell’s “The Invisible Man”, Adrian Griffin (Oliver Jackson-Cohen) - a groundbreaker in optics…so we’re told – has much more insidious intentions than watching Dave Grohl burst into “Monkey Wrench” at a stadium show. 

Most unfortunately, his wife Cecilia Kass (Elisabeth Moss) is the sole target of his malicious ire in a film that could be called “Sleeping with the Invisible Enemy”.

When we first meet Cecilia, she’s not sleeping.  She is lying awake in her bed and starring at the clock, as it unceremoniously strikes 3:42am, but this is her moment.  While her husband Adrian slumbers, she slowly moves his hand away from her midsection, crawls out of bed, grabs some belongings, tiptoes through a labyrinth of cold, sterile hallways within their modern-day coastal mansion – that Tony Stark would admire – and runs away.

Our heroine leaves with good reason, because Cecilia – off camera - suffered years of torment.  Adrian tried – and was largely successful – to monetarily, emotionally and physically control her.  Whenever Cecilia rebelled, he met her with several stripes of additional abuse.  She lived a nightmare with a sociopath but now attempts to find solace with her friend James (Aldis Hodge) and his teenage daughter Sydney (Storm Reid).

For reasons that will not be revealed in this review, James, Sydney and Cecilia’s sister Emily (Harriet Dyer) believe that she is now completely free from Adrian, but then, like a ghost, he appears in James’ house.  No, Cecilia can’t see Adrian, but she’s convinced that he’s present. 

He’s invisible. 

Even though Whannell brings this classic villain back to the big screen, his movie – that sports first-rate production values and a thumping score to match - really falls into a highly-visible genre:  abused wives fighting back against their ghastly, controlling husbands.  The TV movie “The Burning Bed” (1984) starring the late-Farrah Fawcett might be the most noteworthy example over the last 40 years, and the aforementioned “Sleeping with the Enemy” (1991) is frequently called out too.  The latter is also the only thriller in history in which an organized kitchen cabinet terrifies the audience.   Oh, those creepy V-8 cans…truly!   

Here, the first half of “The Invisible Man” is a straight-up horror film, and especially within James’ house.   Whannell effectively introduces tones from recent flicks like “Insidious” (2010), “The Conjuring” (2013) and “Ouija: Origin of Evil” (2016), where his camera peaks around corners and doorways and stares into blank walls.  He ratchets up the tension in anticipation of horrible scares, as Cecilia stares with wide eyes and barely breathes in near silence.

After a while, however, the narrative cannot – and quite frankly, should not - stay self-contained and isolated within one abode for two hours.  Whannell establishes the initial terror, but he needs more actual space to properly drive the story, because Cecilia dodging and wrestling the appearance of nothing from the hallway to the kitchen and to the living room and back gets a little tedious. 

As the scope expands, the picture shifts from horror to thriller, and the violence and body count grow exponentially.  The scares ironically dwindle, but the interest in Cecilia’s fate never wavers.  Credit Whannell and Moss.  Moss is especially convincing in this very physical role.  Cecilia is an emotionally-drained abuse victim and resembles a frazzled poker player who guzzled a couple gallons of Red Bull during a 72-hour bender, while – of course – an erratic maniac chases her in-between hands.  She’s extremely stressed, and Adrian, a master manipulator, is the sole cause of it.

The film repeatedly triggers the audience (especially women), including a defining moment when Cecilia pleads, “(Adrian) made me feel that I’m the crazy one.”  

She’s not, and neither are you for seeking out this old monster story with a new angle.  For Cecilia and millions of others who currently suffer in damaging, controlling relationships, they may feel that a superhuman ability is needed to break away.

(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.

 

Ordinary Love - Movie Review by Jeff Mitchell

Liam Neeson and Lesley Manville in ‘Ordinary Love’.

Liam Neeson and Lesley Manville in ‘Ordinary Love’.

Manville and Neeson are anything but ordinary in ‘Ordinary Love’

Directed by:  Lisa Barros D’Sa and Glenn Leyburn

Written by:  Owen McCafferty

Starring:  Lesley Manville and Liam Neeson

“Ordinary Love” – “If you have a friend or family member with breast cancer, try not to look at her with sad eyes.  Treat her like you always did; just show a little extra love.” – Hoda Kotb

Joan (Lesley Manville) and Tom (Liam Neeson) have stable, healthy lives, but not ordinary ones.  In their 60s, they lounge around their spacious home – that sports a 40-year-old décor - in suburban Belfast.  This longtime husband and wife spend their days and nights with one another, as they relish brisk walks along River Lagan, take trips to the grocery store and share every meal.  Neither Joan or Tom ever bring up money, and retirement appears to be their pleasant reality. 

Now, according to Google, the definition of ordinary is with no special or distinctive features; normal; uninteresting; commonplace.  With a coin flip accurately estimating the chance of a marriage’s survival, and many couples absolutely depending on their paychecks to get them through the week, Joan and Tom are enjoying their comfortable, satisfying days. 

Director Lisa Barros D’Sa and Glenn Leyburn and writer Owen McCafferty (who wrote this screenplay based on his own marriage), however, disrupt Joan and Tom’s routines and security, when she contracts breast cancer.  Now, this loving, supportive couple – who yes, sometimes include bickering with their banter – face a potential death sentence.

At the moment, the final verdict remains unknown.

Without flashy gimmicks or fanfare, D’Sa and Leyburn simply lay out this distressed couple’s new tasks, in which doctor appointments and hospital visits become commonplace events.  In a way, sterile medical facilities have developed into Joan and Tom’s collective second home.  The filmmakers establish this parallel by flashing shots of several empty rooms within the couple’s house during the movie’s opening minutes.  Later, the audience is forced to endure long sequences in clinical spaces with bulky equipment or full waiting rooms that reek with anxiety, as two celebrated actors carry Joan and Tom on their journey.

Manville – a highly-skilled authority at portraying rich and complex supporting characters, including her Oscar-nominated turn in “Phantom Thread” (2017) and a heaping stack of work for director Mike Leigh in “Secrets & Lies” (1996), “Vera Drake” (2004) and “Another Year” (2010), to name a few -  bravely delivers an authentic, raw performance as a vulnerable woman facing the abyss…and chemotherapy.  D’Sa and Leyburn don’t pull any punches, as they drag Joan through every fear, troubling thought, medical procedure, and moment of despair that a breast cancer patient may endure. 

It’s tough to watch.  Not “Lorenzo’s Oil” (1992)-tough, but still terribly challenging.

Luckily, Tom is by her side.  Neeson delivers a welcome mix of tenderness, vulnerability and fortitude but also hints at (and outright exclaims) their marital troubles, ones partially-buried below accumulated layers of daily pleasantries, chores and occasional glasses of wine.  Quite refreshingly, Neeson takes a temporary break from the “Taken” series and other mindless celluloid nonsense where he guns down massive quantities of drug dealers, kidnappers and sick baddies.  Here, Neeson’s Tom churns through choppy life-seas and quietly turns inward to find his way.

Personal, introspective cancer stories frequent the silver screen, but often times, they star young actors and look to “50/50” (2011) and “The Fault in Our Stars” (2014) as recent examples.  When cancer strikes someone in the prime of their life, a deeper layer of heartbreak surely intensifies the narrative.  Geez, just try to hold back the tears during the third act of “Me and Earl and the Dying Girl” (2015).  This critic isn’t that strong.

For Joan, in the third act of life, her reality is dire, as Tom and she attempt to inoculate the anguish for revealing their sad eyes to each other.   

(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.

