Ex Machina - Movie Review by Monte Yazzie

Ex Machina  

Director: Alex Garland

Starring: Oscar Isaac, Domhnall Gleeson, and Alicia Vikander

108 Minutes

Rated R

Ava is a robot with exceptional artificial intelligence. She is beautiful, intelligent, emotional, affected, and curious. She is also the trapped subject of scientific analysis, the caged bird that when released will change everything about the world that we know. Good science fiction always asks difficult questions, most of the time without an easy to explain answer. While the structure of science fiction films can become overwhelmed by special effects and unnecessary spectacle, these films are still completely amusing in ways that similar films, like action films, are not. It’s the fascination with theory and how well a sci-fi film can support a hypothesis. Director Alex Garland builds a methodical structure with an intelligent narrative, one that focuses on relationships between men and women, the advancing world and how it connects with progressing technology, and the trappings and limitations of science. “Ex Machina” is a welcome addition to the list of exceptional science fiction films.

Nathan (Oscar Isaac) is a reclusive mogul who invented the world’s foremost search engine. Caleb (Domhnall Gleeson) is a programmer who wins an invitation to meet and work with Nathan on his private research compound. After being dropped off by a helicopter and venturing through a forest, Caleb arrives at a door and is greeted by a computer. Once inside Caleb meets with the egocentric Nathan who discusses all aspects of science, religion, and art with Caleb. These discussions are all in preparation for Caleb to meet Ava (Alicia Vikander), a robot whose fabricated skeleton is accommodated by a human face. Caleb is to conduct a test to determine whether he can identify Ava as a computer. Ava is intrigued by the new visitor and begins to conduct her own tests on Caleb.

Alex Garland wrote and directed the film; his measured pacing in the script shapes and molds some great scenes of tension but also surprisingly some touching emotional moments. The characters are constantly changing, affected by the people and situations around them. Whether Ava who continually learns and adapts, Caleb who is pulled into different allegiances, or Nathan who is constantly embattled by his own intelligence and isolation, Garland exhibits a keen eye for character development and utilizes all these elements to make the narrative mysterious, suspenseful, sad, and insightful. Garland also uses the characters to to ask important questions that add depth to the story but are also simply offered to spark the viewers own reasoning. It's what good writing should do.

While the film doesn’t lean on special effects, it does utilize it in nearly every scene with Ava. The composition of her robot and human attributes are outstandingly rendered and intricately constructed, this deign is also used to provide depth to the character. Ava’s body is fashioned with a metallic mesh but her face, hands, and feet are covered with skin. This allows the character to portray emotion through her face, express feelings of anger and tenderness with her hands, and show direction and motivation with her feet. It’s a well-conceived design that contributes to the ambiguous objectives that Ava presents as the film progresses.  Actress Alicia Vikander gives a confident and sensitive portrayal as Ava, a true breakout performance.

Oscar Isaac is terrific as the ego-driven inventor Nathan, who is always gleefully a step ahead of everyone. Isaac does the best work when Nathan’s weaknesses overcome him, moments that lead to dancing and intellectual sparing matches with Caleb and sometimes himself. Domhnall Gleeson is also good as Caleb. Whether his fanboy-like admiration of Nathan or his easily manipulated emotional attachment to Ava, Gleeson does a great job of transitioning from susceptibly trusting to questioningly suspicious.

Alex Garland, who started his career as a novelist and screenwriter, makes an impressive directorial debut.  “Ex Machina” is an exceptional film on many levels, but perhaps the most admirable quality exists in the questions it proposes and the answers it allows the viewer to contemplate.

Monte’s Rating

4.50 out of 5.00

Ex Machina - Movie Review by Eric Forthun

Ex Machina  

Starring Domnhall Gleeson, Alicia Vikander, and Oscar Isaac

Directed by Alex Garland

Rated R

Run Time: 108 minutes

Genre: Science Fiction

Opens April 24th

By Eric Forthun of Cinematic Shadows

Science fiction is rarely as thought-provoking and well-acted as Ex Machina, an outstanding entry in the genre that thematically challenges and excites. The sci-fi genre has been anemic in cinema as of late: despite bold mainstream efforts like Interstellar and the occasional surprises like Moon and Source Code, there remain few impactful films that want to attack real-world issues with force and gravitas. Here, the message of monitoring our search history and using it for ulterior motives is latched onto with tenacity for narrative momentum. What could happen if the man behind such a powerful creation, in the vein of a twisted Steve Jobs or Larry Page, decided to use everyone's search history as a means of creating truly artificial intelligence? That's the moral, ethical, and scientific dilemma at the heart of Alex Garland's directorial debut, a fiercely fought film with a central issue that wages between the three lead characters, all played terrifically by the up-and-coming stars inhabiting their roles. The film is always gripping, mysterious, and ends with another foreboding sign of how humanity can corrupt just about anything.

The film opens with Caleb (Domnhall Gleeson), a 26-year old programmer at the world's largest Internet company. Eerily resembling Google, his work involves coding that guides a person's searches based on their browser history, building an online profile that continues to grow more accurate over time. Caleb wins an internal lottery at the company that involves an exclusive retreat to the CEO's house in an undisclosed, far away location that can only be reached by a helicopter. That reclusive man is Nathan (Oscar Isaac), a genius that indulges in healthy workouts and excessive drinking. You know, two things that go together like hair and carrots. Nathan has not just seemingly chosen Caleb at random; rather, he knows Caleb is one of his smartest employees and wants to see if he can identify true A.I. on his own. The subject is Ava (Alicia Vikander), a robot that has been gifted with a prosthetic face and the ability to feel and supposedly think for herself. There are questions regarding how she is sentient: is it reactionary, or does she actually generate feelings on her own without help from Caleb's questioning or his emotions? The "Turing" test performed by the central characters feels timely considering the popularity of last year's The Imitation Game, as well as the relevancy of search engines being used as a form of intelligence.

