An interview with an Animation Supervisor of "Ralph Breaks the Internet" by Ben Cahlamer

We had an opportunity to sit down with Michelle Robinson, one of the animation supervisors on the latest Walt Disney animated film “Ralph Breaks the Internet”.

Character Look Development Supervisor Michelle Robinson and her team were responsible for the texture of the characters and creating hair and fur. We had a chance to discuss the logistics of her role on the film as well as her favorite character. Ms. Robinson has worked on “Pocahontas”, “Bolt”, “Tangled”, “Wreck It Ralph”, and the Academy Award-winning “Frozen”.

PFF: How many staff people worked on your team through the project?

MR: I think when it was the maximum, it was about 12 artists. It ramps up and ramps down.

PFF: How long were you working on the project?

MR: Me personally, a little over two years. Two years and four months.

PFF: By the time you get to the end, it becomes a labor of love. You don’t want to necessarily let it go.

MR: True. There’s so much you pour into it, and you get really, really close to it. It becomes this thing with a really weird, emotional attachment too.

PFF: You’re in a process where you get to see the [character] development from beginning to end and to see the completed project. From your team’s perspective, you deal with the textures, the look and the feel of the characters and you have a framework to start with, is that correct?

MR: We have a model that has essentially been built with some reference from the art department, usually a 2D drawing or sketch. They may pull some fabric swatches or something and say, “This is what we want the clothing to look like.”  We translate that onto the 3D model.

One of the biggest things we do is put on the hair. That’s a really interesting process to go from a drawing to a fully functional hairstyle that then can be passed on and be simmed [simulated], moved, and animated.

PFF: Do you work on the movement of the hair or with the hair itself and create a static base for future artists to use?

MR: We create the static sculpture. We build in an infrastructure that the artists, who do set up the movement, can work with. We work back and forth with them a little. We’ll hand them something and say, “Is this something that will work for you?”

We both need to make sure that it works aesthetically but also functionally so that they can make it move and it won’t get all tangled.

PFF: Very interesting. Were you responsible for any specific characters or did you work on all of them?

MR: My role as a supervisor, I’m going to meetings and making sure that the work gets done. I don’t do a whole lot of work on specific characters, but I did do the shark!

PFF: I’m so glad you said that because that was the one Easter Egg that I picked up in the movie. Were you responsible for that Easter Egg?

MR: No, I wasn’t responsible for that, but I’m glad you enjoyed it.

PFF: The textures are just amazing. There’s a nice dichotomy between the analog and the digital worlds in this film. Did you find that influenced your approach to the way you structured hair or movement or the way your work translated to the characters in either world?

MR: We definitely and specifically thought about the look of the characters who inhabit the Internet. We have different classes of characters, the net users with their square heads that look like monitors and the netizens, who were the service sector with the bright, poppy colors. Those were all decisions made to distinguish them, but also to indicate what their roles are. We didn’t want them to be confused with a game character or player or a human.

PFF: Do you have a favorite character in this movie?

MR:  From a visual standpoint, we made a character, Double Dan who represents a kind of a virus. When we started working with the character, he was described as being made of spam who had been dropped on the floor, so he’s made up of dirt and dust. The process of making a character that’s so unappealing is so much fun, because it’s totally not what we do. We’re all about appeal and cute and beautiful. But that guy? That was really fun!

We had a blast catching up with Michelle Robinson. Walt Disney’s “Ralph Breaks the Internet” opens on Wednesday, Nov. 21.

An interview with the team behind Instant Family by Jeff Mitchell

Writer/director Sean Anders and writer John Morris have penned plenty of comedies like “Hot Tub Time Machine” (2010), “We’re the Millers” (2013) and “Horrible Bosses 2” (2014), but they strike a different tone with “Instant Family” starring Mark Wahlberg and Rose Byrne.  Pete (Wahlberg) and Ellie (Byrne) decide to adopt three children in Anders’ most family-friendly film to date.  This is also a personal movie for Anders, because he and his wife adopted three kids. 

Sean and John sat down with the Phoenix Film Festival and other movie outlets in a group interview to chat about foster care, incorporating real-life experiences into the script and much more!

“Instant Family” arrives in theatres on Friday, Nov. 16. 

Q:  How did you sell your movie to Mark Wahlberg? 

SA:  Obviously, we know Mark from the “Daddy’s Home” (2015, 2017) movies, but (he) gets 15 offers a day.  This movie has a different tone.  I wasn’t sure, if he would do it or not, (but) I sent him an email.  The next morning, I (drove) my kids to flag football, we (arrived) early and nobody was there.  We (sat) in an empty parking lot, and Mark calls, so I jump out of the car.

He immediately says, “Hey, I got your email, and I just wanted to call and say, ‘Yes!’”

It was amazing.  That doesn’t happen.  Movie stars don’t call you and say, “Yes!”  They call and say, “Oh, it sounds like a really great project.  We should talk about it.”  He started talking to me about (foster care children) that he met over the years, and it was (a subject) that really mattered to him.  I’m so excited, because Mark Wahlberg is doing (the) movie.  Now, (I) got a movie!

My kids asked, “What?  What happened?” 

I said, “Mark Wahlberg is going to do the adoption movie!”

They (responded), “Yea!!!  Who’s Mark Wahlberg?”

(Then), my wife calls and says, “You know that flag football is tomorrow, right?” 

So, I drove to an empty parking lot, got a “yes” from Mark Wahlberg and drove home.

Q:  This movie is more personal than your others.  How did the creative process differ, when you are taking stories from your own life?

JM:  We spent like two years writing it.  Sean adopted the children, and he would tell me stories about the (adoption) process and everyday things that would happen to the kids.  We then sat down to write the film, and I remembered (those stories).  We rehashed all (those moments), and they wound up in the script.

SA:  There was a long research process as well, because we met with social workers and other families.  It is a fictional tale inspired by my own story, but also inspired by (other) families that we met along the way. 

It was the same process as “Hot Tub Time Machine” (2010), a really personal, well-researched (project).  You know, I really wanted (the studio) to release (that film) as “Hot Tub Time Machine - Based on the Incredible True Story”, but they wouldn’t do it.

Q:  The movie mentions that 500,000 kids are in foster care today.  Do you hope that your film will shine a light on foster care and contribute in some way?

SA:  Absolutely.  Foster kids are like any other kids.  They need families who have love to give.  I really hope that people (will) come away from the movie with a better depiction of who these kids are.  There have been great movies about foster care, but they tend to reinforce negative ideas about kids in the system.  I’m hoping (to shed) a more positive light on foster kids, and by the way, it’s honest positivity.  My story and the stories of other families who I met - even the ones who have gone through some really rough times - have wonderful, heartfelt, sweet stories to tell.

Q:  Rose and Mark thrive in dramas and comedies.  Were there specific moments during the shoot that you really enjoyed?

SA:  All of it.  Rose was amazing from the beginning.  Mark and Rose haven’t worked together, and we never worked with (her).  In the first scene, Ellie (Byrne) looks at (foster) kids on a website and proposes the idea (of adoption) to Pete (Wahlberg).  It was an emotional, but funny scene.  In the middle of our very first take, I could hear the crew whispering how good Mark and Rose are together.  Everybody instantly knew that they had really good chemistry.

Q:  The film highlights a lot of positives about adoption, so John, did you think about becoming a foster parent after working on this film?

SA:  You’ve adopted what, 26 kids now?

JM:  I have a teenager, and I thought about giving him up for adoption.  It’s funny, when Sean brought up (the idea of adoption), I told him that kids are kids.  Mine are loud, and they’re sticky, and they’re going to break your s***.   If you can deal with that, then you can have kids.  You can have three kids, and it will be fine, but no, I haven’t adopted yet. 

SA:  By the way,  I can deal with everything but sticky.  Loud?  Breaking?  That’s fine.  Sticky?  I don’t tolerate sticky.

Q:  Is “Instant Family” the modern nuclear family?  

SA:  I don’t think there is a modern nuclear family.  Family is changing in so many different ways.  I can speak from my own experience.  I met my kids in about the most random way possible with just a phone call.  Within weeks, they were in my house.  I was supposed to be their dad, and they were supposed to be my kids.  You would think that cannot be a recipe for a family, (but) I love my kids like crazy.  They are such great kids! 

Many (children grow) up without families and some of the basics that we all take for granted, (so) I really hope that more and more people explore adoption, because, at least in my own experience, it was a wonderful way to start a family.     

Q:  You have directed four rated-R films, and “Instant Family” is your third PG-13 film, your most family-friendly movie to date.  Will you continue in this direction, or is “Horrible Bosses 3” on the horizon?

SA:  We really don’t think in terms of ratings.  John and I both have families.  Our lives are wrapped up in our kids and our day-to-day, so I think that those kinds of stories really interest us.  We are just in that part of our lives. 

JM:  NC-17.

SA:  Yea, straight up NC-17. 