The Call of the Wild - Movie Review by Jeff Mitchell

Harrison Ford in ‘The Call of the Wild’. Photo Credit: Walt Disney Pictures

Harrison Ford in ‘The Call of the Wild’. Photo Credit: Walt Disney Pictures

It doesn’t always connect, but ‘The Call of the Wild’ is a likable family adventure

Directed by:  Chris Sanders

Written by:  Michael Green, based on Jack London’s novel

Starring:  Harrison Ford, Omar Sy, Cara Gee, Dan Stevens, Karen Gillan, Bradley Whitford, Jean Louisa Kelly, and Terry Notary

“The Call of the Wild” – “He had been suddenly jerked from the heart of civilization and flung into the heart of things primordial.” – Jack London, “The Call of the Wild”

“How much is that doggie in the window?  The one with the waggly tail.” – Patti Page, “(How Much Is) That Doggie in the Window”

Buck is an aristocrat of sorts.  Perhaps an aristodog?  (Many apologies for going there. Couldn’t resist.) 

He’s a handsome, 140-pound St. Bernard-Scotch Collie, and the Miller Estate, located in Santa Clara, Calif., is Buck’s home.  Judge Miller (Bradley Whitford) and his wife Katie (Jean Louisa Kelly) run it like a Montessori school, at least in Buck’s eyes.  He basically does as he pleases, which means rambling through the hallways and crashing into doors.  The Millers still love their sociable, kind and clumsy dog lots and lots, but he’s a bit wild

For reasons not engineered by the Millers’ design, Buck is dognapped from beautiful, sunny California, and before you can say “endless piles of snow”, he finds himself in Skagway, Alaska and running with a dog sled team that delivers the mail to the Yukon and back.  Thankfully, the mail route owners Perrault (Omar Sy (“The Intouchables” (2011)) and Francoise (Cara Gee) are friendly and treat these canines with respect, but scampering through this harsh, frigid environment is awfully hard work, and Buck is a fish out of...well, you know.

“The Call of the Wild” is a new experience for director Chris Sanders.  It is his first live-action movie after three animated features, including “How to Train Your Dragon” (2010), but he brings his much-needed talents to this project.

“This is the first time the book from beginning to end has ever been attempted.  One of the reasons that we’re able to actually attempt (it) is that now, we can animate all the animal characters,” Sanders said in a Feb. 2020 interview with The Movie Times.

Buck and the other sled dogs are indeed animated, but admittedly, the special effects – at first - seem a bit shaky (at least to this critic), when Buck rummages through the Miller Estate.  On the other hand, after 10 or 15 minutes of screen time, a natural comfort of settling into the story takes over, and Buck looks real and believable. 

Sanders and screenwriter Michael Green ensure that the audience continues to subscribe to this on-screen take of Jack London’s novel by making a very smart choice:  Harrison Ford narrates the story, rather than the dogs speak or think out loud.  Although some films with talking four-legged friends - like “Babe” (1995), “The Lion King” (2019) or even “The Cat from Outer Space” (1978) - have a nestled place in moviedom, thankfully in “The Call of the Wild”, the computer-constructed pooches - including our sympathetic hero - behave like dogs and aren’t asking one other, “Hey, when will we break for dinner?”

As far as breaks from the book, Sanders’ film follows the novel’s overall arc with some discernible – but not distracting – changes along the way.  Also, with the movie’s PG-rating, it is more family-friendly.  “The Call of the Wild” should be just fine for kids, but note that The Law of Club and Fang dabbles into Bambi’s mom vs. a cruel hunter-territory, and the formidable great outdoors provides noteworthy reasons for angst.  Also, note that Dan Stevens plays such an over-the-top creep as the villain, that Nicolas Cage would stand up and offer 10 seconds of sincere applause.    

Certainly, Harrison Ford deserves applause with his turn as John Thornton.  Like Buck, John earns our sympathy, as he struggles for answers as well.  Unlike Buck, he willingly left his home for snowy isolation, but John eventually becomes this doggie’s owner and friend, and like most healthy relationships, love is a two-way street.  Sanders also includes a positive message about refraining from alcohol, which is a nice touch.

“The Call of the Wild” has pleasant, warm touches along with a rugged sense of adventure.  Now, the actual calls into the wild feel thin and forced, and the Alaska/Yukon wilderness seems to volley from actual footage to something manufactured, but this movie is an enjoyable ride, and it will encourage millions to pick up London’s novel for the first time in years or for the very first time.  Hey, Buck, John, Sanders, Green, and London might just inspire you to stroll by a nearby pet store and look in the window for a St. Bernard-Scotch Collie or pack your bags and head north.  Way, way north.

(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.

Invisible Life - Movie Review by Ben Cahlamer

Carol Duarte in ‘Invisible Life’.

Carol Duarte in ‘Invisible Life’.

Directed by: Karim Aïnouz
Screenplay by: Murilo Hauser, Inés Bortagaray and Karim Aïnouz,
Based on “The Invisible Life of Euridice Gusmäo by: Martha Batalha
Starring: Carol Duarte, Julia Stockler, Gregorio Duvivier, Barbara Santos, Favlia Gusmäo

Reflecting on the themes present in “The Invisible Life of Euridice Gusmäo,” one cannot help but think of the proverb, “blood is thicker than water.”

Set in the 1950’s, Karim Aïnouz’s story of two sisters who spent their lives separately thinking the other was living their dreams. Fueled in part by repression and bigotry, the Un Certain Regard selection of the 2019 Cannes Film Festival and Brazil’s entry for the Best International Feature Film at the 92nd Academy Awards is as vivid as the lives it depicts.

Based on the novel by Martha Batalha, Euridice (Duarte) and Guida (Stockler) Gusmäo are two sisters whose dreams and aspirations leave them pining into the unknown future. What is known is that their father Antenor (Gregorio Duvivier), a butcher is a man of pride. He wants to see his daughters grow up and instead, after being insulted by Guida, tears the family apart.

Aïnouz’s direction is taut throughout as he depicts two sisters madly in love with their dreams and determined to set their paths. The two sisters’ separation is just as emotional as the film’s conclusion. Revealing it here would dismiss the happenings throughout the rest of the story as Euridice lives a life of trying to reconnect with her sister.

The attempt is deftly handled through years of letter writing on the part of Guida, whose guilt, shame and remorse are felt with every word. Remorse quickly turns to desperation as the months turn into years. Julia Stockler’s performance is heart wrenching to watch unfold as she learns to cope with a father who does not want her and a sister that she cannot physically connect with.

Carol Duarte’s performance is just as beautiful as she too hopes to connect with her sister. Instead, she has a family. She is first a loving mother and then a giving grandmother, something their parents never gave them.

Just as the letters offer context, Aïnouz injects several opportunities for the two sisters to connect. Hélène Louvart’s cinematography is both vivacious and sumptuous while revealing small, intimate details that convey the interconnectedness of the two sisters despite the distance between the two, offering a balance that keeps us guessing as to what will happen next. Color is an important aspect of Louvart’s visual style, conveying the emotional aspects of each sister’s individual lives.

Karim Aïnouz’s “The Invisible Life of Eurdice Gusmäo” is an elegant and emotional look fueled by the performances, the colors, music and the sounds of life simply happening in front of our eyes. The two sisters could not be closer in spite of their distance, but Aïnouz reminds us that blood is indeed thicker than water.

3.75 out of 4 stars

Downhill - Movie Review by Monte Yazzie

Julia Louis-Dreyfus and Will Ferrell in ‘Downhill’.

Julia Louis-Dreyfus and Will Ferrell in ‘Downhill’.