Writer-director Alex Garland makes a startlingly cognizant, relevant piece of social commentary that is suspenseful and gripping. He previously wrote Danny Boyle's Sunshine, 2012's Dredd remake, and the masterpiece Never Let Me Go. His talents find their way to words here once more, as his characters are vividly drawn and the performances sing from the script. There are some remarkable scenes in the film that hint at the true nature of Nathan: one where he scolds a non-English speaking servant at the dinner table, another where he sits drunk in a dark room observing Caleb, and one late in the film (which I won't discuss) that proves just how much of a cat-and-mouse game the film becomes. There's a masterful sense of suspense, particularly as the A.I. that is at stake can shake the foundation of the world as we know it. Gleeson's performance is surprising in the lead; not overblown, simply subdued and understated, perhaps too much so. Maybe that's to counter the complete coolness that Isaac exudes as Nathan. There are simply no other up-and-coming actors as talented as Isaac, and he is phenomenal here. His performance reminds me of a young Brando and, oddly enough, an older version of the actor as Colonel Kurtz in Apocalypse Now.

That brings us to Vikander. She's been an outstanding actress in films like A Royal Affair (a criminally underrated romance with Mads Mikkelsen), Anna Karenina (where she plays a young lover that remains the best part of that adaptation), and even the dismissed The Fifth Estate (where she plays a thankless role, but shines when the script allows it). She has the challenge of playing a robot that is much smarter than a normal computer chip, speaking with clarity and the ability to spew sarcasm and condescension. It's subtle, but Garland writes the role with intelligence. Fitting, considering how artificial it supposedly is. There's a remarkably funny conversation in the middle of the film surrounding her physical features, namely why Nathan decides to impose upon her the sexual features of a normal human being. That leads to some telling moments that provide more insight into just how Nathan has been building his A.I., and what it entails in the long-term. The film builds to a glorious conclusion, one that promises just as much as it pays off. It's rare to find a science-fiction film with this grand sense of loneliness and the descent into madness that inventions can spark; the technological themes that pervade our modern culture are expertly handled as well. Ex Machina may well stand as a sci-fi classic years from now, as a great embodiment of our heavily-monitored culture.

The Age of Adaline - Movie Review by Eric Forthun

The Age of Adaline  

Starring Blake Lively, Harrison Ford, Michiel Huisman, Ellen Burstyn, Amanda Crew, Kathy Baker

Directed by Lee Toland Krieger

Rated PG-13

Run Time: 110 minutes

Genre: Romance

Opens April 24th

By Eric Forthun of Cinematic Shadows

The Age of Adaline fits almost every romantic trope imaginable, albeit under the guise of a timeless story not bound by the confines of time. If that sounds cheesy or hackneyed, it's because the film is just as much so, but it wears those derivatives on its sleeve without regret. There's a sense of being fundamentally assured throughout director Lee Toland Krieger's film, with confident, surprisingly moving performances from Blake Lively and Harrison Ford. Logic isn't important when it comes to laying out the film's central premise, regarding a woman that has failed to age for the past eight decades, but once we get past that far-fetched conceit, the film works on surprising dramatic heft. She's a woman that refuses to love when it almost always costs her; doesn't that sound familiar? The script features the usual clichéd central romance and its blossoming and downfall, but it works here, particularly as the character's maturity emerges through her actions. While conventional in practically every sense, Adaline knows how to weave an impactful story.

The story follows Adaline Bowman (Blake Lively), a normal baby born in the early 1900s in San Francisco, that suddenly found her life changed after a horrible auto accident. It led to her car falling into a lake, being struck by lightning, and causing her life to begin again with her cells ceasing to age after that moment. As the narrator discusses, it's a genetic trait that becomes understood in the year 2035, so of course they don't know why it's happening now! Adaline still attempts to live her life normally, giving birth to a daughter, Flemming (played in present day by Ellen Burstyn), while her husband unfortunately passes away during a construction accident on the Golden Gate Bridge. Adaline vows to never fall into a relationship again, nor will she ever tell her secret to anyone but her daughter, causing her to run around for most of her life, claiming different identities and avoiding the grasps of the FBI, amongst others, who believe she is a unique case. Jump to present day and she meets Ellis Jones (Michiel Huisman), a persistent man that wants to understand Adaline despite her having no interest. Eventually, feelings develop and Adaline meets William (Harrison Ford), Ellis's father, who seems to know that something is peculiar about Adaline.

Upon Ford's introduction, the film establishes narrative purpose and emotional power. Before that moment, much of the film is doled out as exposition from the omniscient narrator or through conventional pieces of dialogue where men hit on Adaline and she refuses any advances. It's a mostly one-dimensional romance until William emerges; then, the film absolutely thrives. There are delicate, impassioned moments with Ford that stands as his finest acting in the past two decades; considering the films he has starred in, that may not sound like much, but it's a tremendously affecting performance. This is also the best work Lively has done on the big screen, making a character that could feel old-fashioned and archaic feel raw and (pardon the pun) alive. The Age of Adaline relies too heavily on implausibility and character instability to make a complete effect, with too many "big" romantic moments overpowering the delicate second act that makes the film a highly gripping romance. Nonetheless, the above performances and Huisman's effective turn make the film engaging past its inherent predictability.

Cloud of Sils Maria - Movie Review by Eric Forthun

Clouds of Sils Maria  

Starring Juliette Binoche, Kristen Stewart, Chloe Grace Moretz, Lars Eidinger, Johnny Flynn

Directed by Olivier Assayas

Rated R

Run Time: 124 minutes

Genre: Drama

Opens April 24th

By Eric Forthun of Cinematic Shadows

Clouds of Sils Maria slowly matures into its own confident work, backed by two exceptional lead performances. Juliette Binoche plays the main protagonist as a woman marked by a battle with her own past, while Kristen Stewart plays her young assistant that manages not only her daily tasks, but also her emotional distress and personal struggles. They form a striking friendship that informs the film's confusingly dazzling narrative, one that navigates artistry and its influence on one's personal life as well as their professional evolution. The dialogue is the most challenging part of the film: scenes that feel like genuine arguments between characters turn out to be characters rehearsing from a script, while others scream authenticity despite the expectation that they’ll turn out to be fake. Writer-director Olivier Assayas infuses the film with a keen, touching eye at the aging spotlight for women in acting, drawing on obvious inspirations like Mulholland Dr. and Syencdoche, New York. While Clouds of Sils Maria does not reach those levels of profound realization, it observes the life of its protagonists keenly and with gentility. Binoche and Stewart are sensational.