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

Overlord - Movie Review by Monte Yazzie

Overlord

Director: Julius Avery

Starring: Jovan Adepo, Wyatt Russell, Mathilde Ollivier, Pilou Asbaek, and John Magaro

A convoy of American war ships and transport planes are traveling on the sea and through the sky with Germany in its sights. It’s the night before D-Day, a billowing cloud of smoke erupts with explosions that illuminate the sky as combat planes fad into the abyss of artillery clouds. A group of soldiers, fresh out of boot camp, nervously wait for their call to parachute into battle. In a blink, bullets riddle the airplane and chaos overtakes the company. The adrenaline fueled, absolutely terrifying, chaos of war.

Director Julius Avery and writing team Billy Ray and Mark L. Smith introduce their crossover genre film “Overlord” with an emphasis on real life atrocities and the terror of combat. However, the team also isn’t too concerned with making a full-blown war film but rather focus their attention on crafting a fright fest. “Overlord” utilizes many of the awful aspects of war to make its point about monsters; the captivity, the torture, and the maniacal control make perfect sense when crossing paths with horror.

Boyce (Jovan Adepo) and Ford (Wyatt Russell) are two paratroopers who survive the fall to earth after their plane is destroyed over the combat zone. Their mission is to take down a Nazi controlled radio tower that sits atop a hill outside a nearby village. Boyce, trying to connect with other members of his platoon, gets forced into the radio tower station which is completely occupied by Nazi soldiers. Boyce discovers a laboratory beneath the tower where a scientist is conducting terrifying experiments on locals from the village and captured soldiers.

“Overlord”, amidst some nasty bits of human experimentation, torture, and assault, is operating to induce the same sensation one might feel while playing an intense round of team deathmatch in a multiplayer first-person video game. And, unfortunately, just like the sporadic and fleeting nature of video game shooters, the thrill is short lived. That’s the major issue with “Overlord”, it seldom commits towards embracing the frenetic and frightening pace it achieves in very small doses, specifically the first and final 15 minutes of the film which are fantastic. It lingers in moments of needless exposition and meaningless side missions, these moments undercut the thrill achieved in the introduction and take away from the building excitement of entering a madhouse of horror.

However, when the film unleashes into action sequences, with all of its monster mayhem and breakneck brutality, the film is an absolute crowd pleaser. The intensity of the terror, when it pushes into this realm, is such a good time. It feels like your favorite video game with the gun fights, the exploration and finding of clues inside different environments, and the stalking through dingy tunnels and darkened hiding places. While this technique doesn’t allow for the best character development, there are still a few highlighted performances specifically from lead Jovan Adepo who controls the balance of showing humanity versus turning into the monsters he is fighting. Also, Mathilde Ollivier, playing a French freedom fighter, does a nice job wielding a flame thrower and showing the soldiers she can fight just like them.

“Overlord” struggles in finding the path and tone it wants to take, combining the war and horror genre was the best choice here because neither story in this film was strong enough to exist on their own. Still, there are many genre film fans who will find the nearly 2-hour experience entertaining because of its commitment to punishing war violence and gory monsters.

Monte’s Rating

3.00 out of 5.00

Boy Erased - Movie Review by Monte Yazzie

Boy Erased

Director: Joel Edgerton

Starring: Lucas Hedges, Russell Crowe, Nicole Kidman, Madelyn Cline, and Joel Edgerton

For many of us, the correlation of “erasing” something is in direct reference to righting a mistake, correcting something that didn’t turn out how we perceived. “Boy Erased” is a film exactly about that, though in a far more horrific and inhumane way. What is being “erased” in this film isn’t a mistake on an art project or a misspelled word on a hand-written letter, it’s the identity of a young man who is struggling with his sexuality and the conflicts it has on his faith. The people doing the “erasing” are his parents through a conversion therapy program. “Boy Erased” is a horror film in the most reality driven way.

Jared Eamons (Lucas Hedges) is a college student with loving parents who have supported him in every aspect of life. His father Marshall (Russell Crowe) is a car dealership owner and a minister in the local church, his mother Nancy (Nicole Kidman) is a proud wife and even prouder mother. Jared, trying desperately to keep his secret, is forced to come out to his parents. They are not receptive and through guidance from members of their church Jared is sent to the “Love in Action” program, a conversion therapy program.

The film is based on the memoir of Garrard Conley and adapted for the screen by Joel Edgerton who also directs and stars in this film. Mr. Edgerton, who proved his skill behind the camera with the 2015 thriller “The Gift”, shapes “Boy Erased” with a jumping narrative that switches from the past into the present. It helps in quickly establishing the key moments that lead to Jared’s stay at “Love in Action”. Unfortunate , here also lies the problem with the film. The aspects of the past that are explored during the film are so neatly packaged that its easy to lose sight of the complications that would exist with a family so committed to their faith that they lose sight of their own son’s physical and mental well-being. Lost is the emotional conflict for the family who aren’t necessarily bad people, Nancy has a few moments of doubt, as they are being guided by the structure and views of their faith and other people who have no connection to Jared.

Still, the performances are what transcend the simplistic designs of the character and narrative. Lucas Hedges does a great job of displaying the concerns that exist with his decision of embracing his feelings and committing to a wayward treatment for the comfort of his family structure. Russell Crowe and Nicole Kidman are equally good too; Mr. Crowe offers a convincingly staunch approach to the portrayal and Ms. Kidman does a great job of being the compassionate mother who is skeptical of the entire process but is bound to the hierarchy that exists within her religious foundation. Joel Edgerton plays the leader of the therapy center, it’s a character who epitomizes the hatred that exists with those who are unwilling to accept people regardless of their differences.

“Boy Erased” has some truly disturbing and troubling moments, a scene of sexual assault and the abandonment seen in Jared’s eyes when he reveals his feelings to his family are completely heartrending. Joel Edgerton never tries to sensationalize the drama during this film, instead, the director quietly guides the viewer into the situation and diverts from the perils that may exist along the way. The film makes a point about the terrible things that happen every day in America, both inside terror facilities like conversion therapy clinics but also the misfortune that enters the home with parents and friends who are unaccepting of the feelings and emotions of others. While the narrative could have pushed for more insight and observation of Jared and his family’s journey, the effort being presented in “Boy Erased” is well-intentioned. Sometimes you don’t need ghosts or masked killers to bring horror to life, sometimes reality is all the monster you need.

Monte’s Rating

3.25 out of 5.00

Maria by Callas - Movie Review by Jeff Mitchell

‘Maria by Callas’ bursts with authentic celebration and heartbreak

Directed by:  Tom Volf

Starring:  Maria Callas and Joyce DiDonato

“Maria by Callas” – “There are two people in me.  I would like to be Maria, but there is the Callas that I have to live up to.” – Maria Callas, 1970

Before Beyonce, Mariah Carey and Madonna, there was Maria Callas.  Callas, who passed away in 1977, is considered one of the best, if not the premier, opera singers of the 20th century, and with her larger than life persona and massive talent, she was also known as La Divina. 

Director Tom Volf’s directorial debut is nothing short of divine, as his documentary embraces this legendary soprano’s life.  As one would expect, the film is packed with Callas’ performances, interviews, b-roll clips, and photos, and is filled with her own words.  Opera singer Joyce DiDonato narrates the picture by referencing and reading Callas’ memoirs and letters.  Quite frankly, DiDonato and Callas sound nearly identical, so the film feels like La Divina directly collaborated with Volf from behind the grave throughout the 1-hour 53-minute runtime.  

For those who cherished her career during the 1940’s, 50’s and 60’s, but had little insight into her personal life, “Maria by Callas” shines a bright light into her vulnerabilities, thoughts, dreams, loves (including her relationship with Aristotle Onanais), and the price of fame.  For newcomers, Volf’s doc is a rich and layered invitation to explore. 

An intimate portrait through and through, the picture is framed with a highly-revealing David Frost 1970 interview. 

Volf begins his film with a portion of this television interview and frequently returns to it about every 20 minutes.  Here, Callas opens up and is devastatingly frank.  She offers countless examples of her clarity on her own youth and reveals an undertow of sadness due to her highly visible vocation gobbling up any sense of a normal, healthy personal life.  A trade-off, but not always a happy one, especially when she was pushed into opera at a young age.  In some ways, she felt trapped.

“Destiny is destiny.  There’s no way out,” she says.

Callas is very open and forthright, like she was speaking to her best friend, but with absolute grace and professionalism.   As fascinating as the contents of the Frost-Callas discussion are, it is substantially more remarkable that Volf has the televised conversation in the first place. 

During a 2018 Toronto International Film Festival Q&A, he explains, “It actually aired only once in 1970.  It was not recorded (by the station).  It was not preserved, so there was not even a trace of it…(but) one of her friends preserved it in the way (that) they did back in the day.  He actually filmed the television with his Super 8 camera, and he had a real tape recorder for the sound, because of course, super 8 cameras don’t have sound recording.”

DiDonato’s narration, of course, is infinitely important to the film, but Frost’s conversation with Maria is the film’s launching pad and foundation.  Whenever the movie swings into her remarkable bel canto or verismo performances, joyous triumphs or occasional troubles (like the infamous 1958 Rome concert), Volf then refers back to the aforementioned interview.

In addition to admissions and heartbreaks, Volf’s picture bursts with lengthy on-stage moments - including her return to New York City - and enormous swathes of adoration from her fans from all over the planet.  “Maria by Callas” is a cherished treasure, and a personal and global look at this landmark figure, which indeed offers both sides, Maria and Callas. 