Dir: Nat Faxon and Jim Rash

Starring: Julia Louis-Dreyfus, Will Ferrell, Zach Woods, Zoë Chao, and Miranda Otto

 

Take a moment the next time you are on vacation, at the amusement park, the beach, or any place where families gather to relax and partake in fun, and look through the crowds of smiling faces for that one family that is in the midst of a bad day. Where the kids are having complete meltdowns, and mom and dad are barely holding it together as years of unresolved past arguments and quarrels rise slowly to the surface. If it’s not happening to you, it’s a fascinating sight to see.

“Downhill”, a remake of the 2014 Swedish film “Force Majeure” from director Ruben Ostlund, takes a look at a vacation-from-hell scenario for a family on a skiing trip in a foreign country. Directors Nat Faxon and Jim Rash, who last helmed the 2013 film “The Way Way Back”, compose this version of the film with a lesser emphasis on mechanisms like masculinity, the line that divides fear and cowardice, and relationship inadequacies. Instead, the writing and directing team focus on the surface situation of ‘flight versus fight’ and allow the strengths of their actors, Will Ferrell playing more reserved than normal and Julia Louis-Dreyfus controlling the tone with her anxious and irritated demeanor, opportunity to control the blending serious dramatic themes with awkward comedy moments.

Billie (Julia Louis-Dreyfus) and Pete (Will Ferrell) are taking their two young kids on a skiing trip in Austria, they are staying at a luxury resort tailored for adults. Pete, from the moment they arrive, seems distracted by his phone while Billie is doing her best to make the vacation fun for everyone. While eating lunch at an outdoor restaurant, a controlled avalanche is initiated by the resort; as snow rolls down the mountain it begins to look more and more threatening to Billie and Pete, just as the snow crashes into the restaurant, Pete grabs his phone and runs away from Billie and the children. Once the white dust settles, Pete returns as if nothing happened while Billie is holding her children and trembling with fear.

Faxon and Rash pace their film with a swiftness, moving into the primary conflict of the movie with ease and then focusing on the ramifications of the event between Pete and Billie with a string of interesting and amusing scenarios. While this helps keep the narrative moving it also stifles some of the thought-provoking interactions and internal conflict that Billie and Pete are experiencing about themselves individually and one another collectively. “Downhill” doesn’t pursue the depth that “Force Majeure” explored, instead it examines the superficial emotions, the surface anger and frustration that Billie feels and the outward denial and selfishness that Pete exhibits. While it doesn’t ruin the experience of “Downhill”, it does display a lack of emotional connection between the married couple.

Julie Louis-Dreyfus is very good throughout the film, her comedic timing works well when her character is annoyed but also adds a nice bit of charm as things begin to progress more complicated. Will Ferrell pleasantly provides some restraint in his needy and selfish portrayal of Pete. While Ferrell is good, though there are few moments that don’t work for the character, such as a long scene involving Pete recalling his time as a single man after being offered a drink from an attractive onlooker.

“Downhill” isn’t interested in finding pathways to deeper intellectual topics, however, that doesn’t mean it isn’t any less interesting watching two people struggle to patch the worn pieces of married life amidst awkward encounters and cringe-worthy scenarios. 

 

Monte’s Rating
3.00 out of 5.00

Sonic the Hedgehog - Movie Review by Ben Cahlamer

James Marsden and Ben Schwartz in ‘Sonic the Hedgehog’.

James Marsden and Ben Schwartz in ‘Sonic the Hedgehog’.

Directed by: Jeff Fowler

Written by: Pat Casey and Josh Miller

Based on “Sonic the Hedgehog” by: Sega

Starring: James Marsden, Ben Schwartz, Tika Sumpter, Jim Carrey

Jeff Fowler, director of “Sonic the Hedgehog” has his work cut out for him.

Not only does he have to deliver a movie based on a beloved video game character, but that character, as many people complained about after the first trailer premiered had to look good.

The film, which opens this weekend, delivers on both in most respects.

Sonic, voiced by Ben Schwartz looks good. Real good.

The film, which is a road trip in disguise, is a lot of fun too, but is not without its potholes.

Sonic has a gift, one that if found out could be used for evil. As played here, Sonic is a teenager, full of vinegar and ready to test the world. Early in the film, we see him zoom across the screen like blue lightening. Under the watchful gaze of Longclaw his caretaker, his cavalier respect for his powers earns him unwanted attention, forcing him to Earth.

The script by comedic duo of Pat Casey and Josh Miller quickly establishes Sonic as an isolated creature who . . . lurks about Green Hills, Montana, a sleepy little town just as isolated as Sonic feels. Fowler creates an environment in which Sonic thrives . . .  on his own.

Isolation and a lack of friends gives Sonic a reason to taunt Tom Wachowski (James Marsden), the sheriff who thinks he hasn’t contributed enough and wants a shot at some real action. Tika Sumpter plays his wife, Maddie, a veterinarian who fully supports her husband’s decision to abandon the good people of Green Hills.

Sonic attracts the attention of one Dr. Robotnik, played with utter glee by Jim Carrey. Robotnik, a neurotic quack, is on the government’s “speed dial” when what looks like an E.M.P. knocks out power to most of the west coast. His knack for “getting his man,” is what gives him the edge over the military.

That and his wonderful array of floating toys.

Carrey is menacing and maniacal at the same time as he not only deals with his own high IQ, but also with the constant attempts to outwit Tom, a no non-sense type of individual, who eventually crosses paths with Sonic and realizes the little fella needs his help.

Fowler injects a good deal of action in the form of car chases, most of which defy physics and, certainly in the case of downtown San Francisco, sheer space. But, that doesn’t mean that the action isn’t any less exciting.

The humor is on point too, especially the ongoing banter between Robotnik and Tom and an ongoing feud between Rachel (Natasha Rothwell), Maddie’s sister and Tom, whom she believes is a terrorist in disguise.

There is a real sense of kinship between Sonic and Tom that does not feel forced; Fowler ensures that the basis for their friendship especially that of an ongoing ‘bucket list’ is solid. That’s the  strongest element in favor of keeping “Sonic the Hedgehog” moving at a supersonic 99 minutes. There are times where that run time feels just a bit too long, but then Robotnik makes an appearance and all is well.

“Sonic the Hedgehog” is a fun and faithful to the game, the revamped Sonic character looks amazing on the screen and if nothing else, you get to see Jim Carrey rock out for a few minutes as his diabolical plans come to fruition. It isn’t without its bumps in the road.

Then again, if art imitates life, then “Sonic the Hedgehog” has that game in the bag.

3 out of 4

The Photograph - Movie Review by Jeff Mitchell

LaKeith Stanfield and Issa Rae in ‘The Photograph’.

LaKeith Stanfield and Issa Rae in ‘The Photograph’.

Romance is a bit fuzzy in ‘The Photograph’

Written and directed by:  Stella Meghie

Starring:  LaKeith Stanfield, Issa Rae, Chante Adams, Rob Morgan, Y’lan Noel, Lil Rel Howery, and Chelsea Peretti

 

“The Photograph” – Location, Location, Location. 

If you live in Mesa, AZ, would you take a job across town in Buckeye?  According to Google, the cities are 53 miles apart, and at 6:00pm on a Thursday, the one-way commute is 1 hour and 18 minutes.  Unless you have a How to Learn French in 500 hours app, a pile of gas money, a reliable, late model Honda or Toyota, and are born with oceans of patience, handing a tattoo pen to your 6 year-old son and asking him to draw a permanent rubber ducky on your forehead seems like a more sensible idea than starting at a new company with 13 hours of driving time every week.

No, location might not be a critical factor for every decision, but pragmatists rightfully consider it when looking for a job.  