The film focuses on Maria Enders (Juliette Binoche, best known to American actors for her recent appearances in Godzilla and Words and Pictures), an aging actress that has not found proper roles in a world that dismisses women of a certain age. She struggles with offers for films that she has no interest in, mainly blockbusters that favor special effects over story and could care less about avoiding clichés if it still meant making a big chunk of change. She’s not wrong, but she also sounds like the typical elder complaining about the new age materials. Nonetheless, she is offered a role in a reboot of a play that catapulted her career twenty years earlier, this time taking on the older role while a troublesome, talented young actress named Jo-Ann Ellis (Chloe Grace Moretz) steps into her old shoes. Maria’s assistant, Valentine (Kristen Stewart), is overwhelmed with demands for Maria to speak at a late playwright’s event, in addition to Maria’s needy nature and her desire for perfection in her work.

Assayas directs the film with delicacy, often lingering on characters for their full emotional reactions. Stewart is the subject of many of these moments, reacting to Maria’s insecurities as she externalizes them onto Valentine’s dialogue and makes her feel like she’s being insulted. It makes for some riveting scenes, even if they sometimes feel forced from Maria; perhaps that’s intentional considering Maria’s fragility. Both women like to get drunk, a lot, and smoke as if their lungs can’t stand fresh air. They also combat each other often in their words, with Valentine often defending Jo-Ann’s wild public antics while Maria cannot stand her personality and how little she seems to care for the craft. There’s a sense of high class surrounding stage acting that is undoubtedly an old blood feel, but it also testifies to the personal connection Maria feels with her character. The on-stage persona, after all, commits suicide at the end of the play. Does Maria have the same fate? That mirroring of art and life is one of the many affecting traits of Clouds of Sils Maria, and helps the film triumph over its occasional dramatic hiccups.

True Story - Movie Review by Monte Yazzie

True Story  

Director: Rupert Goold

Starring: Jonah Hill, James Franco, and Felicity Jones

There are always two sides to every story. The back and forth, cat and mouse, discussions between a suspected murderer and a discredited journalist takes focus in director Rupert Goold’s “True Story”, which also happens to be based on a true story. The truth lies somewhere in between the two men throughout the majority of the film, with analysis focusing on the unusual bond between the two and how each uses the other to discover reason behind the choices that have come to define them. What is unfortunate is that these thought-provoking insights are simply lost amongst a script that never explores the depths of the characters or the inherent drama that exists between them.

Michael Finkel (Jonah Hill) is a highly regarded New York Times investigative reporter whose reputation is targeted after writing an article with fabricated truths. Finkel retreats to Montana with his girlfriend Jill (Felicity Jones) and begins to pick up the pieces of his now tarnished career. Finkel can’t find work until a terrible crime connects him with a murderer named Christian Longo (James Franco) who is accused of killing his entire family and then utilizing Finkel’s name as an alias while on the run.

Finkel at one point in the film tells a group of mourning family members that every person deserves to have their story told. It’s one of the more interesting comments in the film, one that displays Finkel’s misguided ambition and continued trouble with the truth while also portraying the persuasive power that Longo holds over Finkel. Is it all a guise or could Longo be telling the truth? This question concerning Longo’s ambiguous character is proposed early on though unfortunately doesn’t so much as hint at the answer than it does paint it on billboard for everyone to see. This lack of subtlety becomes a major problem for this narrative that is trying to build a mystery between the two men. When the answers aren’t being easily revealed the insightful questions, like the one that looks at the difficult moral choice for the somewhat arrogant Finkel, are merely touched upon. Better execution could have offered a change in the dynamic between the characters for greater dramatic effect.

Jonah Hill is a good actor though many of his skills are underutilized here. His character starts arrogant, then apologetic, and then fascinated, and Hill displays those attributes with ease but many times within the story these come off as heavy-handed and not necessarily assistive to the emotional tone of the moment. James Franco has an even tougher time playing the confusing suspect, while his soft mannerisms add a creepy quality the role is ultimately relinquished to glares and stares and strained monologues. Felicity Jones is left to fill in the gaps when Hill and Franco aren’t sitting across from each other. She isn’t given much but she makes the most of the opportunities provided.

Still, apart from the flaws, “True Story” attempts to do something different than what is often seen within the true crime genre. By focusing on these two men struggling with different aspects of the truth, the film touches on the beginnings of a refreshing filmmaking approach with interesting questions. It’s unfortunate that these questions aren't always satisfyingly explored.

Monte’s Rating

2.50 out of 5.00

Unfriended - Movie Review by Eric Forthun

Unfriended  

Starring Heather Sossaman, Matthew Bohrer, Courtney Halverson, Shelley Hennig, and Moses Jacob Storm

Directed by Leo Gabriadze

Rated R

Run Time: 82 minutes

Genre: Horror

Opens April 17th

By Eric Forthun of Cinematic Shadows

Unfriended is a deceptively smart horror tale about bullying in a cyber age. Told exclusively through a computer screen and mostly through interactions on Skype and Facebook, the film could have fallen into a trap of feeling socially forced or irrelevant; instead, its scares are smart, economical, and altogether rewarding. There's an urgency that never lets up, particularly as characters are killed off at an alarming rate and in typical slasher form. Perhaps most surprising, though, is the film's delightful sense of self, as its humor ensures the film doesn't become too heavy-handed even as it deals with undeniably chilling themes of cyberbullying and suicide. Writer Nelson Graves and director Leo Gabriadze have crafted a narrative filled with twisted archetypes of normal horror characters, making the film a slightly refreshing and self-aware tale in a modern age. Running a scant 81 minutes, it breezes through all of its scares while letting them simmer enough for impact.