(3.5/4 stars)

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

The Girl in the Spider's Web - Movie Review by Ben Cahlamer

The Girl in the Spider’s Web

Directed by Fede Alvarez

Screenplay by Jay Basu, Fede Alvarez and Steven Knight

Based on “The Girl in the Spider’s Web” by David Lagercrantz

Characters by Stieg Larsson

Starring Claire Foy, Sverrir Gudnason, Lakieth Stanfield, Sylvia Hoeks, Stephen Merchant, Vicky Krieps, Christopher Convery

As Fede Alvarez’s “The Girl in the Spider’s Web” opened, I was struck with a bleak tone. Realizing that it was intentional, I accepted the stark reality that espionage stories are not nearly as important as they once were. Part of that is rendered moot by the fact that most government level terrorist acts are done via the internet and not through traditional, physical means.

Featuring characters from the Swedish novel and film series, and the David Fincher film, comes the latest film to use Stieg Larsson’s characters. The novel on which Alvarez, Jay Basu and Steven Knight based their screenplay was written by David Lagercrantz, is a globetrotting espionage type thriller involving dramatic locations, stunning set pieces, over-the-top stunts, exotic cars and a lot of coercion.

Why, then, did I feel like this film was a letdown?

It wasn’t for the acting. Claire Foy makes for a strong Lisabeth Salander, a hacker who it turns out has a morality complex. In Larsson’s novels and their adapted films, Salander is a bystander in her own story as journalist Mikael Blomqvist (Sverrir Gudnason) puts the pieces of her puzzle together in a journalistic investigation. Here, Blomqvist is a secondary character.

That’s a critical distinction because her sister Camilla (Sylvia Hoeks) is a very, very devious woman. She’s the head of an international cartel on the hunt for a government security program and its programmer, Frans Balder (Stephen Merchant). This in turn attracts the attention of the NSA, specifically Edwin Neeham (Lakieth Stanfield in his second role this year).

If the acting wasn’t the issue, what was it?

The biggest hurdle was that this was Lisabeth Salander’s story, or at least it was told from her point of view. Larsson’s stories, even David Fincher’s film worked better because the story is told from Blomqvist’s vantage point. This allows Lisabeth’s story to fit the Me Too movement; it’s relatable.

Before you squash my commentary, I don’t think it’s a bad thing that they took this approach. I just don’t think it works for this set of characters. The bleak, melancholy theme renders the dramatic tension bland.

Alvarez and his cinematographer Pedro Luque make up for the melancholic with the sensual and sexual. There’s lots of leather (why is it that hackers must always wear skin tight leather clothing?!), there are fast cars. There’s even a brilliantly executed motorcycle chase, which ends on a frozen lake, complete with an abandoned observatory, a la “Chain Reaction.”

Alvarez has the right instincts for a big, epic film such as “The Girl in the Spider’s Web” because he had a strong lead. I couldn’t help but think about Martin Campbell’s “GoldenEye,” the first Pierce Brosnan – era James Bond film, mainly because our heroine must face herself. The distinction is that Salander is really an anti-hero, and in that regard her character, here, isn’t strong enough to play that role because the stakes weren’t high enough.

“That’s the trouble with the world today; no one takes the time to do a really sinister interrogation any more. It’s a lost art.” In spite of its bleakness, “The Girl in the Spider’s Web” does find the art of the interrogation quite splendidly. I just wish the film made better use of its time getting to that point.

1.5 out of 4 stars

Burning - Movie Review by Jeff Mitchell

‘Burning’ sparks unconventional mysteries

Directed by:  Chang-dong Lee

Written by:  Chang-dong Lee and Jungmi Oh

Starring:  Ah-In Yoo, Jong-seo Jeon and Steven Yeun

“Burning” – Director Chang-dong Lee’s picture – which is South Korea’s Best Foreign Language Film Oscar entry – is about haves and have-nots, belief and uncertainty, clear direction and lack of focus, urban abundance and rural frugality, and romance and unrequited love.

Lee Jong-su (Ah-In Yoo) accounts for half of these opposing forces, as this young man – about 20 years-old – unfortunately, does not seem to have many answers in the game of life.

“To me, the world is a mystery,” Jong-su says.

He hopes to be a writer but does not truly devote any time to his craft.  Instead, he fills his days with working random jobs and worrying about his father who might be sentenced to prison.  Jong-su does not have a purpose or mentor to help blaze a path, but his perpetually hapless condition finds a sudden burst of optimism, when he crosses paths with an old friend Shin Hae-mi (Jong-seo Jeon).  She’s a beautiful free spirit, who could catch the eye of any man between the ages of 17 and 97, but – at this moment – she only gazes at him.  Despite her eccentricities - or perhaps, because of them – he develops some clarity, but the film throws Jong-su a curve ball, when Ben (Steven Yeun) suddenly steps into Hae-mi’s world, and naturally, his as well.

With a runtime of 2 hours and 28 minutes, the picture consumes intriguing stretches to establish Jong-su’s current spheres by breathing in both Seoul and his small hometown of Paju.  While in the city, he attempts to navigate within his comfort zones (which are only a few feet at a time), but exploring places like a casual restaurant, Hae-mi’s apartment and Ben’s condominium are brand new encounters with unexpected results. 

For instance, Hae-mi asks him to feed her cat while she is out of the country, but – for some reason - he cannot find her pet in the tiny apartment.  How can that be?  

In another example, Ben always carries a confident swagger and a seemingly endless supply of money, but does not spend a moment actually working or explaining his chosen profession.  He boasts that he never sheds tears and usually conducts every minute of his carefree days by shrugging his shoulders and smiling about his gilded existence.  How is Ben so untroubled? 

Also, while walking through his father’s home in Paju, Jong-su gazes at old photographs, but they don’t bring any resemblance to his dad’s present-day circumstances.  How did his father’s solid yesterday result in such a makeshift-today?

These are mysteries. 

Chang-dong Lee’s and writer Jungmi Oh’s winding narrative will hopefully provide resolutions; however, they purposely don’t make it easy for us.  Jong-su sees Ben’s combined financial freedom, social network and confidence as an intimidating corner of this newly-formed love triangle and salvaging a relationship with Hae-mi feels increasingly unattainable.  There is an unknown key to Jong-su’s eternal bliss, but he doesn’t immediately possess the tools to find it or know where to look.   

Although we can, perhaps, dismiss Jong-su’s bewilderments as simple circumstances of the world’s order in 2018, the film takes a specific slow-moving, head-scratching turn that places our lead protagonist and us into a state of confusion, in which abandoned greenhouses are the explicit points of contention.

Like walking 20 minutes late into a class lecture, “Burning” stokes a burning need catch up to the filmmakers, and hence, clinging to Jong-su is our only hope for answers, but remember, to him, the world is a mystery.

(3.5/4 stars)

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

The Grinch - Movie Review by Ben Cahlamer

The Grinch

Directed by Scott Mosier and Yarrow Cheney

Screenplay by Michael LeSeur and Tommy Swerdlow

Based on “How the Grinch Stole Christmas” by Dr. Seuss

Starring: Benedict Cumberbatch, Rashida Jones, Kenan Thompson, Cameron Seely, Angela Lansbury

Narrated by Pharrell Williams

I loved early December when I was a kid. Thanksgiving had just passed, Christmas was on the horizon and my favorite holiday cartoons would pop on the television. I remember seeing Dr. Seuss’s “How the Grinch Stole Christmas,” the inspiration for Illumination’s latest animated feast, “The Grinch,” in theaters this weekend.

That animated feature that I enjoyed as a kid has been recounted numerous times. From what I’m told, I’ve been fortunate to have missed the other versions, so why did I feel the need to revisit a modern retelling of a classic? In a word, I am enthralled by Illumination’s animation. “The Grinch” is perhaps the most photo-realistic animated film I’ve seen this year, right down to the fibers on Max, the Grinch’s trusted canine companion.

Scott Mosier and Yarrow Cheney direct this third adaptation of the classic story of a mean-spirited individual who has the hair brained idea to steal Christmas from the Whos of Whoville. The Whos are a community who celebrates the best meaning of Christmas. Benedict Cumberbatch voices the Grinch. Cumberbatch brings a cynical menace to the Grinch’s voice that detracts from the character’s meaning to the film while Rashida Jones voices Donna Lou Who, an overworked single mom. She has two kids, but her pride and joy is Cindy Lou Who, voiced by Cameron Seely.

Cindy Lou has one wish and she spends much of this “Grinch” trying to find a way to get to Santa in order to tell him her one wish. On the other side, is the Grinch, who we come to learn a little bit more about the basis of his contempt for Christmas. Keenan Thompson voices Bricklebaum, a jolly citizen of Whoville who embodies the Christmas spirit, a la Clark Griswold. A nice surprise was the beloved voice of Angela Lansbury as the voice of Mayor McGerkle. Though her role is small, it was a nice touch.