In writer/director Stella Meghie’s “The Photograph”, Christina Eames (Chante Adams) is a straight-thinking realist too, but she also has a passion. 

The year is 1984, and Christina is about 18.  She lives in Louisiana, loves to take pictures and dreams about moving to New York City to work as a photographer, but her boyfriend Isaac (Y’lan Noel) has no interest in relocating.  Isaac loves Christina, but not enough to follow her across the country.  She’s staring into a massively divisive crossroads, but when the heart wants what it wants, a 1,300 mile life-journey to The Big Apple is not an impossible, overwhelming idea.  She might set love aside and pursue her professional goals.

Fast forward 36 years, and Christina’s daughter Mae (Issa Rae) loves her job as a museum curator, and for reasons that will not be discussed in this review, journalist Michael Block (LaKeith Stanfield) is writing a story about Mae’s mom.  Naturally, he meets his subject’s daughter.

Since “The Photograph” arrives in theatres on Valentine’s Day, one might anticipate that Meghie’s film is full of romance. 

Not so, and throughout most of its 106-minute runtime, “The Photograph” has all the fervor of calculating your federal income taxes, two months ahead of the April deadline on a lazy Sunday morning.  Make that coffee extra strong, and did you save that 10 dollar receipt for those Girl Scout cookies?  That counts as a charitable donation, right?

Anyway, Mae and Michael are both single, successful and attractive professionals and begin dating.  They have dinner at a fancy restaurant, listen to Al Green records, receive relationship advice from family and friends – including some hilarious one-liners from Michael’s brother (Lil Rey Howery) - but they are both hesitant about taking the next step.   Well, Michael wants to take the next step, but since most of his relationships haven’t lasted more than 12 weeks, he probably doesn’t exactly know.  Mae and Michael are a bit emotionally unavailable, and she’s terrible at first dates, per her own admission.  (To be fair, how many of us are?)

Mae and Michael don’t have terrible chemistry, but they talk, chat, expound, and rationalize their way in and out of this possible relationship - and run through some false starts - throughout most of their on-screen time.  Thankfully, the narrative regularly flips between present-day and the 1980s, so we can spend some quality time in the past.  Hey, Christina’s impending career decision versus a life with Isaac carries genuine gravitas.  This couple formed a settled bond that could break, rather than Mae and Michael’s constant speculation if they should seal theirs.

Meghie definitely plays with parallels between the two time periods, and 2020-Isaac (Rob Morgan) connects them and delivers the film’s most emotional beats.  She continues the resemblances between past and present but forces a Mae-Michael plot point with a shoehorn, crowbar and sledgehammer.   Well, rather than take Al Green’s advice that they “ought to stay together”, maybe Mae and Michael should be sound pragmatists, do the math and split. 

Eh, either way is fine.  Happy Valentine’s Day.  

(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.

Portrait of a Lady on Fire - Movie Review by Ben Cahlamer

Adèle Haenel and Noémie Merlant in ‘Portrait of a Lady on Fire’.

Adèle Haenel and Noémie Merlant in ‘Portrait of a Lady on Fire’.

Written and Directed by: Céline Sciamma

Starring: Noémie Merlant, Adéle Haenel

A very simple question about a painting opens Céline Sciamma’s exquisitely intoxicating “Portrait of a Lady on Fire.”

As with the painting, the answers offer more detail than the artist Marianne (Noémie Merlant) is willing to share. At first.

In order to answer the question, we are whisked away to late eighteenth century Brittany, an island with a storied castle and an unintended, yet passionate romantic interlude awaits us. The island is the site of one of Marrianne’s earliest commissions, that of Héloise (Adéle Haenel), a betrothed woman of means, intellect, yet very little desire.

Marianne encounters resistance in getting Héloise to pose for the portrait. Marianne knows how to fend for herself; she is a very worldly individual. As such, Sciamma builds the intrigue through a game of “cat and mouse” as Marianne indulges in Héloise’s world.

That indulgence is carried through Claire Mathon’s exquisite cinematography, which has a painterly quality to it. Sun drenched walks along the rocky coastline give way to fire lit discussions: intense, purposeful and emotionally charged designed to draw us further into their affair. Sciamma is sure to infuse small details which help us to recall their relationship, bits that inform each character as uniquely as their story does.

The early indulgences lead to the first pose. The room is bright and airy, allowing for the idiosyncrasies of  each character to show; neither is quick to reveal much about the other, yet both are keenly aware of the unspoken attraction. Sciamma’s attention to detail in these early scenes are magnetic, almost electric oozing through the screen.

Marianne’s assumptions and observations get the better of her though as the first painting is largely an intended failure. As observed by Valeria Golino’s Countess, Héloise’s mother,

The isolation of the island itself is a key to the outcome of the film; Sciamma does not hold back the inevitable, framed only by the fact that the events we witness are as a memory. That isolation is further cemented by a lack of characters, other than the live-in maid, Sophie (Luàna Bajrami).

Sciamma’s centerpiece isn’t so much the affair as it is the conflict that arises from the affair. Both Marianne and Héloise are passionately in love, yet they are aware that their affair cannot continue. Neither is willing to pull away.

Their hand is forced first through feelings of mistrust over the nature of the portrait, revealing an unsustainable affair. Second, and more important is a reflection of “Orpheus and Eurydice” in both the dialogue as an argument and then later at a fireside gathering full of women singing and dancing. This is the pivotal moment where vulnerability is revealed in a series of images that haunt Marianne. The love is still there as is the passion, but the reminders are such that they must move on.

When Marianne and Héloise finally do separate there is a tinge of regret that nothing further would come of the interlude. The memory of what was, the details Sciamma carefully built into their respective characters, is an eternal marker of a flame that will never die.

That love lives through “Portrait of a Lady on Fire,” not just the movie itself, but the painting that was carefully created throughout the production. Sciamma’s talented eye and instincts won her the Queer Palm at the 2019 Cannes Film Festival as well as the Best Screenplay award.

They say a picture is worth a thousand words and while that might feel a cliché way to express my adoration of “Portrait of a Lady on Fire,” it only scratches the surface of what Céline Sciamma’s film achieved.

4 out of 4 stars

The Traitor - Movie Review by Ben Cahlamer

Pierfrancesco Favino in ‘The Traitor’.

Pierfrancesco Favino in ‘The Traitor’.

Directed by: Marco Bellocchio

Screenplay by: Marco Bellocchio, Valia Santella, Ludovica Rampoldi, Francesco Piccolo, Francesco La Licata

Story by: Marco Bellocchio

Starring: Pierfrancesco Favino, Maria Fernanda Candido, Fabrizio Feracane, Fausto Russo Alesi, Luigi Lo Cascio

The trailer for Marco Bellocchio’s “The Traitor” preceded a film in early December and from its tight editing, it presented a very taut tale of intrigue and deadly adventure for one Tommaso Buscetta (Pierfrancesco Favino) as an informant on La Cosa Nostra.

The movie that famed Italian director Marco Bellocchio delivers is a sprawling story based on the real-life figure of Tommaso Buscetta, a Sicilian Mafia boss who sought to repent for their misdeeds. In that very real regard, Favino delivers an exquisite performance, a solemn face with eyes emoting at every turn.

Bellocchio was also not afraid to bask in the locations afforded his production – you truly feel like you’re in Italy or Brasil as Buscetta’s life catches up with him. Vladan Radovic’s cinematography beautifully captures these locales, framing Buscetta’s emotional struggles against the wrongs he commits.

In relocating to Brasil, he makes the mistake of thinking that his former associates could not get to him or to his family. Bellocchio’s level of violence is not over the top – it is tastefully done in the way that shooting someone can be portrayed on screen. There is a level of dark humor imbued in these assassinations as a way of counting towards the inevitable.