The film focuses on Blaire (Shelley Hennig), who starts off watching a suicide video on LiveLeak. It happens to be of one of her closest friends, Laura Barns (Heather Sossaman), who took her own life one year ago from this date. Blaire calls up her boyfriend, and then talks with her friends through a Skype group chat. Yet they each start to receive mysterious messages from Laura's online accounts. Assuming someone has hacked into the accounts and wants to torment them (it's probably just an Internet troll, they say; oh, how wrong they are), they don't take the threats seriously. When one of them mysteriously gets disconnected and appears to have committed suicide, the threats feel more real. They cannot leave the chat because if any of them do, they die. Laura's supernatural presence carries through all of their devices, asking them to make up for the sins of their past and admit to everything they did that led to her emotional ruin. Blaire, the supposed good girl, has her own secrets that Laura senses, and neither will rest until they come to terms with one another.

Meta narratives are the new black now, and rightfully so; with recent successes like The Cabin in the Woods and You're Next, the horror genre has proven ripe for social commentary as well as in need of drastic innovation. Here, the story takes what admittedly sounds like a tacky, cheap premise (let's have the entire story take place on a computer screen!) and makes it a necessary adventure in the modern era. It's technologically savvy and cognizant of how the Internet has changed the way we interact with one another; these characters feel deeply lonely when they are not talking to each other either through video chat or messages, and that feels cold and empty. The characters are a strange highlight of the film: what could be boring life forces are actually slight variations of the traditional Slut, Stoner, Virginal Good Girl, Aggressively Dumb Man, and Unidentifiable Love Interest. They have names but why should we even mention them? The film's thematic impact feels slightly lessened in its middle when the story focuses on kills, but the ending is surprisingly impactful and reminds me of another bully-minded release from 2015, A Girl Like Her. Unfriended doesn't necessarily reinvent the wheel, but it makes the ride efficiently entertaining.

An Interview with director Dan Fogelman

by Michael Clawson

Writer Dan Fogelman, known largely for his Disney scripts — including Tangled, the Cars franchise and Bolt — was tucked in a back corner of the Phoenix Film Festival premiere party. No one recognized him. The luxury of being a screenwriter.

He’s in Phoenix not just for his screenwriting, though: he’s directed his first film, Danny Collins, from a script he wrote, and the film kicked off the annual festival. I caught up with him to chat about the film just 30 minutes before Danny Collins’ Phoenix premiere.

Phoenix Film Festival: Tell me about the film. I know a little about it, but I’d love to hear how you describe it.

It’s a redemption story. It’s based on real story about a guy named Steve Tilston. I came across his story on the Internet. He had done an interview as an 18-, 19-year-old guy where he said he was worried about what fame and fortune might do to his music, and if he became famous what it might do to is art and how it might corrupt it. Cut to 40 years later, and he’s in his 60s and he gets a knock on the door and someone telling him that John lennon had read that interview and he had written him a letter that he had never heard of until that moment. The letter was advising him, cautioning him and gave guidance, and then had John Lennon’s home phone number. Steve didn’t get this letter until his 60s, long after Lennon was killed. And that was the inspiration for this redemption story.

PFF: How did the letter get lost?

It’s a complicated thing, and we took some liberties with this part of the movie, but the letter was sent to the musician in care of the magazine. It’s not that the letter was stolen, but that it was just rerouted the wrong way. It didn’t come back around until many decades later.

PFF: Amazing cast: Al Pacino, Annette Bening, Christopher Plummer, Jennifer Garner and Bobby Cannavale. Had any of them met Lennon?

Pacino had met him a couple of times. Once or twice. He’s been telling stories lately about walking the streets of New York City and running into Lennon. He knows Yoko a little. al only really knew him tangentially At the premiere, I heard that Yoko had left a letter for Al . I don’t know what it said, though. One can only imagine. I’m not sure if Christopher Plummer had — I’m going to his Hollwyood Walk of Fame ceremony tomorrow morning in LA.

PFF: If Yoko did write a letter, someone should lose it for 30 years or so and then give it him.

Exactly. There’s a line in the movie where Annette Bening asks how that letter makes him feel, and he says, “You know what I think, I wish he would have sent that to my house so I wouldn’t have lived a bullshit life for 40 years.” That’s basically the story of the film.

PFF: Bobby Cannavale is great in everything he’s in.

The film is a gentle, sweet and sentimental — hopefully not tipping over into sentimentality — but the film makes people feel good. And Bobby is perfect in the film. I’m a very harsh critic of my own stuff, and I‘ve watched this movie more than any human being should be forced to watch a movie, but every time Bobby is on the screen he’s perfect. He’s an exceptional actor, but also a very normal guy. For whatever reason, maybe because of his theater works, it’s taken people a long time to find him. But that has made him very balanced. I think he’s on the edge of some very incredible things.

PFF: I interviewed him for Station Agent early in his career, and he was amazing. I’m glad he’s in more things these days.

Bobby says what he thinks. We package ourselves in this day and age. He doesn’t package himself. He’s a real guy. He’s happiest on the stage, and he’s good at it. He doesn’t really care about all this stuff, yet he’s a TV star, theater star and film star.

PFF: Speaking of the cast, Al Pacino seems to only get better with age. He could easily slip into parody at this point, but he can still get lost in performances.

It’s great to hear you say that, because a lot of people like to talk about the big over-the-top performances, but it’s not fair at all to him. Look at his body of work over the last 10 years. While there hasn’t necessarily been a blockbuster film, he’s still done incredible work on Broadway, on HBO, in films. He’s not a guy trying to make the almighty buck. He’s an actor and he’s 75 years old and he’s acting his ass off. It was amazing to work with him. I’ve been five years with Al, and it doesn’t get any better than that.