As much as I love his music, Pharrell Williams’ narration was the most disappointing aspect of the film. His narration was monotone, less dramatic than say a John Houseman or a Boris Karloff. I suspect that the tradeoff was made here to modernize the story telling and to allow the Grinch character to be more sinister than evil.

Michael LeSeur (“You, Me and DuPree,” “Keeping Up with the Joneses”) and Tommy Swerdlow (“Straw Dogs,” “Little Giants”) do a very capable job with modernizing this classic, but that’s where the story really stops. Within the modernization is a rather simplistic story with a well-meaning message that gets wrapped up rather conveniently.

One of my biggest concerns with Illumination is that they pattern their nefarious characters off of their one, inimitable creation: Gru (“Despicable Me”) and that the Grinch would follow the same pattern, and it does exactly that. Children have a way of tugging at our heartstrings, even if our heart is a lump of coal. But, that doesn’t mean that every single film has to follow the same pattern, even if that’s what modern audiences want.

Modernizing a classic is as much about finding a new audience as it is about keeping that classic theme relevant. Where the Grinch was an ogre to the eight year old me, this Grinch might be the same to an eight-year old today.

This version of “The Grinch” probably won’t be talked about 20 years from now, which is a shame because it’s a beautiful film to look at even if the characters are flat.

1.5 out of 4

Suspiria - Movie Review by Monte Yazzie

Suspiria

Director: Luca Guadagnino

Starring: Dakota Johnson, Tilda Swinton, Mia Goth, Chloë Grace Moretz, and Angela Winkler

The way one discovers a film is important. Some films can transfer from simple moving pictures into some kind of transportive experience, where you will remember everything that contributed to the event and its effectiveness. Dario Argento’s horror masterwork “Suspiria” is one of those films. For me it was a 35mm print that was slightly distressed inside a theater with sticky floors and stale popcorn. It was an experience that I would never forget.

In today’s film world no film is sacred enough to be kept from being remade or reimagined, even a film as well-regarded in the horror community like Argento’s “Suspiria”. Also, when you mention a film during first encounters with cinephiles as holding a place on your cinematic handshake, as I do, it’s impossible not to have speculations or expectations attached. Director Luca Guadagnino, who last helmed the impressive drama “Call Me by Your Name”, takes on the daunting task of remaking  Argento’s film and transforms it into a wholly individual artistic expression that is equally beautiful as it is completely brutal.

Susie Bannion (Dakota Johnson) is an aspiring dancer from America who arrives unexpectedly and uninvited to the Helena Markos Dance Company in West Berlin. Provided the opportunity to showcase her talent, Susie dazzles Madame Blanc (Tilda Swinton) and is summoned to attend the prestigious school. Amidst the all female dance troupe, Susie begins to experience strange occurrences, ones that overtake her when she performs.

Mr. Guadagnino is known for meticulously crafting the elements in his films; from the boisterous emotional content, to the beautifully designed environments, and the luscious locales that richly compose the backdrops, the director understands how to arrange captivating frames and characters you can’t help but get attached to. All of these facets are present in “Suspiria” as well, the film is gorgeously composed on all technical levels. The photography zooms and whips across and through the dance school’s staircases and studios while lingering in disheveled streets and vacant lots in Germany. The construction of the dance facility is a maze of hallways and mirrors swathed with gothic fascinations, an oddly ornamented room or the darkened corners of a hidden dungeon are equally unsettling. The score from composer Thom Yorke is mesmerizing, a mix of ambiance and vocal work that blends nicely into the chaos of it all.

Tilda Swinton, who has worked with the director quite a few times, is fantastic in numerous roles here. Ms. Swinton’s versatility is exceptional, the actress can do anything, even taking on the primary male performance in prosthetic makeup. Dakota Johnson is also good, playing naïve with a wild-eyed charm but also completely determined to the extent of seeming obsessive. It works for the progression of the character who discovers new things about herself, awoken amidst the witchcraft of the dance she is performing.

The aspect of history is the only, minor, misstep in the film. The script, written by David Kajganich, composes a backdrop in Germany that features 1970’s political upheaval featuring riots, violence, kidnappings and mentions of the Baader-Meinhof group and also the Holocaust. There’s a lot going on beyond the story of evil deeds in a dance school. Whether commentary to discuss the role and abuse of women during times of political dissonance, or how fear induces emotional change over the course of continued trauma, or simply a backdrop to keep 1972 Berlin relevant amidst the chaos of devilish dances and evil enchantments, the writer and director are clearly alluding to some kind of connection.

Still, Luca Guadagnino’s “Suspiria” is absolutely entrancing and hypnotizing. The design elements are stunning and the performances are impressive. The film remarkably transitions between arthouse compositions and grindhouse exploitations, the ballet of blood and brutality is off the charts at times. This re-envisioned take on Argento’s classic stands confidently on its own designs.

Monte’s Rating

4.50 out of 5.00

Bohemian Rhapsody - Movie Review by Ben Cahlamer

Bohemian Rhapsody

Directed by Bryan Singer

Story by Anthony McCarten and Peter Morgan, Screenplay by Anthony McCarten

Starring Rami Malek, Lucy Boynton, Gwylim Lee, Ben Hardy, Joseph Mazzello, Aiden Gillen, Tom Hollander, Mike Myers

I was first introduced to the rock group Queen through their theme song for the 1980 film, Flash Gordon. I fell for their style, the music flowed to its own rhythm, a rhapsody if you will. By that definition, it was enthusiastic about its protagonist, someone who was out to be humanity’s savior. My older brother introduced me to more of their music on a road trip. Bicycle Race was the song that stuck with me. Little did I know that I had already heard their anthem We Are the Champions when I saw Revenge of the Nerds at a young age.

All of this formed my impression of a group of musicians who didn’t sound like they belonged playing together, yet they made music that anyone could relate to. They had a distinctive style all their own.

But, it was nothing without lead singer, Freddie Mercury (Rami Malek). Or so his biopic, Bohemian Rhapsody tells us. Freddie, who died due to complications from AIDS, was as much as showman as he was an artist. He was a recluse; someone who fought his own identity despite the fact that everyone around him knew that he was gay.

The story, by Anthony McCarten and Peter Morgan, screenplay by McCarten paints a picture of someone who was uncomfortable in his own skin, but once the music started, he found himself. This is the main theme that director Bryan Singer explored.

Malek, in a word, is breathtaking as Mercury. The Mr. Robot actor is known for his shyness. In Rhapsody he makes bohemian sheikh. Reportedly, he spent a great deal of time prepping for the role by watching Mercury’s performances, mimicking his movements with his on stage theatrics and flamboyance.

The background details, that of the formation of Queen, its associated rise, fall and rise again were aided by surviving band members Brian May (Gwylim Lee) and Roger Taylor (Ben Hardy.) A good portion of the film is dedicated to the creation of several songs written either by Mercury or jointly with other members of the group.

Mike Myers, who should get a supporting nomination is a foundation for the shape and direction, or lack thereof of Queen in his role as Ray Foster, an EMI executive. There’s a scene in his lavish office in which Queen and he argue the merits of putting Bohemian Rhapsody out as a single. The argument is that the six minute length song won’t get air time because it’s too long. Myers relished in the role and we relish seeing him on the screen.

Although these details never really detract from Mercury’s story, it doesn’t leave a great deal of room to focus on Mercury as a person. For a biopic, he was the front man of a musical movement. Other than his family life and his relationship with Mary Austin (Lucy Boynton), the nerve of the film was Queen. Ms. Boynton was a strong choice to play Mary Austin, someone who had to put up with Mercury’s idiosyncrasies. There’s a scene where they are in their respective homes, Mercury phones her to invite her over for a drink and they woo each other over the phone. It’s a cute scene, which is filmed with a good deal of affection.

There are lose threads within the story about the destructive nature of his dependence on alcohol and drugs, something that’s fueled by Paul Prenter (Allen Leach). The story treats Prenter’s relationship with Mercury as having some great importance, but in reality, the relationship was just a blip. The sequence in the German rental home, which serves as Mercury’s return to reality is perhaps the best dramatic moment in the film. I was not keen on Mr. Leach’s performance because the character required someone to be a vile man, someone who could truly cut Mercury off from the rest of the world. Rather, that sequence turns out to be Ms. Boynton’s finest hour.

Singer’s direction, and reportedly his editing, focuses on the rise, fall and rise of Queen that it doesn’t leave much time in the 134 minute run time to speak to Mercury’s contraction of AIDS or of his later relationship with Jim Hutton (Aaron McCusker). I am glad that the filmmakers chose to not use his illness in a certain way, making the scene where he breaks the news to his mates, his family, much more poignant. In spite of this, it still feels secondary to the 1985 Live Aid performance at Wembley Stadium.

That’s what’s the most troublesome. This could have, and should have been a much better film about Freddy Mercury. Instead, the troubled production which reportedly churned for over 12 years, is more about Queen. That’s not necessarily a bad thing. Malek really is the star of the film. He makes us forget that there were problems or that there was another version, which we will never see, sadly.

Fans of Queen will find much to like with Bohemian Rhapsody. It has a troubling style all its own. Queen always was for the people and so is Bryan Singer’s film, for better or worse.