Though as the story goes, and based on the real life of Tommaso Buscetta, he develops a conscience, though as the screen play frames it, he is set up. It leads to an interesting relationship between the prisoner and the jailer as Buscetta returns to Italy to offer the State testimony in exchange for protection.

A rather poignant relationship forms between Buscetta and Judge Giovanni Falcone (Fausto Russo Alesi) as the two men bond over the emotional struggles to bring to the world stage the players of La Cosa Nostra. The film itself is set in the 1970’s and moves through time, but Bellocchio and Radovic never lose the rich visual style, which as time progresses so too do the locations from exterior to interior. The interior scenes in the courtrooms were bright and, dare I imply spacious.

A curiosity as the venues change in the film, they seem to get less spacious and more tight as if to convey that for every time Buscetta opens his mouth, the noose of La Cosa Nostra gets tighter; it is more than that. Buscetta is constantly fighting his own demons as his stature and his resolve to be honest and forthright becomes more apparent. As a double entendre, Bellocchio  uses the visual to support the emotional change in the character.

If “The Traitor” is guilty of any crime, it is that the run time makes its presence known. Much like La Cosa Nostra, it lurks in the shadows of great performances and a struggle rarely seen. The longer run time does not take away from the performances, but there is a certain point where there is too much exposition.

Understanding that this is a key piece of history, and a beautifully shot movie, taking elements out of the film might have negatively impacted the experience: in the end, “The Traitor” is as much an experience of one man’s life, culture and fortitude, as any film of its ilk.

"The Traitor" does not betray the honor of its subject. Rather, it honors Buscetta as a man of integrity. The cost to that integrity justify the means to those ends.

2.75 out of 4

Birds of Prey - Movie Review by Monte Yazzie

Margot Robbie in “Birds of Prey: And the Fantabulous Emancipation of One Harley Quinn’.

Margot Robbie in “Birds of Prey: And the Fantabulous Emancipation of One Harley Quinn’.

Dir: Cathy Yan

Starring: Margot Robbie, Rosie Perez, Mary Elizabeth Winstead, Jurnee Smollett-Bell, Ella Jay Basco, Chris Messina, and Ewan McGregor

When you think of iconic superhero villains it doesn’t take very long to recognize the clown prince of crime, The Joker. Immortalized throughout cinema by actors like Cesar Romero, Jack Nicholson, Heath Ledger, Jared Leto, and Joaquin Phoenix, The Joker is chaos, carnage, comedy, and cream cosmetics wrapped into one complicated bad guy.

Perhaps it’s time to clear some space for another villain, or even better a villainess, painted in the vein of The Joker. Harley Quinn made her first appearance in the DC Comics movie misstep “The Suicide Squad”, but Harley, played by Margot Robbie, was the highlight of the entire film, even overshadowing a new performance from Jared Leto playing The Joker.

“Birds of Prey” or “Birds of Prey (And The Fantabulous Emancipation of One Harley Quinn)” lets Margot Robbie loose with a zany, messy, comical, clumsy comic book movie that relishes in its cinematic mayhem. What transpires is less a superhero quality and more a straightforward action film with a group of tough-as-nails ladies standing up to a world dominated by loathsome men.

Harley (Margot Robbie) has a story to tell, one that only she can tell, and it involves bad breakups, murderers, new friends, and a lost diamond. Harley is moving on from Mr. J (her pet name for Joker), trying to make a new path in Gotham City but not realizing how many bridges she has burned while living freely in love. Now, she’s a wanted woman, specifically by a new bad guy in Gotham named Roman Sionis (Ewan McGregor).  Harley, being hunted by every person she wronged while dating the Joker, is forced into finding a young pickpocket named Cass (Ella Jay Basco) who has stolen something very valuable.

“Birds of Prey” is an R-rated romp in overindulgent style and over-the-top comic book antics. It’s cluttered in parts, specifically during the chaotic back-and-forth storytelling style where Harley narrates her version of the events leading towards the finale, but also exceptionally fun, like when Harley unleashes her fighting flair with a baseball bat or chats cute with her pet hyena.

Margot Robbie seems tailored for the role of Harley, she composes a playful sensibility from the beginning, almost shedding the villain quality completely in favor of a powerful woman who will not be told what to do and how to live. Whether giggling maniacally, screaming obscenities or spouting big intellectual psychology comments, Ms. Robbie completely owns the character.

The supporting cast helps the sloppy narrative. Rosie Perez, tough and showing wonderful attitude, plays an underappreciated cop who is chasing all the loose ends perpetrated by Harley. Jurnee Smollett-Bell is a welcome addition playing a lounge singer with a powerful voice and Mary Elizabeth Winstead does a great job of being nervously awkward as a crossbow-wielding assassin. Ewan McGregor plays the big bad with a confident quirkiness, while it doesn’t always work it seems Mr. McGregor is having lots of fun with the role.

The film, at times, feels too deliberately wacky and purposefully cartoonish, but the madcap quality does have its benefits in keeping the tone very lighthearted and focused on creating something of a crazed carnival of scenes. This movie feels like an appropriate transition, or side story, for the DC Films brand that has composed a more serious atmosphere for their superhero stories.

“Birds of Prey” thrives best when Harley has a team to work around and with. Margot Robbie holds the film together even when it becomes too frenzied for its own good. Still, the charm of the eccentric characters, the amusement park of hectic action, and the playfulness found in almost every scene make this a must-see for comic book fans.

Monte’s Rating
3.00 out of 5.00

The Assistant - Movie Review by Jeff Mitchell

Julia Garner in ‘The Assistant’.

Julia Garner in ‘The Assistant’.

‘The Assistant’ clearly documents empathy without empowerment

Written and directed by:  Kitty Green

Starring:  Julia Garner and Matthew Macfadyen

“The Assistant” –  “Empowerment through empathy.” – Tarana Burke

“Tumble out of bed, and I stumble to the kitchen.  Pour myself a cup of ambition and yawn and stretch and try to come to life.   Jump in the shower, and the blood starts pumping.  Out on the street, the traffic starts jumping with folks like me on the job from 9 to 5.” – “9 to 5” by Dolly Parton

Jane (Julia Garner) works for a movie production company in New York City.  She’s an entry-level assistant to the top executive, and even though she has an office job, her workdays are anything but 9 to 5. 

While the sun still blissfully enjoys restful REM sleep, Jane - wrapped in a grayish, greenish winter coat with her chin buried in a thick yellow scarf - takes a Lyft from her Astoria apartment to begin a typical 15-hour day at the office.  She makes coffee, takes calls, unjams the copier, picks up donut boxes from empty conference rooms, and runs the occasional errand.  After working at this unnamed company for five weeks, Jane knows her day will finally end when her boss unceremoniously declares, “I don’t need you.  You can go.”

He, however, is not the only one who dismisses Jane.  For instance, as she washes dishes in the breakroom, others will drop off a coffee mug or plate on the counter with no acknowledgment, thanks or salutations, and on frequent occasions, a male assistant competes for her attention by throwing wads of paper in her direction.  No, her future – as the most junior person on staff - doesn’t seem terribly bright at the moment, but this is writer/director Kitty Green’s intention, as she shines a light on a treacherous, all-too-common practice that feeds on the steep inequities of authority.  

“The Assistant” is a film about sexual misconduct, but Green takes an alternative approach to this dicey subject. 

“I started looking at the #MeToo coverage and (was) a little disappointed that people were focusing on the predators and these sensational stories,” Green said in a January 2020 Build interview.  