PFF: That sounds like a great title for a movie: Five Years With Al.

He’s nuts in the all the ways you want him to be nuts. And he’s a great guy. He’s great here as Danny Collins.

PFF: How was it directing your first film?

It is different, and more responsibility. When you write a script, it could be best movie in the world or a real piece of shit. At some point the film leaves my hands and it goes to someone else. But when you’re the director it’s your job to make that script into the film. On this particular film, and I say this genuinely, any fault of the movie is my own. I’m very proud of the film. I got to make the movie I wanted to make as a director and a screenwriter. There other directors who would have made a worse film, or better film, or even just a different film, but I felt like I wanted to tell this story the way I wanted to tell it and I got that opportunity.

PFF: And now you’re here in Arizona opening it.

My fiancee went to Arizona State University, and I’ve traveled through Arizona many times. We opened the film last week in New York and Los Angeles, and then it rolls out much wider in a couple more weeks. But it’s exciting to be showing the film now because people don’t know the film. They’re walking into something they largely haven’t heard of. I’ve worked on lots of movies, and I know when I’m working on a bad one, and I genuinely think this is a good one, and it’s exciting to be in a room with 300 or 400 people who have no clue what’s going to happen. This film is a commercial and populist film and an accessible film that I know this room of people are going to love. When people don’t know anything about a movie the movie can really sweep them away.

PFF: I have a niece, I imagine everyone does, who would go crazy if they knew I was interview someone who had anything to do with Tangled. Does it surprise you that movies still have the power to transcend everything that came before them?

Yeah, it’s always a little surreal to see films take off the way they do. My friends [Glenn Ficarra and John Requa] directed Crazy Stupid Love and I wrote it. We knew as we finished it that people would attach to it in a different way. I felt that way when I saw Tangled for the first time. There are certain ones. You make movies every year or so when you do what I do, but you can just feel it when they lock in a certain way. Tangled locks in for little girls and families. Cars did the same thing. And Crazy Stupid Love. And I think Danny Collins will too for a certain audience.

The Longest Ride - Movie Review by Eric Forthun

The Longest Ride  

Starring Scott Eastwood, Britt Robertson, Alan Alda, Oona Chaplin, and Jack Huston

Directed by George Tillman Jr.

Rated PG-13

Run Time: 128 minutes

Genre: Romance

Opens April 10th

By Eric Forthun of Cinematic Shadows

The Longest Ride is, indeed, a long ride, lasting over two hours and spanning over 70 years in narrative time. It's an overly familiar, highly derivative, and predictably overblown romance. The story follows two different romances spanning multiple generations, a storyline that should feel familiar to anyone that knows a Nicholas Sparks novel. His books are much the same every time they are adapted to film form; I'm starting to grow concerned as to whether The Notebook is actually a great romance or if its surprising lead actors made the film feel more unique than it actually was. Nonetheless, Sparks' latest film adaptations, including the gloriously nonsensical The Lucky One, have the emotional sense of a stunted teenager, making their dialogue increasingly dumbfounding in just how little they understand about human interaction. That concept grows tired here as the story falls into self-seriousness and genuinely believes it's a worthwhile love story, feeling like another unnecessary romance without anything of substance to say.

The story follows a fledgling young couple, including Sophia (Britt Robertson), a fraternity girl that has an internship lined up after college at an art gallery in New York. It's what she's been wanting to do for her whole life, ever since her immigrant family (yes, this blonde art student with an American accent has lived through the difficulties of an immigrant life, so her struggle is real) moved to the United States when she was a kid. She meets a young bull rider named Luke (Scott Eastwood), a rambunctious sort that wants to be the best of his kind in the world but has to deal with a potentially life-threatening injury. His return from that harrowing incident a year later leads to the two love birds finding each other, and their story crosses the path of a dying war veteran, Ira (Alan Alda). Ira tells the lovers a story of his younger self (played by Boardwalk Empire's Jack Huston) falling in love with Jewish immigrant Ruth (Oona Chaplin), and their story as he returns from World War II and must deal with his presumed PTSD and her obsession with art and wanting a family. The stories are simplistic and straightforward, without much time to catch one's breath in between jumps in time.

Look, every audience member knows what they are seeing when they step into a Nicholas Sparks film. It's the same type of romance, spanning multiple generations, usually, and involving some type of ailment/disease that causes a main character to die. Yet they continue to sell because they are often filled with breakthrough performances from the leads. While Robertson and Eastwood are not remarkable actors, they infuse the roles with life and compassion, even if they sometimes feel like they are delivering lines like robots attempting to feel for the first time. Director George Tillman Jr. does not add to or take away from the film; one can only do so much with an incompetent script. There's no semblance of a grander story at stake, nor is there a strong driving force behind the battle of the two lead lovers, particularly as it becomes apparent that they will find a happy ending even if their stubbornness should not warrant such a result. Perhaps surprisingly, despite their stubbornness, the characters are ultimately good people, which makes discrediting the film all the more challenging. The story, though, feels like a poorly woven retelling of Sparks' other better works, forcing the 128-minute ride to end with a thud on the ground.

Insurgent - Movie Review by Michael Clawson

Insurgent Starring: Shailene Woodley, Theo James, Octavia Spencer, Jai Courtney, Ray Stevenson, Zoë Kravitz, Ansel Elgort, Maggie Q

Director: Neil Burger, Robert Schwentke

by Michael Clawson of Terminal Volume

If you ever find yourself at a hotel at the same time as a tax seminar for accountants, pop your head into a conference room and listen to the table banter, and then marvel: “This would make a great movie!”