2.25 out of 4 stars

The Nutcracker and the Four Realms - Movie Review by Jeff Mitchell

‘The Nutcracker and the Four Realms’ is not as fun as it looks

Directed by:  Lasse Hallstrom and Joe Johnston

Written by:  Ashleigh Powell, based on E.T.A. Hoffman’s novella

Starring:  Mackenzie Foy, Keira Knightley, Helen Mirren, and Morgan Freeman

“The Nutcracker and the Four Realms” – Santa Claus at the nearest shopping mall, big-box store sales, holiday music, and television broadcasts of “It’s a Wonderful Life” (1946) and “A Christmas Story” (1983). 

These are sure things that one can expect at Christmastime each year, and add ballet productions of “The Nutcracker” to this exclusive holiday list.  In fact, Phoenix’s Symphony Hall will host “The Nutcracker” performances beginning on Dec. 13. 

Get your tickets!

On Nov. 2, one can also purchase movie tickets to “The Nutcracker and the Four Realms”, a new adventure based on the concepts of E.T.A. Hoffman’s novella “The Nutcracker and the Mouse King.”  Visually, this holiday movie-present splashes its actors, actresses and dozens of extras with dazzling, whimsical costumes and drops these thespians into alchemy-driven fantasy worlds, but the film is like a beautifully-wrapped gift that contains three pairs of white socks. 

To be frank, it’s a bit forgettable.

Clara (Mackenzie Foy), however, is not forgetting her mother at Christmastime.  This teenager – who is a part-time inventor, as evidenced by her Rube Goldberg contraption within the film’s first few minutes - is in deep mourning, because her mom recently passed away.  Her brother Fritz (Tom Sweet), sister Louise (Ellie Bamber) and father (Matthew Macfadyen) share her sorrow, but they attempt to pick up their spirits and embrace the holidays at a nearby party.  It is there, when Clara visits her godfather Drosselmeyer (Morgan Freeman) and asks for a key to open an ornamental egg, a gift from her mother from beyond the grave.  He offers more than that and sends Clara on a journey – ala “Alice in Wonderland” (1951) and “The Wizard of Oz” (1939) – to The Four Realms, which begins in the Christmas Tree Forest. 

Directors Lasse Hallstrom (“What’s Eating Gilbert Grape” (1993), “The Cider House Rules” (1999)) and Joe Johnston (“Captain America: The First Avenger” (2011)) chaperon Clara on an Alice-like or Dorothy-like adventure, where she encounters a nutcracker soldier named Phillip (Jayden Fowora-Knight) and The Sugar Plum Fairy or Sugar Plum for short (Keira Knightley).  There is no Mouse King exactly, but hundreds of mice stack themselves together to construct a giant replica that moves like a wavy rodent abomination, and various other Four Realms characters hope that Clara – who again, is an inventor - can save their world.

Apparently, the missing key is the key to everything, as the narrative plods along with a series of happy accidents.  Clara pushes for self-discovery, bumps into disturbing clowns who look like Pennywise’s first cousins and listens to Sugar Plum’s complaints about a war.  The Four Realms – with its flowery, sugary and snowy landscapes – does not really seem like a battle-weary place, so it’s difficult to feel sympathy for its residents. 

Is this world really in danger?  This particular critic wasn’t stressed out.

Meanwhile, Clara and Phillip loiter in a palace that best resembles Saint Basil’s Cathedral, confront someone called Mother Ginger (Helen Mirren) and our heroine slips down a rabbit hole, err, a mouse hole, but these steps are just cold mechanics that lack any sense of joy. 

A few song and dance numbers would have livened things up and could have turned this dull excursion into a fun sing-along like “Labyrinth” (1986).  No such luck.  This isn’t a musical. Other than a three-minute ballet sequence with Misty Copeland and some random, scant moments of the nostalgic chords, the classic music is mostly absent.

“The Nutcracker and the Four Realms” is not a terrible movie, but its presentation and execution feel misguided.  The written and spoken tones are as wooden as a nutcracker soldier and do not come close to matching the picture’s visual eccentricities, with only one exception.  Knightley – far and away – is the most compelling character in the movie.  Her hypnotic take on Sugar Plum has a look of Marie Antoinette caught in a cotton candy bin coupled with a high-pitched voice that approaches a mash-up of Glinda the Good Witch and the prostitute who sang “Duke of Earl” to Dr. Michael Hfuhruhurr (Steve Martin) in “The Man with Two Brains” (1983).

Sure, it’s a random comparison, but Knightley is that memorable.  The rest of the film?  Well, it should receive Oscar considerations for Costume and Production Designs, but overall, the annual ballet is a better holiday choice.  How much are tickets?

(2/4 stars)

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

Wildlife - Movie Review by Jeff Mitchell

Mulligan and Gyllenhaal shine in Dano’s ‘Wildlife’

Directed by:  Paul Dano

Written by:  Zoe Kazan and Paul Dano, based on the novel by Richard Ford

Starring:  Carey Mulligan, Jake Gyllenhaal, Ed Oxenbould, and Bill Camp

“Wildlife” – “Do you know what they call trees in a forest fire?  Fuel.  Do you know what they call the trees when the fire goes by?  The standing dead.” – Jeanette Brinson (Carey Mulligan)

Jeanette (Mulligan) and Jerry Brinson (Jake Gyllenhaal) and their teenage son Joe (Ed Oxenbould) look like an all-American family during a Montana autumn in 1960.

Jerry and Ed toss the football around in front of their modest home, while Jeanette has dinner waiting for them.  Both parents show affection to each other, encourage Joe with his schoolwork and seem very content with their collective purpose in the world. 

In short, life is good.

Soon, however, cracks of realism fall in front of director/co-writer Paul Dano’s camera.  Jerry runs into trouble at work – due to his own transgressions – and since he is the only breadwinner, financial snags loom, and Jeanette knows it.  They have apparently lived through this before, and another domestic crash feels imminent. 

Dano and co-writer Zoe Kazan bring Richard Ford’s novel to life on the big screen and chronicle the Brinsons’ fate after Jerry’s unfortunate choice.  Dano and Kazan chose to work together again!  They starred as a flawed couple in 2012’s “Ruby Sparks”, and Kazan also penned that script.  Their characters’ on-screen relationship (in that film) fell into turmoil due to a fanciful, mystical premise.  There is no whimsy in “Wildlife”, however, as this family faces a grim, cold reality because of a simple case of misplaced pride.

Dano, Kazan, Mulligan, Gyllenhaal, and Oxenbould should beam with pride over their film, because “Wildlife” is a masterful - but affecting and somber - look at family and its fragility. 

In a January 2018 interview at Sundance, Dano said, “(Family) is one of the greatest sources of love we’ll ever have in our lives, and it’s also one of the greatest sources of struggle we can have in our lives.”

Dano captures both.  Love through soft, subtle moments.  For instance, Jerry and Jeanette embrace during a quiet evening at home with Joe looking on with warm approval.  Other ways are demonstrated through Jeanette’s mechanics to provide a comforting home.  She prepares meals, cleans floors, and looks beautiful by wearing long, conservative dresses and sporting flawless make-up and hair.  Jeanette makes a concerted effort.

Jerry, however, makes less of an effort and willfully walks into damaging spaces.  The story implies that Jerry’s behavioral shifts are recognizable patterns from his past, and he certainly provokes frustration with the audience.  A visit to a therapist would be a great start, but with his history and the 1960 Montana setting, that sort of aid might as well exist on the dark side of the Moon. 

It’s just not in his orbit.

Jeanette undergoes the most change, as her worldview dramatically shifts, and Mulligan perfectly and tragically captures both sides of Dano’s comment about family.  Jeanette accepts the responsibilities as a wife and mother and reaps the affections, but she suffers over Jerry’s irresponsibility – past and present – and this time, her reassurances to Joe and herself are not enough.   Mulligan is a whirlwind here and delivers the film’s most complicated performance with the commanding ease of a lion tamer placing a 6-week-old kitten in front of a bowl of milk.  Jeanette decides to govern her own fate, despite the limited options for women, as she drives the film’s pace and tone.

“Wildlife” is a history lesson.  A future warning.  A current reflection of ourselves or our possible-selves.  With surroundings of brown grasslands and cool temperatures, the outlooks seem bleak.  Dano guides this uncertain – and potentially explosive - dynamic with steady, gentle sensitivity.  Sometimes with bold strokes, but mostly through careful, thoughtful nuance.  Some of his grace spills into Joe too, and hence, this teen may offer some hope that living as the standing dead is not a permanent condition.    

(3.5/4 stars)

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

What They Had - Movie Review by Ben Cahlamer

What They Had

Written and Directed by Elizabeth Chomko

Starring Hillary Swank, Michael Shannon, Robert Forster, Blythe Danner, Taissa Famiga

A funny thing happened to me as I watched Elizabeth Chomko’s debut film, “What They Had” unfold in front of me: I reflected on all the families I’ve seen over the years where children take care of their parents in the most difficult of circumstances.

I asked myself – why do children take care of their parents? Is it out of necessity, or rather tradition, or is it because we’re expected to? I certainly don’t have all of the answers and in fact, I would never presume to take care of my parents out of expectation, but because I would want to.