She adds, “Rather than looking from the top-down…let’s study (a) day in the life of a person who has the least power in an organization.”

We experience Green’s film through Jane’s eyes.  She catches snippets of big decisions and huge projects, but these debates hide behind closed doors or stroll by without her inclusion.  In addition to money-making ventures, she also discovers partial clues - and stumbles into obvious evidence - of recent office dalliances.   Are these forced, unwanted encounters?  The indications say so, but Jane does not walk into an explosive moment as a first-hand witness.  Instead, she finds forensic evidence and computes the awful equations of her boss’s emotional and ethical bankruptcies.

Green employs a frugal hand throughout her 85-minute film in nearly every aspect.  The bland walls and minimalist office future are deliberately commonplace.  Just think of a Dilbert comic strip with zero jokes, and Scott Adams saturating every frame in a gloomy, chalky gray.  Other than Jane’s coworkers laughing – on one occasion – about some sophomoric happenstance, no one appears particularly jovial to work at this place of business. 

It’s a prison of sorts, but the inmates are detained by invisible chains.

Still, the underlings are free to chat and play nice, however, conversations rarely occur, as long stretches of on-screen silence are only accompanied by the low hum of industrial lighting and recycled air traveling through the ducts.  This is an environment where the sudden rush of a blender crushing ice and mixing protein powder becomes a featured event.  Consider yourself warned.

Silence is the unwritten rule of this company’s mission statement, but suppression and concealment are noted in the fine print.  You see, in Green’s detailed, day-in-the-life example of the sordid, widespread history that sprung the #MeToo movement, she successfully and clearly documents empathy without empowerment.

(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.

Zana - Movie Review by Jeff Mitchell

PHOTO CREDIT: CROSSING BRIDGES FILMS

PHOTO CREDIT: CROSSING BRIDGES FILMS

Kastrati’s ‘Zana’ is a troubling, engaging look at Kosovo’s history through one woman’s eyes

Directed by:  Antoneta Kastrati

Written by:  Antoneta Kastrati and Casey Cooper Johnson

Starring:  Adriana Matoshi, Astrit Kabashi and Fatmire Sahiti

“Zana” – “When men are oppressed, it’s a tragedy.  When women are oppressed, it’s tradition.” – Letty Cottin Pogrebin

Lume (Adriana Matoshi), a late 30s Albanian housewife living in a rustic countryside-slice of Kosovo, is at war.  Not the Kosovo War, because in director/co-writer Antoneta Kastrati’s “Zana”, that conflict ended about 10 years ago. 

Lume is at war with herself, and with no allies in sight, nearby friends and family freely hand her a loaded revolver - in the forms of stress, putdowns and emotional abandonment - to continue her self-destructive, puzzling fight.  This perilous community-concoction makes “Zana” a troubling but engaging story of drama, mystery and Kosovo’s history, and throughout the film, Kastrati paints Lume’s struggle with two emotional, off-putting tones: fear and misery.

Frequent nightmares regularly besiege our lead protagonist, as Kastrati and co-writer Casey Cooper Johnson find unexpected on-screen spaces to pitch disturbing bloody images that shake Lume’s foundation.  While these jolts regularly disrupt her restful nights, Lume’s days offer no amnesty either. 

With her red hair pulled back and some strands occasionally falling in front of her tired, hazel eyes, Lume usually toils with ranchwork – like scrubbing floors, hanging laundry on lines and milking their cow - for the bulk of the daylight hours.  Calm reprieves and occasional smiles are woefully infrequent, but when Lume does stumble into a settled moment, her husband Ilir (Astrit Kabashi) or his mother Remzije (Fatmire Sahiti) will step in and harp about the lack of children running around their unhappy home.  Worse yet, with Lume having fertility problems, talk of Ilir taking on another, noticeably younger wife appears to be no empty threat.

Kastrati, who grew up in Kosovo, lived under threats and suffered terrible tragedy during the war, but those experiences - that she’d probably like to forget - also created her long resume of documentaries and shorts about that distressing time and place.  “Zana” is Kastrati’s first feature film, and she and her sister Sevdije (who is also the cinematographer and co-producer) traveled back to their home village to make this personal movie.  Mind you, “Zana” is not an autobiographical story.  Lume does not play Antoneta, but they share a wide-eyed female perspective of rural Kosovo, where women’s choices and opportunities are painfully narrow. 

Under sunny skies, the Kastrati sisters capture wide, grassy gradients of green in every direction, that give the appearance of (and speak to) hope and bright new days, which truly contrast with Lume’s disposition.  This deepens the mystery, because she should obviously feel constrained by the absence of choices, but an entirely separate, unknown layer of abrasion is scrubbing away at her soul.

Speaking of souls, not only do heavy doses of patriarchal wisdom dominate the village, but religious ones do as well.  Therefore, pious solutions to Lume’s infertility issues are unfortunately explored, which raise another wall to further prevent her escape

No, Kastrati does not pave an easy road for Lume, and the 97-minute runtime feels longer, but this is by design.  “Zana” is an absorbing chronicle, as one woman grapples with reality in her mind and environment, and Matoshi stands tall with a masterful subdued performance.  She clearly communicates Lume’s emotional present – and many times in silence - as her character tries to fight through painful, unknown barricades.

Whether or not Lume finds peace, freedom or both, “Zana” organically conveys the strained lives and times of women in the region who coped with war….and tradition. 

(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.

The Rhythm Section - Movie Review by Monte Yazzie

Blake Lively in ‘The Rhythm Section’. Photo by Jose Haro © 2018 Eon Productions Limited.

Blake Lively in ‘The Rhythm Section’. Photo by Jose Haro © 2018 Eon Productions Limited.

Dir: Reed Morano
Starring: Blake Lively, Jude Law, Sterling K. Brown, Daniel Mays, Max Casella, and Richard Brake

 

Filmmakers often talk about a film having “rhythm”. Writer/director David Mamet is often labeled as having a particular “dialog rhythm”, a structure in the way words are crafted for characters to say that follow a beat or a specific pattern. There is “visual rhythm”, the symmetry of framing a shot like in films by Wes Anderson or the movement of the camera to show motivation like in Bong Joon Ho’s “Snowpiercer”. Rhythm can be a very important, deliberate element in the filmmaking process.

 

 “The Rhythm Section”, directed by Reed Morano, puts the word “rhythm” into its title but any sense of rhythm or reason is lost in this sometimes spy film, sometimes revenge tale, sometimes espionage film, but mostly just a convoluted mess. Starting with the title of the film, which I’m still not exactly sure what it’s meant to imply aside from a line a dialog that is thrown in but never amounts to any kind of explanation.

 

Stephanie Patrick (Blake Lively) is introduced stalking into a worn-down building, she slowly raises a gun to the back of an unknown person’s head but before the result is revealed, the film flashes back 8 months. At this time Stephanie was a drug-addicted prostitute, weak and filled with sorrow due to the death of her entire family on an airplane she was meant to be on. A freelance journalist finds Stephanie and informs her that the death of her family was no accident, but was a planned bombing. Stephanie is angry and decides to find the people responsible and kill them. Things don’t go as planned and Stephanie is forced to flee, she finds a former MI-6 agent named Iain Boyd (Jude Law) who decides to help her get free from addiction and train for the moment of her revenge.

 

“The Rhythm Section” begins with an interesting setup, offering a contrasted view of a woman trying to make sense of her trauma. Blake Lively commits to the role; she is vulnerable and frail in early parts of the movie, and even as she develops into a revenge-seeking spy, you can still sense her uneasiness with the decisions she hopes to make. It’s disappointing that the narrative didn’t focus more attention on this key element, Ms. Lively is a talented actress and could have developed this character into something fascinating if provided the material and time to build the character better, the same can be said about Jude Law’s character who has an interesting ambiguity. Instead, the film falls into uninspired clichés and unnecessary twists and turns.