The writers of The Divergent Series had a similar “eureka!” moment when they waded through the murky melodrama of Veronica Roth’s young adult novels, about teens obsessing over dialogue so inane that nearly every word is meaningless without some kind of long-lost decoder ring. “Dauntless is conspiring with Abagnation. Erudite and Candor are helpless. Not even Amity can do anything.” “We need a full-blooded Divergent to open the box.” “The Factionless are in the war with us against Abagnation.” You could find more interesting dialogue in a parts manual for a 1998 Tercel.

We descend further down the rabbit hole of mindless plot points with Insurgent, the sequel to last year’s ambitiously wrecked Divergent. Recall from the first movie, a dystopian future world is broken down into five factions: Erudite, Amity, Dauntless, Abagnation and Candor. There is no reason for the factions, except the big reason: teens like reading about characters being separated into groups. It’s why there is a Sorting Hat in the Harry Potter books, districts in the Hunger Games, tiers of professions in last year’s stupendous Giver, and all the pouty-faced beast races in Twilight.

Amid the five factions are the occasional Divergent, a person whose very soul can’t be classified into any faction. Villain Jeanine (Kate Winslet) can’t stand Divergents — something about how band geeks just aren’t allowed to sit at the lunch table with cheerleaders and football players — so she wages a violent war against the factions that shelter them. The star Divergent is Tris (Shailene Woodley), who’s the Neo of this absurdly designed Matrix.

Tris runs around with a Lost Boys-like gang of other Divergents and faction turncoats — including two ex-boyfriends: Ansel Elgort from The Fault in Our Stars, and Miles Teller from The Spectacular Now — without a coherent plan except to kill Jeanine, who believes in the faction system so tremendously that there is nothing the film can do to justify her passionate devotion.

Yeesh, this movie! It just goes nowhere and does nothing. So much time and energy is spent convincing us that these factions are important, or not important at all, that the charade can’t sustain itself for a whole movie. We visit the Amish hippies of Amity, who are so cheerful you want to sock them. Later, Tris and company board a train full of Factionless, who are proto-punk hooligans with bad haircuts. In one particularly awful segment, Tris and her current boyfriend Four (Theo James) are captured by Candor, whose motto is apparently “Truthiness Forever.” Candor bigwigs inject them with a truth serum, which reveals at least one truth: even with all barriers removed from their thoughts, these are boring people.

The biggest problem is that everyone’s motivations are absolutely confounding. It feels like the film is marching toward an abolishment of the factions, but why and for what purpose? Most people in factions seem to like their factions, so what reason would they have to join Tris and fight the oppressive system? And Jeanine only wants martial law, which is movie code for “I’ll do whatever I want,” an act that will allow her to preserve the faction system for no other reason than “just because.”

The film does end on a high note, with Tris confronting five simulated challenges within a mysterious box found in the rubble of her parents’ home. The box promises to hold secrets that are important to the plot, and it lives up to those promises. If only this box would have played a more significant role earlier in the film.

Although the movie looks great — some of the special effects, especially in the mystery box, are awesome — and has a talented cast, Insurgent can never break out of its broken premise, to which every character, every plot point and every syllable of atrocious dialogue bows in idolatrous worship.

'71 - Movie Review by Eric Forthun

'71  

Starring Jack O'Connell, Sam Reid, Sean Harris, Richard Dormer, Paul Anderson, and Charlie Murphy

Directed by Yann Demange

Rated R

Run Time: 99 minutes

Genre: War Drama

Opens March 13th

By Eric Forthun of Cinematic Shadows

'71 is a brutal and uncompromising work powered by a fantastic lead performance from up-and-comer Jack O'Connell. Centering on a rarely-discussed topic in film, the story navigates the tumultuous time in the 1970s and 1980s when the IRA (Irish Republican Army) was part of a religious and political divide between the UK and Ireland. Pro-UK supporters were traditionally Protestants while pro-independence individuals were predominantly Catholics backed by the IRA. This led to chaotic violence and endless debates surrounding citizens' rights and the independence of a hopeful-to-be nation. That allows for conflict to constantly simmer underneath the narrative while British soldiers trained to control the population, ensuring riots or other organized demonstrations do not lead to any death. That moment leads to the film's inciting incident where O'Connell's Gary gets caught in the crossfires and must abandon his post in order to survive. Very few films demonstrate the callousness and savagery behind most acts of violence, and '71 tackles those moments with profound regret. It's a masterful film.

Gary is a young man thrown into the mix of the British military, going through extensive training before being dispatched to Belfast in Northern Ireland. Their job is not exactly the most glamorous work: holding firm as rioters move through their own city in hopes of claiming it as their own, citing Irish independence as their motivation. It's brutal for Gary and his company to stand with arms locked as people spit in their faces and simply want to be their own population; it's gradually depicted in a compassionate light, even if their actions are particularly vile in these moments. When the people continue to push and force Gary and his men to give in for a short while, a young boy grabs a soldier's gun and runs off in the distance. Gary chases him down, attempts to take the gun back, and gets beaten up by two older men who are part of the resistance. When another soldier attempts to come to the aid, they are held up by the violent men before one comes over and shoots Gary's comrade in the head. Gary runs for his life, abandoning his post, and falls into a world that terrifies him and feels unrecognizable.

The British-Irish conflict is shown as its own circle of hell. Vile actions run rampant but they all hold significant impact because of their historical grounding and the film's savage depiction of war. There's nothing that will make you feel gung-ho about fighting for your country, particularly when Gary is forced to fight against the citizens that he is supposedly protecting. O'Connell's performance is brave and remarkable, even if it feels familiar to his work in 2014's Unbroken. So far, with those and Starred Up, he's stormed onto the scene as a strong physical and mental presence. He reminds me of a young Ernest Borgnine. Gregory Burke's screenplay explores the mindset of every side of the ethnographic argument during these harrowing times, which aids the emotional wallop of the film wonderfully. Director Yann Demange doesn't shy away from the horrifying moments: a surprise bombing, a brutal wound, and a gunshot to the head are shown in their entirety and treated as matters of the time and place, with no need to justify. '71 is ultimately deeply powerful, cutting to the gruesome core of war and examining it through the lens of a man caught at a moral crossroads.