In Ms. Chomko’s story, a fractured family comes together when the matriarch of the family, Ruth (Blythe Danner) wanders off into a Chicago blizzard unexpectedly. Bridget (Hillary Swank) and daughter Emma (Taissa Farmiga) come in from California to help.

Throughout this ordeal is husband, Burt (Robert Forster). He insists that he can continue to care for Ruth, in spite of what their son, Nicky (Michael Shannon) wants for them. Nicky needs Bridget to convince their dad that the best thing for Ruth is a home where she can get the care she needs.

The beauty in Ms. Chomko’s script is its characters. This film is very much a slice of life. This family was legally prepared, driving a wedge between children. Complicating the matter is Burt’s own health, something that Nicky is keen to keep in check.

A good portion of the story centers around the concept of “Reminiscence Therapy,” where photos are used to trigger memories. I got the sense that Ms. Chomko’s story was personal yielding such rich characters and their own situations.

The main situation breeds other situations, germane to the individual characters: Bridget is struggling mom trying to understand her daughter, while Emma has pressures of her own. Nicky not only feels the pressure of being the child to take care of their folks full time, but to try to salvage his own life, which is falling apart at the seams.

Ms. Chomko uses Ruth’s dementia to bring them all together, even if the steam coming from the heated debates is enough to melt the late December snowfall. And within that, magnetic performances too.

Ms. Swank is, by nature an introvert, or she chooses to play introverted character; it’s a part of her acting strength to be able to take charge when called for, and to have it deliver an emotional punch. Her character deals with much more than just the care of their parents. Michael Shannon continues to impress with his emotionally-laden performance with a brilliant mixture of quiet frustration and outright hostile, foul-mouthed reactions; he’s the hot-tempered one. And rightfully so.

There’s a beautiful scene between he and Robert Forster’s Burt that is the essence of the film.

I don’t know that I’ve ever seen Robert Forster more tender in a performance. Here he has double duty to protect Ruth from their children while at the same time defending his actions as a father. In the end, there’s nothing but love between Burt and Ruth.

Ms. Danner had, by far, the most difficult role to play in this film, and I would submit her for a supporting actress nomination if I were Bleecker Street: to be able to fade in and out of dementia, to be lively and comedic in one moment followed by an introspective moment is the hallmark of a brilliant actress. She essentially lived in her own world throughout the film, oblivious to all but Burt’s attempts to bring her back into the present.

Some might see his actions as being selfish, an attempt to relive the past for his own benefit. Its a natural progression for his character, and for hers.

The struggle with all of these fine character moments and the world they inhabit is that it leaves the story feeling flat. Understanding that the story intentionally takes a back seat to the performances shouldn’t be so much of a problem.

It was just difficult to balance the two out.

With that, all I can say is that the magnetic performances won this critic’s heart, even if the story doesn’t fully support said performances.

TURKEYS!

2.75 out of 4

Can You Ever Forgive Me? - Movie Review by Ben Cahlamer

Can You Ever Forgive Me?

Directed by Marielle Heller

Screenplay by Nicole Holofcener and Jeff Whitty based on ‘Can You Ever Forgive Me?’ by Lee Israel

Starring Melissa McCarthy, Richard E. Grant, Jane Curtin, Dolly Wells, Anna Deavere Smith, Stephen Spinella, Ben Falcone

As a film critic, I can understand “writers block,” that notion that the blank page stares back at you when you’ve hit a dry spell. Today, it’s looking at the blinking cursor.

Marielle Heler and Melissa McCarthy are here to remind writers everywhere that there is no such thing as ‘writers block’ in their latest film, “Can You Every Forgive Me?”

Based on the real life biographer, Lee Israel who made her living, originally with at least one ‘New York Times’ bestselling novel has hit her bout of writers block. As her publisher Marjorie (Jane Curtin) reminds us, the writer’s job doesn’t just stop when the last page is finished and that being a writer is about putting yourself out there on the interview circuit, allowing people to see you for who you are.

Israel was content with being a recluse, tending to her cats and her drinking problem. Sitting on her last dime, she takes her publisher’s advice literally tapping into her “creative side,” but not before she meets Jack Hock, played beautifully by Richard E. Grant and Oscar-worthy turn if there ever was one.

A rapscallion himself, they are two peas in a pod when they meet each other at the local watering hole. While Lee can take all the credit for coming up with her plan, Jack really brought out the best in her, something Ms. Holofcener and Mr. Whitty emphasize; that underneath all the dry, humorless stares, Lee Israel was a human being and a redeemable character at that.

The central events in this film reminded me of Bart Layton’s “American Animals” from earlier this year where the characters set out to do something in a moment of desperation only to realize that they really were better than the events they set in motion.

There’s a scene midway through the movie where, as we get to know Jack better, he gets involved in her scheme and she gets very protective when he tries to run around her. McCarthy, who is usually known for her boisterous personality (see the ill-fated “Happytime Murders” from earlier this year) is anything but here.

I’ve had a problem in the past where she’s played the “oh, woe is me” type character who uses laughs to make us feel better about not only her character, but ourselves as well. Here, she taps into her dramatic side, using dry humor to underpin the drama. It helps that Mr. Grant is along for the ride.

Where Ms. McCarthy would play the humor, she lets Mr. Grant’s natural charm and grace, and class, dictate the dark humor. She feeds right into his antics and her performance here is a breath of fresh air.

This is her Robin Williams moment tapping into the drama, the humor, the humanist that can get under our skin and stay there with us for the rest of our days, it’s that powerful.

The technical side of this film is just as important as the acting is, especially Brandon Trost’s cinematography where he captures the rich, detailed and dirty New York City environment in the 1970’s through the use of colored filters amplifying the character’s emotional states even further.

In addition to Israel’s exploits, the film folds in a very gay-centric story through Lee’s past relationships and Jack’s current affairs. Though it probably could have been explored further Israel’s dinner with Anna (Dolly Wells) is a poignant moment. Her conversation with Elaine (Anna Deavere Smith) in Central Park is perhaps the finest moment in the film.

For a film that had a somewhat troubled beginning, the final product has produced two serious Awards contenders in Mr. Grant and Ms. McCarthy. Ms. Heller’s direction is deft, while the screenplay hits all the right notes.

If you’re feeling bummed by “The Happytime Murders,” don’t. She doesn’t have to beg for it, but “Can You Forgive Me?” is Melissa McCarthy’s finest hour.

Rating 3.75 out of 4

Johnny English Strikes Again - Movie Review by Ben Cahlamer

Johnny English Strikes Again

Directed by David Kerry

Screenplay by William Davies

Based on Characters by Neal Purvis, Robert Wade and William Davies

Starring Rowan Atkinson, Ben Miller, Olga Kurylenko, Jake Lacy, Emma Thompson

We were fortunate enough to get this screening in early enough that I could write a proper review for one of my favorite modern comedic actors, Rowan Atkinson. Then I struggled to remember the film’s plot details, let alone the villain.

Whot to do, whot to do?!

That’s because I made the mistake of watching the first “Johnny English” on my DVR in between the publication of this review and our screening. In fact, as I was doing research for this review, I tried to find John Malkovich amongst the cast of “Johnny English Strikes Again” only to realise that I had gotten the two films mixed up.

Then I remembered Jake Lacy as Jason Volta, a Silicon Valley tech billionaire. He’s the character who happens to be conveniently in the right place at the right time throughout this story. And why shouldn’t he be? He’s the villain after all.

More on that in a moment.

It seems that MI7 has had a serious data breach as the film opens, a la Brian De Palma’s “Mission: Impossible” and when the remaining MI7 agents are mysteriously killed, the only man for the job is Johnny English (Rowan Atkinson).

In fact, Pegasus (Adam James) and the British Prime Minister, played expertly by Emma Thompson have no choice but to trust in English’s detective abilities.

Atkinson, who has pleased audiences with his physical antics over the years is in fine form here. He’s audacious, bold and stubborn. But we don’t mind that, because we know he’ll get the job done. Somehow.

His trusty sidekick, Angus Bough played by Ben Miller, joins English. Bough is the intelligent one in this duo, but he follows English like . . . well, like an English Terrier. Their deductive reasoning takes them in to the south of France where they meet Ophelia (Olga Kurylenko) on the motor yacht ‘the Dot Calm’.

The highlight of the film is the interaction between Kurylenko and Atkinson, both of whom are Bond alumni. Whether they’re tangoing on the dance floor or chasing each other in exotic sports cars up the steppes outside of Cannes, they play into each other’s strengths as actors.

And, they light up the screen . . . with missiles and deadly serious looks.

Of the many running gags throughout the film, English insists on a lack of technology to solve this caper, a nice counter to the villains’ nefarious data-hatched schemes. It has the effect of making his character larger than life, with the excesses of the past being pitted against the simplicity of a tablet, which can wreak havoc at a moment’s notice.

This is also the film’s weakest point. It makes otherwise more powerful characters seem like bumbling fools. That’s the point, of course: how easy would it be for someone with technology at their disposal to swoop in under the unsuspecting noses of government bureaucrats.

It also hardens our hero to stick to his guns (literally) to find proof of an ill deed against the Crown.