 

The one shining moment for this film is in the construction of the action scenes involving Stephanie. When she is placed in danger, gun fights, car chases, and hand-to-hand fights, the film keeps the perspective of these moments with Stephanie, showing how the atmosphere and environment are affecting her and how jarring a car chase would be if you have never been in one. It’s a nice touch of filmmaking.

 

Still, “The Rhythm Section” just doesn’t have the strong narrative needed to support its lofty ambitions. Blake Lively and Jude Law provide committed performances but the film doesn’t meet their quality. Instead, the film is lost in its design and never finds the melody of the story it wants to tell.

 

Monte’s Rating
1.75 out of 5.00

The Gentlemen - Movie Review by Ben Cahlamer

Colin Farrell and Charlie Hunnam in ‘The Gentlemen’. Photo courtesy of Christopher Raphael.

Colin Farrell and Charlie Hunnam in ‘The Gentlemen’. Photo courtesy of Christopher Raphael.

Directed by: Guy Ritchie

Screenplay by: Guy Ritchie

Story by: Guy Ritchie, Ivan Atkinson and Marn Davis

Starring: Matthew McConaughey, Charlie Hunnam, Henry Golding, Michelle Dockery, Jeremy Strong, Eddie Marsan, Colin Farrell, Hugh Grant

A “Guy Ritchie is back!” proclamation for his latest film, “The Gentlemen” would not be out of order.

In fact, it is an understatement.

The story, which focuses on the secretive cannabis concerns of one Mickey Pearson (McConaughey) is just the tip of the leaf, so to speak.

Ritchie’s story focuses on the tabloid sensationalism of one Big Dave (Marsan), the editor in chief of the Daily Print. He was slighted once by Pearson and is out to get him, courtesy of private investigator Fletcher (Hugh Grant).

Fletcher, who is a money-grubbing snoop, brings his findings, not to Big Dave, but to Raymond (Hunnam), Pearson’s consiglieri. Fletcher weaves an intricate tale of not only Pearson’s rise to power, but a potential sale of his network to Matthew Berger, a lovely performance by Matthew Strong and Berger attracts Pearson’s attention with his own philanthropic efforts.

Through the mix between Pearson and Berger are Henry Golding’s delicious turn as the villainous Dry Eye and the attention-seeking plaid-wearing warm up suit crew of Coach played by Colin Farrell, who needs more comedic roles after this one.

Ritchie paints a world full of vindictive people with a lot of wit, some bad timing and just a plain, good time at the movies as we see vengeance work its way through power.

None of the cast tramples over the other as we watch the pieces of a chess match move expertly across the board. The key to each of the characters, outside of Fletcher, who coincidentally reminded me of Irwin Fletcher from the “Fletch” film series, was that they were all calm; no one ever breaks a sweat as each tries to outdo the other in a very orderly way.

The best interactions come as Fletcher briefs Raymond in Raymond’s house. Hunnam, who continues to demonstrate grace under pressure as we’ve seen him in roles such as “Sons of Anarchy,” really rises to the occasion as Fletcher tries to weasel his way into a payday for the information he has. Ritchie gives us a sense that Fletcher thinks he’s in control, which leads to a lot of suggestive innuendo. Raymond will have none of that though.

Ritchie’s characters are the richest part of the film – the story wouldn’t work without them, making each of their respective journeys that much more hilarious.

It has been interesting to watch Matthew McConaughey’s growth as an actor, especially as he creates a persona of high-class society while moving away from the every-man roles he played earlier in his career, something that fits perfectly in to his take on Mickey Pearson. He is very much a gentlemen, but he is always on guard, waiting to pounce at just the right moment. His wife, Rosalind (Michelle Dockery) is just as reviled as the rest of these hilarious miscreants, but she is a perfect match for McConaughey’s Mickey Pearson.

There is a deadly elegance to “The Gentlemen” as the remainder of the story unfolds, supported by Alan Stewart’s muted cinematography, highlighting the grays of England’s overcast sky with the characters sporting colorful clothing. Music is as big a character as the characters themselves.

“The Gentlemen” is as excellent a Guy Ritchie film as we’ve seen from him in the past with richly layered and contextualized characters populating a massive game of chess, fueled not by cannabis, but by brinksmanship and control.

4 out of 4 stars

The Last Full Measure - Movie Review by Jeff Mitchell

Travis Aaron Wade in ‘The Last Full Measure’.

Travis Aaron Wade in ‘The Last Full Measure’.

‘The Last Full Measure’ is full of emotional performances

Written and directed by:  Todd Robinson

Starring:  Sebastian Stan, Samuel L. Jackson, Jeremy Irvine, Christopher Plummer, Ed Harris, Diane Ladd, William Hurt, Amy Madigan, John Savage, Bradley Whitford, and Peter Fonda

“The Last Full Measure” - “The Vietnam War was arguably the most traumatic experience for the United States in the 20th century.” – author Donald M. Goldstein

“There was only one man on the ground that day that would have turned down a ride out of that hellhole – at that man was Pitsenbarger.” – F. David Peters, Charlie Company, 2nd Battalion, 16th Infantry, 1st Infantry Division

The year is 1999.  The tech boom was in full bloom, and so were The Backstreet Boys.  Lance Armstrong won his first Tour de France, and M. Night Shyamalan’s “The Sixth Sense” took the world by storm.  In the United States, it was a time of peace and prosperity, which explains how “I Want It That Way” actually found comfortable space in our pop music lexicon, but let’s not digress.

Generally speaking, war was not on the minds of John and Jane Q. Citizen in the late 90s, but in “The Last Full Measure”, Scott Huffman (Sebastian Stan), a family man with a budding career at the Pentagon, is suddenly asked to revisit a particular Vietnam War battle.

U.S. Air Force Airman 1st Class William H. Pitsenbarger (Jeremy Irvine) died on April 11, 1966 at just 21 years old in a brutal jungle firefight.  While the Viet Cong outnumbered U.S. ground troops - 500 to 134 - William volunteered to be lowered into the deadly skirmish to help his fellow soldiers.  The decision cost him his life, but not before he expedited the rescue of nine men, tended to the wounded, picked up a gun, and fought.

Pitsenbarger’s heroic sacrifice sounds like a Hollywood production, but this is a true story, and rather than solely centering on the actual battle, writer/director Todd Robinson also focuses on William's Medal of Honor (MOH) appeal, 33 years after he died.

Robinson’s script has Huffman traveling across the county and visiting William’s parents Frank (Christopher Plummer) and Alice (Diane Ladd) and several Vietnam vets to learn about their son and fellow veteran, respectively.  Huffman meets veteran after veteran across the country and then periodically finds himself back in D.C.  It’s a tad hard to follow where Huffman is at any time while on the road, but it's easy to see that he's struggling.  Huffman sometimes feels naive and sheepish when speaking to grizzled vets, who each seemingly carry a horrible, internalized brew of guilt, shame, fear, regret, and trauma.

As the veterans recall memories that they’d rather forget, the film repeatedly returns to that fateful 1966 day of chaos, gunfire and explosions, which starkly contrasts with the calm, haunting tones in 1999.  Admittedly, the moments of war don’t cinematically stand out and feel rather thin.  They seem repetitive, and it’s tricky picking out the younger versions of the 1999 vets.  These time warps into the past offer a reference point, but not necessarily a solid foundation, like they should.