Cinderella - Movie Review by Eric Forthun

Cinderella  

Starring Lily James, Cate Blanchett, Richard Madden, Helena Bonham Carter, Nonso Anozie, and Stellan Skarsgård

Directed by Kenneth Branagh

Rated PG

Run Time: 112 minutes

Genre: Family/Adventure

Opens March 13th

By Eric Forthun of Cinematic Shadows

Kenneth Branagh's Cinderella is classical and vibrant, a remarkable adaptation of the timeless fairy tale. I remained skeptical about a live-action adaptation of one of the most famous Disney animations until the first act ended, after which I was enthralled. Branagh brings the film faithfully to life while seamlessly infusing it with the ever-present themes of mortality and love. Tack on a more empowered hero than expected and the story brings forth the sense of wonder and enchantment that so few films for children lack nowadays. The emotional depth packed by the film is enforced by the talented actors rounding out the ensemble, with Ben Chaplin and Derek Jacobi providing compassionate father figures that mold and form the two lovers at the heart of the film. The standout, though, is Cate Blanchett, a woman whose foul stench from her soul emanates through the screen into the theater; after playing powerful figures throughout her career, whether evil or magical, she transforms into a bonafide villain with a sharpened tongue and cruel laugh. The ensemble makes Cinderella a tender and vivacious adventure.

For those unfamiliar with the legendary fairy tale, the story of Ella (Lily James) begins with the mournful death of her mother (Hayley Atwell). Her father (Ben Chaplin) works as a tradesman of sorts, traveling to neighboring lands and supporting the family to live in the house his family has owned for over 200 years. Lo and behold, his loneliness begins to dominate his personal life and he seeks out a fellow wealthy widow that needs help, and the two marry. Ella's new stepmother (Cate Blanchett) is a vile woman that uses the young woman as a servant around the house, which grows overwhelming after her father's death leaves her alone with the wretched matriarch. Her new stepsisters, Drisella (Sophie McShera) and Anastasia (Holliday Grainger), are nightmarishly materialistic and idiotic, forming a trifecta of awfulness with which Ella must cope. They assign her the name "Cinderella" because she wakes up one morning with ash from the fireplace on her face; this only happened because her attic dwelling was too cold and she needed warmth. Her life begins to look peachy, though, when she runs into "Kit" (Richard Madden), whom she later finds out to be Prince Charming.

The rest of the story is legend and familiar lore, yet that never hinders the film's impact. It's not a greatest hits compilation of the famous moments in hopes of earning a quick buck; Branagh makes the film feel isolated from the traditional Disney manufacturing line and in a realm of classical, old-fashioned storytelling. Down-to-earth and heartfelt are not terms usually assigned to fairy tales, but Cinderella warrants them. Chris Weitz's screenplay understands how to develop characters and give the audience context, assuming they know nothing about the story and filling in all of the necessary moments for emotional impact. A strange and brief Helena Bonham Carter appearance as the Fairy Godmother is not only inspired casting, but a wonderful dose of magic in a tale that otherwise feels grounded. James is exceptional in the lead, even if her corset-controlled figure sends an unnecessarily bad message about body image for young girls. Outside of that glaring issue, the film empowers Cinderella, particularly as her name becomes the form of emotional power that helps her grow into her own woman. Cinderella is a terrific Disney entry that shows promise for the future of live-action adaptations of their classics.

The Salvation - Movie Review by Eric Forthun

The Salvation  

Starring Mads Mikkelsen, Eva Green, Jeffrey Dean Morgan, Eric Cantona, and Jonathan Pryce

Directed by Kristian Levring

Rated R

Run Time: 92 minutes

Genre: Western

Opens March 13th

By Eric Forthun of Cinematic Shadows

The Salvation underutilizes the cool, mysterious presence of Mads Mikkelsen in a role seemingly unfit for the Danish export. He plays a Western hero of conventional sorts, marked by the tragic deaths of his family members as he seeks retribution and survival in a desolate landscape. The film comes from director Kristian Levring, who has not made a film since 2008, and he takes co-writing credits here with Anders Thomas Jensen. His absence from the screen potentially explains a disjointed narrative with undefined characters and clichéd motivations; characters are not so much defined by their actions as they are by their grander Western archetypes of old lore. A terrific supporting cast is mostly filler in these roles and the narrative wallows in violence far too much for my taste; instead of using exciting set pieces, the film instead opts for brutal acts of savagery that start to lose impact as they become pervasive. Tack on a non-speaking female role from Eva Green (the metaphor for feminine oppression in Western films is glaringly obvious) and the film feels like opportunities elbowing each other without breaking free.

The film centers on Jon (Mads Mikkelsen), a Danish immigrant who has worked seven years in the United States in hopes of settling himself for his family to move with him. When his wife and son arrive, they make plans for their future here: getting settled, Jon teaching his young boy how to hunt the following morning, etc. Something bad is bound to happen. On a joint wagon that is disrupted by two men who kick a friendly couple off their paid ride, Jon cannot stop the savages from threatening his wife and child. His wife is subjected to sexual assault while his son has a gun pointed at his head; the men ask Jon to jump off or they will kill both of his loved ones, and he's left with no choice. He jumps. He then runs after the wagon all night before discovering his wife and son dead, and he kills the two men responsible. Yet now, with Jon's loss of his family and all hope gone, a wild man named Delarue (Jeffrey Dean Morgan) wants to avenge his brother (one of the rapists/child killers), pursuing Jon without remorse. Madelaine (Eva Green) is Delarue's silent, submissive partner that wields wealthy but no power, aiming for a way out of her situation.