It makes the second gag of the film, an elegantly staged sequence in which English uses Virtual Reality for the first time, with rather hilarious consequences. It puts my sleep walking to shame, honestly.

With all the antics, and the 89-minute run time, director David Kerr gives us a straightforward, if somewhat bland action adventure film full of laughs that will keep you happy.

2.5 out of 4 stars

Mid90s - Movie Review by Jeff Mitchell

Hill’s ‘Mid90s’ avoids nostalgia and embraces timeless themes

Written and directed by: Jonah Hill

Starring: Sunny Suljic, Na-kel Smith, Olan Prenatt, Ryder McLaughlin, Gio Galicia, Katherine Waterston, and Lucas Hedges

“Mid90s” – Looking back at 1995, millions of Americans flocked to see “Braveheart” and “Toy Story” in theatres, listened to TLC’s “Waterfalls” on the radio, watched “ER”, “Seinfeld” and “Friends” on television, were fascinated by the O.J. Simpson trial, and loaded Windows95 on their personal computers.  Even though these cultural phenomenons (and many more) captured the public’s attention 23 years ago, they do not appear in writer/director Jonah Hill’s movie “Mid90s”, about a group of skateboarding kids in Los Angeles.

This is by design.

During a Sept. 2018 interview, Hill said, “The two rules were no skate-porn and no nostalgia-porn,” and added, “(I) really wanted to protect this beautiful subculture that’s always been misdirected on-screen.”

In short, the film’s title is much less important.  His creation is more timeless, as he said, “It’s the story about forming a group of friends outside your house.  A family outside your house, when it’s you and your friends against the world.”

For 13-year-old Stevie (Sunny Suljic), he does not really have a social outlet in his present.  His mom Dabney (Katherine Waterston) is pleasant and supportive, but her time is limited as a single parent.  Stevie’s older brother Ian (Lucas Hedges) regularly beats on him and offers zero comfort.

When Stevie suddenly becomes friends with Ruben (Gio Galicia), Ray (Na-kel Smith), Fourth Grade (Ryder McLaughlin), and F*cksh*t (Olan Prenatt), his universe and joy increases exponentially.

(Yes, in case you were wondering, Fourth Grade and F*cksh*t are the boys’ nicknames, but this critic will not reveal the reasons for these specific oddball designations.)

Like many groups, each individual falls into a natural role, and this collection of five skateboarders is no different.  Ray is the unofficial leader.  F*cksh*t - with long, blonde, curly locks - carries massive charisma.  Fourth Grade and Ruben enjoy mutual acceptance from the others, and Stevie is the smallest and newest entry to this Southern California skateboarding-faction.

Other than Dabney, none of their parents are anywhere to be found, so the kids form a “Stand by Me” (1986) quintet, but without a stated goal in their sunshine and concrete environment.

Unfortunately, Dabney’s and Ian’s story arcs become stuck in cinematic cul-de-sacs, but the boys’ road is Hill's chosen focus.

Rather than these teens reaching for brass rings, they are comfortable sitting, strolling and riding within their current spaces, which are not dangerous, but are certainly void of wide bike lanes and lush suburban lawns.  The local skateboard shop is home base, where they launch into a typical day of wandering outside, finding smooth asphalt or a set of stairs and setting up temporary camp to kill time and connect through laughs, teases and yes, support.  In other words, boy stuff.  To any kid lacking direction and without answers at home, finding a group of friends who accept you without compromises is an abundance of dreams. 

To the unwanted, acceptance is bliss. 

Even better if your new friends are older and dive into vices that one has only seen on TV, but these encounters also increase the possibilities of danger.

Hill’s picture organically explores these ideas, but - seemingly - without distinct plot points that move the narrative.  Looking back, it is difficult to piece together the milestones in Stevie’s journey, as “Mid90s” feels like a mass collection of random moments.  Taken as a whole, however, one can see Stevie’s worldview gradually expanding.

Suljic successfully delivers a soulful performance and easily communicates Stevie’s wide assortment of relief, glee, struggles, and frustrations.  Even with new teen-allies, Stevie’s habits of self-loathing have not vanished, and Hill captures these moments in heartbreaking and visceral ways.

Prenatt stands out too, and he is the film’s breakout star.  The camera loves Prenatt.  He carries an easy-breezy and accessible vibe, and F*cksh*t may not be responsible, but his warm presence and “That was dope”-response to just about any event are preciously coveted and welcomed.

Hill’s “Mid90s” is a welcome feature film debut, but don’t rush to see it for wild skateboard tricks.  It is not that movie, and although it plays in uneven, unfocused territory, “Mid90s” successfully lives within its nomadic tones and conveys the universal churn of one’s teenage years within an 84-minute runtime. 

Hey, that is dope.

(2.5/4 stars)

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

First Man - Movie Review by Monte Yazzie

First Man

Director:Damien Chazelle

Starring:Ryan Gosling, Claire Foy, Corey Stoll, Lukas Haas, Jason Clarke, Christopher Abbott, Ethan Embry, Patrick Fugit, Shea Whigham, and Kyle Chandler

“Where were you?” History, tragic and triumphant, can have a profound effect on how the future will look back on certain moments of change, so impactful that it becomes a date, time, or place that you will remember for your entire life. Where were you on September 11th? Where were you when Barack Obama was elected President? These are two recent moments that have that effect. However, before these recent memories, perhaps the greatest “where were you” moment was when astronaut Neil Armstrong stepped foot on the surface of the moon. 

Director Damien Chazelle, who won the Academy Award for directing the musical “La La Land” in 2016, crafts a grandiose and intimate film focused on Neil Armstrong and the American space program leading up to the momentous Apollo 11 undertaking. “First Man” is an unglamorous yet beautifully depicted look at the struggles, obstacles, and catastrophes experienced in the space race in the 1960’s. 

Neil Armstrong (Ryan Gosling) is an ordinary man working in an extraordinary job. The calm demeanor and literal analysis of situations around him make him an unusual person working amidst engineers and pilots at NASA. But underneath this straight-forward demeanor is a man diligently striving to create an ordinary life for his kids and his loving, long-suffering, wife Janet (Claire Foy). But his occupation propels him into the national spotlight as America tries to beat Russia into expeditions beyond earth. 

As director Damien Chazelle continues to expand the size of his films, the focus remains on a singular character chasing their ambitious dreams. “Whiplash” and “La La Land” both showcase a young person struggling to establish themselves in an unknown world in pursuit of their passion. Neil Armstrong, played with intriguing softness by Ryan Gosling, is also pursuing a dream that will take him into an unknown world. Mr. Chazelle does a nice job of exploring the character, never offering much of a history lesson but rather looking into the personal afflictions, specifically the loss his daughter Karen, that would define the motivation of a man who was consistently looking towards the heavens. It’s never glamorously constructed but instead restrained in its depiction of the world around him.

This controlled perspective may not provide the splendor and awe seen in other space travel movies, where space shuttles float amidst starry filled backgrounds, but the purpose of maintaining minimal views helps in creating tension and making this well-known adventure to the moon have some kind of uncertainty associated with it. It’s a method that works early in the film, but as the historical familiarity settles in during the third act it, unfortunately, doesn’t connect the emotion as it feels like it intended and instead feels underwhelming. Still, Mr. Chazelle understands how to evoke that old-fashioned Hollywood nostalgia in moments, sometimes it’s big and boisterous and other times it’s small and composed. 

Neil Armstrong is portrayed as a mild-mannered family man who fits in nicely at the neighborhood barbecue; Mr. Gosling provides a quiet, analytical perspective for the character. Claire Foy provides the standout performance here however as Janet Armstrong. Ms. Foy is tasked with being the emotional core of the film and she succeeds on numerous levels. 

Mr. Chazelle takes a few moments to look into the American perspective of the time, with protests about the space programs exorbitant funding and one Gil Scott-Heron song that clearly identifies the race relation situation, but he never examines these aspects for long. “First Man” remains clear of its purpose of displaying the space race from the eyes of the man who would become the hero America was looking for at the time. 

Monte’s Rating

3.50 out of 5.00

The Hate U Give - Movie Review by Jeff Mitchell

‘The Hate U Give’ leans on strong, devoted performances

Directed by:  George Tillman Jr.

Written by:  Audrey Wells, based on the novel by Angie Thomas

Starring:  Amandla Stenberg, Regina Hall, Russell Hornsby, Anthony Mackie, Common, K.J. Apa, and Algee Smith

“The Hate U Give” – Starr Carter (Amandla Stenberg) shines in director George Tillman Jr.’s film, and her celestial name fits, because she lives in two worlds. 

You see, Monday through Friday, her mom Lisa (Regina Carter) drives her a few miles to Williamson, a predominately white high school, and she lives with her loving family in Garden Heights, a mostly black neighborhood.  Starr explains that she can be herself at home with her family, friends and neighbors, and adds that her mom and dad say, “Our life is here, because our people are here.”

In school, however, Starr flips a switch and puts an effort to fit in with her white classmates.  For example, she does not wear her hooded sweatshirt at school, and generally speaking, she says that she is Starr at Garden Heights and Starr Version 2 at Williamson.    