Huffman’s fact-finding mission feels mechanical too.  He repeatedly argues with his boss Carlton Stanton (Bradley Whitford), and these disagreements may have occurred in real life, but they seem like a shoehorned plot device.  Although if a producer or director is looking for a corporate or government creep, please note that Whitford is your guy!  He can play those roles blindfolded, and Stanton is effectively bothersome here.

No, the film’s strengths lie with Huffman’s one-one-one interviews with each vet, as a Who’s Who of A-list actors wonderfully grace the screen, including Samuel L. Jackson, William Hurt, Ed Harris, John Savage, and Peter Fonda in his very last film.  Each actor delivers their signature moment, as they and Robinson effectively communicate the haunting horrors of war.  For instance, Ray (Harris) sports a noticeable network of deep facial wrinkles, seemingly carved from torturous memories over the last 30 years, and Takoda (Jackson) regrets 20 seconds in 1966 that he will never get back. 

These impactful conversational-soliloquies reveal genuine feelings about William and the war.  Talk of honor and sacrifice flood the screen and our tear ducts.  All the one-on-one moments hit the right emotional beats and elevate the otherwise dull mechanics getting from here to there, or from past and present.   Whether it’s 1999 or 2020, victims and participants of the most traumatic experience of the 20th century still need attention and care, and “The Last Full Measure” and so many top flight actors answered the call.

(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.

Word Slingers: The Story of Self-Publishing - Movie Review by Ben Cahlamer

Adam Shepard in ‘Word Slingers: The Story of Self-Publishing’

Adam Shepard in ‘Word Slingers: The Story of Self-Publishing’

“Isn’t it amazing what we accomplish when we step outside of our comfort zones?”

Directed by: A. Brooks Bennett

Featuring: Barry Eisler, Giles Anderson (Andy Anderson0, Adam Shepard, Mark Coker, Bella Andre, Rob Hart, Dan Poynter, Ron Pramschufer, Rick Gualtieri

If you’ll allow me a personal anecdote, my experience with the Internet first came in 1994 as a college-bound freshman. The World Wide Web, which is what most ascribe to when they think of the Internet, was about six months off. In the meantime, we had email accounts as students, but I didn’t make much use of that account until my second year. When the likes of Netscape and Internet Explorer first hit campus, I looked with wild-eyed abandon at what was possible, but I didn’t do anything with it.

A Brooks Bennett’s “Word Slingers: The Story of Self-Publishing” brought out the wild-eyed abandon once again, both personally and professionally as he follows two struggling authors respective paths to finding success in a world that wasn’t ready for people to break away from the tightly-held conventions of the publishing world.

The documentary suggests that the age we live in right now, that of the self-publisher is not new. Think of Paul Revere and Benjamin Franklin, two pioneers of the press – machinery, not the people – and with it, the tightly held convictions that limit potential many years later.

Adam Shepard is the first of two subjects that “Word Slingers” focuses on. Adam is a very driven individual, something Brooks latched on to in telling Adam’s journey, who took a year off and traveled the world, the ultimate basis for his novel. Adam is struggling to find the right way to get the book in front of readers.

With Adam, we understand his core values very quickly on, which makes watching his journey unfold all the more difficult, yet rewarding because he recognized his failures and built on them. However, his personal life, that of his émigré wife, Ivana, becomes secondary as they try to legally obtain her Green Card.

Brooks balances the two stories with professionals, like Dan Poynter and Barry Eisler, who have gone through the process and understand the struggle and the impact the Internet has had on commerce today, publishing and competition today.

Giles Anderson, or Andy as he likes to be known is the second subject of “Word Slingers.” His goal is the same as Adam’s, but he is a much more down-to-earth author, with much more realistic expectations out of the process. The subjects his books cover are non-fiction and along with his young family, he seeks more local in-roads and social media awareness as a form of marketing.

“Word Slingers” finds two common grounds in each of Adam’s and Andy’s journeys: the first is that they have a strong support network, even if it causes dissention between them and their respective partners. This builds on the foundation that the professionals expound upon – change is not easy and not everyone wants it, but it is omnipresent.

The second is how we measure success. Adam ultimately finds success in stepping out of his comfort zone, anecdotal evidence that supports my own personal journey. For Andy, it is knowing that his stories are finding an audience; something that he can build on slowly, but surely.

At the end of the day, “Word Slingers” reminds us that success isn’t necessarily a pocketful of money, but of finding oneself through life’s journeys and sharing that with the world.

Adam and Andy are a testament to that ideology.

3.75 out of 4

Citizen K - Movie Review by Ben Cahlamer

Provided by Toronto International Film Festival

Provided by Toronto International Film Festival

Directed by: Alex Gibney

Featuring: Mikhail Khodorkovsky, Anton Drel, Maria Logan, Alexi Navainy, Tatyana Lysova, Leoid Nevzlin, Igor Malashenko

If there was a word to describe Alex Gibney’s “Citizen K,” it would be ‘intoxicating.’

Gibney’s documentary is the expose on Mikhail Khodorkovsky, an exiled enemy of Russia, specifically an enemy of Vladimir Putin and former oligarch to come out of the remains of the Soviet Union.

“Citizen K” is as much an intense geopolitical history lesson as it is a prescient look at how enterprise, government and media intersect one another amidst a power struggle for the hearts and minds of a people torn over the orderly past and a dynamic, but unsure future.

Khodorkovsky is presented as a very humble individual and very much aware of his surroundings. What Khodorkovsky is not is another Edward Snowden. Gibney’s documentary focuses on Khodorkovsky’s rise to prominence having started several businesses in the late 1980s, as he purchases oil fields under the name Yukos, leading to its attempted privatization. Following the collapse of the Soviet Union and Boris Yeltsin’s election as president of the Russian republic in 1991 fueled by a wave of high expectations that free enterprise could give rise to democracy, Khodorkovsky is a man who understands economics and has greed in his genes, leading to his position in the oligarchy.

As a way of implicating Khodorkovsky, “Citizen K” focuses on the collapse of every day citizen lives in Russia as the way in which the oligarchs swept through the State’s primary means of control, threatening livelihoods. Within the context of their efforts, Gibney ties Putin’s rise to Prime Minister, a man who has a way of relating to every kind of ideology while turning his back on his supposed friends and supporters.

With Putin’s ascendance to the presidency, power dynamics shift and Khodorkovsky becomes a target, ultimately landing him in prison for embezzlement and tax evasion. The theatrics of the courtroom are more of a punchline than they should be, but it reinforces just how much of a threat the oligarchs became to Putin as they were either murdered or jailed.

In prison, Khodorkovsky realizes his ability to help people lies not in controlling something, but in rallying the people to see what a monster Putin really is as Putin controls not only the resources that the oligarchs had, but also the media.

In much the same way we are divided over our own leaders, “Citizen K” strives to show just how much power the Russian government has over its own people. It takes the world stage, namely the Sochi Olympic Games for the West to force Putin’s hand in to giving these dissenters amnesty.

Freed, Khodorkovsky lives in London where his Open Russia, an organization dedicated to democracy and human rights in Russia; early in the documentary, he shares that he feels like a guest in London, something that Gibney circles back to when he focuses on the beginnings of Khodorkovsky’s life in exile. The Russian media’s slant against Khodorkovsky and the fact that his early attempts to rally his compatriots is less than ideal because he could not be present in their efforts against Putin are early struggles in building his message.

Whether “Citizen K” paints an accurate picture that his philanthropy is genuine, the tides that changed Khodorkovsky’s fortunes, both financially and personally, Gibney’s documentary rivals a John LeCarre or Tom Clancy novel in its intrigue and timeliness.

3.5 out of 4 stars