She has been managing this administrative duality for years, and - so far – she has not faced collisions between her two social spheres, but that soon comes to a screeching halt in a massive way.  A white police officer shoots and kills her childhood friend Khalil (Algee Smith), and she is the lone witness. 

The lone witness.

“The Hate U Give” resides in combustible themes, as it copes with Khalil’s death through Starr’s personal experience, not only during the shooting, but over a painful aftermath of social minefields at home, school and more. 

Now, from the get-go, Starr is instantly likable and Stenberg and Tillman successfully draw us into her spaces and mindsets.  Not only with Starr’s dichotomy, but Tillman gives Garden Heights a bright and colorful atmosphere with lush greens, yellows and reds.  Williamson is bright as well, but it’s filled with icy, corporate blues and grays.  High school can be tricky enough without volleying between two different versions of yourself, and it’s easy to empathize and/or relate to Starr’s delicate balancing act.

After the shooting, Tillman’s movie works best when Starr leans on her family to process the emotional stress of Khalil’s death and accompanying legalese.  Russell Hornsby delivers a bedrock performance as Starr’s dad Mav, who is infinitely supportive of his daughter and two sons.  Mav dabbled in trouble during his youth, but experience begets knowledge, and he passes his reality of living in America to his kids, while also delivering a demonstrative strength as a sturdy pillar of support.  Lisa matches Mav’s love for their kids, and while Starr faces incoming, foreign societal forces, this teen can confidentially look within her home for affirmation and warmth.

Outside of Starr’s family, the relationships sometimes miss. 

Starr’s boyfriend Chris (K.J. Apa) from Williamson quickly becomes a nuisance (to this critic) with a constant barrage of ineffectual “How can I help?” encounters.  Sure, it’s important for the film to have Starr emotionally connected to someone at school, but their relationship never really progresses.  Quite frankly, the movie would exist just fine without Chris.  Although admittedly, he contributes to the most hilarious moment in the movie, which will not be named in this review.  Now, Starr’s changing relationship with her Williamson female friends is not funny at all.  Unfortunately, their suddenly troubled friendship feels a bit forced in the third act, and perhaps a subtler approach would have been more effective. (The less is more rule.) 

The film also tugs on frayed legal and media threads.  At times, Tillman deliberately moves the picture away from Starr’s immediate surroundings and into farther distances, but as she feels less connection to these outside forces, you might too. 

Through Starr’s eyes, “The Hate U Give” delivers a ground-floor look at race relations, injustice and the uphill struggles to affect change.  It is maddening to know that we live in a time when 18-year-old Michael Brown (1996-2014) of Ferguson, Mo. and many, many other young men of color are needlessly killed by those who protect and serve.  “The Hate U Give” offers a distressing and infuriating - but also an accessible and tangible - look into the matter, as Tillman’s movie shines brightest through Stenberg and her celestial-named character.

(3/4 stars) 

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

Bad Times at the El Royale - Movie Review by Ben Cahlamer

Bad Times at the El Royale

Written and Directed by Drew Goddard

Starring Jeff Bridges, Cynthia Erivo, Dakota Johnson, Jon Hamm, Cailee Spaeny, Lewis Pullman, Nick Offerman, Chris Hemsworth

Drew Goddard, the man who adapted “The Martian” novel to an Academy Award nomination and directed “The Cabin in the Woods”, brings us a noir-lite film in “Bad Times at the El Royale,” featuring an all-star cast set in the late 1960’s.

Taking cues from both Alfred Hitchcock and Quentin Tarantino, Goddard’s film brings together an assortment of characters who, at the beginning of the film have no association to one another and yet, through a single night at the El Royale, come to cross paths, and perhaps wished they never had.

Just ask Miles Miller (Lewis Pullman), the manager of the El Royale, as he explains the  unique history of the property which straddles the California – Nevada border in Lake Tahoe, right down to a marked out line depicting the border. Or ask Father Daniel Flynn (Jeff Bridges), who has more than a bottle of holy water up his sleeves. Then there’s Darlene Sweet, a backup singer who just happens to be on her way to a job in Reno and needed a room for the night. Seymour Sullivan (Jon Hamm) really wants the honeymoon suite on the Nevada side of the hotel, yet he’s alone. And, he’s a vacuum cleaner salesman.

What gives with that?

Running a bit late to the party are Dakota Johnson as Emily Summerspring and her younger sister, Rose (Cailee Spaeny), and they bring a whole host of trouble with them in the form of the charismatic and pelvic-thrusting Billy Lee (Chris Hemsworth).

Eventually, things go awry at the El Royale when everyone’s secret comes out. This is the genius and some of the challenge with Goddard’s story: it relies more on the characters, their individual situations and their fateful encounters to carry the story itself.

In the opening frame, we peer into a motel room and we know what actions are happening, but we don’t know why. Goddard wisely chooses to obscure the character so that when that character’s actions are brought back into the story in the third act, the impact is heightened. Goddard employs a time-shifting style of storytelling, which works for the most part because his characters are on point as is Lisa Lassek’s editing. There are some areas where the character motivations are put in front of us that slow the pace of the film down. I got the sense that Goddard was in love with his characters, and I don’t mind that because the way the story unfolds is really well done.

Goddard does borrow from himself with certain plot devices and they can get a bit long-in-the-tooth as well, but his homages to Tarantino’s story telling methods and to the master of suspense himself make up for said infractions. Michael Giacchino outdoes himself with this score, evoking the time the film is set in as well as that nourish-mystery storyline

Noir fans won’t be disappointed with “Bad Times at the El Royale,” but general audiences might avoid the film because it can seem a little too full on itself. I enjoyed the ride with all of these characters, and their situations and the fateful encounters each of them has made for a real pulpy story.

3.5 out of 4

Goosebumps 2: Haunted Halloween - Movie Review by Ben Cahlamer

Goosebumps 2: Haunted Halloween

Directed by Ari Sandel

Screenplay by Rob Lieber, Story by Rob Lieber and Darren Lemke

Based on “Goosebumps” by R.L. Stine

Starring Wendi McLendon-Covey, Madison Iseman, Jeremy Ray Taylor, Caleel Harris, Chris Parnell, Ken Jeong

As the weather turns cooler, and the leaves start falling off the trees, that most sacred of holidays comes upon us quite quickly. Pumpkins sacrifice themselves for the greater enjoyment . . . yes, I’m talking about Halloween. But, this isn’t just any ordinary Halloween.

It’s an R.L. Stein – imagined Halloween called “Goosebumps.”

A confession though, so that I’m not haunted throughout this review: I haven’t read any of Stein’s books and I haven’t seen the 2015 film that preceded this newest installment, “Goosebumps 2: Haunted Halloween,” though I did hear from several fans that Jack Black really made that first movie memorable.

Unfortunately, this “Haunted Halloween” isn’t as spooky as you might think. If anything, I got a “creepy, oompah-loompah vibe” from Rob Leiber’s screenplay. The challenge is that the story starts out so generically. Sarah Quinn (Madison Iseman) is a talented writer who is prepping her college admissions essay and stumbles upon writer’s block.

Of course, her helpful boyfriend sneaks into her room to surprise her, which gets foiled by mom, Kathy (Wendi McLendon-Covey). Within the first five minutes of the beginning of the story, we have trust issues and in any other director’s hands, it probably would have turned out for the better, but Sandel shies away from the mother-daughter trust angle and instead shifts it into a brother-sister trust issue.

Sonny (Jeremy Ray Taylor) and his friend Sam (Caleel Harris), who is conveniently dropped off for a couple of days with the Quinn’s for no reason whatsoever, start a junk collecting business. Sonny is a whip-smart kid too, but he doubts himself and doesn’t see his projects through.

Sonny and Sam are commissioned to clean out an abandoned, haunted home (big shocker). Whatever they want to keep, they can. One of the items they keep is a locked book, which is buried in a box in an anteroom. The gimmick to get us into the anteroom is cute and it should keep younger kids on their toes.

When they open the book, they read a passage in Latin, which awakens Slappy the Dummy (voiced by Mick Wingert). Slappy initially presents himself as a helpful dummy, but as his presence is made further known, his helpfulness turns deadly.

The sleepy town of Wardenclyffe, NY is the site for the events in this film. And by the end of the 90-minute run time, the town is turned upside down as Slappy makes use of the conveniently available Tesla factory where Nicolai Tesla built a huge electric rod to work on his experiments.

In truth, the story felt far too generic for a scary film. Its ideals are in the right place, but Slappy reminded me of another ghoulish little monster, Chucky a la “Child’s Play.” They were both little terrors, yet their bites were very little.

The plot device to wrap up the third act was rather brilliant and ties into Sarah’s writer’s block. Getting there is a little dry and not very interesting, though Ken Jeong as the Qunn’s neighbor, Mr. Chu is a highlight. He reminded me of a Clark Griswold for Halloween instead of Christmas and is just as funny and resourceful.

Kids around 10 – 15 might enjoy this as there are enough scares intended for little ones that they might enjoy. Otherwise, the story is a bit paint-by-the-numbers with a main cast that elicits no real affectation from the audience.

2 out of 4