After Jon exacts his revenge, the film grinds to a momentous halt. The narrative propulsion from the admittedly drastic inciting incident should infuse the story with life and emotion. Instead, it feels oddly cold and distant. I think that's a fault in the casting of Mikkelsen, one of the best actors emerging in the business today; after his most recent roles in The Hunt and television's Hannibal, he's proven to be a man that can handle emotional turmoil and cold composure. Yet this role is drastically unrewarding for Mikkelsen, never crafting him as sympathetic so much as pitiful. The characters surrounding him are greedy and kill-first, a horrible mixture of individuals showing the West as a disgusting cesspool of ethnic violence and morbidity. That doesn't seem fitting. The desire for characters to move even farther West and acquire land could have made for a more compelling film, and recent Westerns like The Homesman and the remake of 3:10 to Yuma are drastically better, thematically similar films. The Salvation doesn't feel like it salvages much, except for a remarkably small population of depressed individuals.

Champs - Movie Review by Michael Clawson

Champs

Opening at FilmBar

by Michael Clawson of Terminal Volume

Bert Marcus’ boxing documentary Champs has a broad vision of the history of boxing and its cultural presence, but then, like many discussions about boxing, becomes laser-focused on two people and the one event that shaped the sport’s last golden era.

The boxers are, of course, Evander Holyfield and Mike Tyson, and the event is, of course, that one time Iron Mike chomped on Holyfield’s ear. It’s funny how that one nibble is ground zero for so much of boxing’s modern relevance. It just steamrolls everything else in its path; even Muhammad Ali is a footnote.

This isn’t a criticism of this beautifully shot and carefully written documentary, just an observation of Champs’ meandering from grand history to petty soap opera. What’s even more curious, and this is criticism, is how the film tells the story of a third character, reformed prison boxer Bernard Hopkins, but largely neglects him in favor of the more famous fighters. I found myself wanting to watch an entire movie just on Hopkins, without all of Champs’ rehashing of the Tyson/Holyfield drama.

Champs begins with an array of talking heads — Denzel Washington, Mark Wahlberg, 50 Cent, Mary J. Blige, Ron Howard and many others — praising boxing’s philosophical implications: man-versus-man, man-versus-self, a refuge for poor inner-city kids, “an escape from violence through violence,” … on and on with an array of metaphors. They say it’s a perfect sport, which is what the talking heads always say in these kinds of sports documentaries.

We eventually meet Bernard, who falls in with the wrong people and ends up in prison. He takes up boxing behind bars and before long he’s the best fighter at a string of prisons. Later, after he gets out, he goes on a stunning winning streak and then devotes the rest of his career to responsibly promoting young boxers. These chapters of his life are carved up into the larger narrative of the Tyson and Holyfield fights throughout the ’80s and ’90s.

Even people who know nothing of boxing know of Tyson and Holyfield. These are old stories, but they are given refreshingly new life in Marcus’ film. Both men are interviewed extensively, and both appear to be wiser than they once were. Tyson, a convicted rapist, even cries, in a scene that is genuinely heartbreaking. Holyfield is much more likable, especially when the film covers his 1984 Olympic controversy, in which a woefully misguided referee disqualifies him as he clobbers his way to gold. He eventually won the bronze, although everyone acknowledges Holyfield as the gold medalist.

And then there’s the chomp heard ‘round the world. I remember this 1997 fight. I was in high school at the time, and it was endlessly debated who was the stronger fighter, a debate that is still being waged today by many boxing fans. Holyfield would later forgive Tyson, an act that director Spike Lee is still surprised by: “A piece of his ear is gone forever,” he says.

The stories of Tyson and Holyfield always felt interrupted as they were happening so many years ago. Now that both men are older, and are at peace over their roles in each other’s lives, their respective stories have some closure. And looking at the whole thing from beginning to end, you realize how Dickensian it all is: poor kids rising up amid the struggle of sport and personality, fighting with themselves more than each other, confronting their bad decisions, owning their mistakes and pushing forward past fame. Both men are shown in their prime, in sprawling mansions with Rolls Royces, white tigers and swimming pools as big as lakes. Today they live modest lives in the suburbs with pickup trucks and Ikea furniture.

Champs has a number of dead-end ideas, including segments about the prevalence of black fighters coming from inner-city ghettos, the role of concussions and repeated brain trauma, the need for federal regulation, the role of money and power. These are interesting ideas with no conclusions. Before the film can say anything relevant about these issues it drops them and switches topics.

The photography, though, is wonderful. Subtle re-enactments, slow-mo footage of training sessions, examinations of boxing neighborhoods, and lots of historical footage fill the air between the interviewers.

One scene really stuck out for me: Tyson, in the throes of despair, finally realizes how little and insignificant he is. “The world is bigger than me,” he says, which should be the mantra for every fighter.

The Second Best Exotic Marigold Hotel - Movie Review by Eric Forthun

The Second Best Exotic Marigold Hotel  

Starring Maggie Smith, Judi Dench, Bill Nighy, Richard Gere, Dev Patel, and Celia Imrie

Directed by John Madden

Rated PG

Run Time: 122 minutes

Genre: Comedy/Drama

Opens March 6th

By Eric Forthun of Cinematic Shadows

The Second Best Exotic Marigold Hotel is nearly identical to its predecessor in character, plot, and tone, yet that doesn't take away from its affable and everlastingly charming qualities. This sequel to the 2012 summer hit is a reminder that older characters and actors deserve to be subjects of films just as much as those young, hot, "next big things." Adding onto an already stellar cast by including Richard Gere and David Strathairn, the film has amped up its episodic storytelling to include even more side plots with minor payoffs. They somehow still feel rewarding, though, even as the film meanders through its plots and only has one true storyline that propels plot forward. Director John Madden has allowed for a unique franchise in film that remains largely unprecedented in a tired era of action-packed blockbusters ruled by superheroes. Here, we have a film series that is dominated by acclaimed and respected actors like Judi Dench and Bill Nighy that provide the film with constant subtlety and gravitas. I prefer that storytelling style any day of the week.

The film picks up where the previous one left off, with Sonny Kapoor (Dev Patel) aiming to expand his hotels into a chain across India with the help of Muriel (Maggie Smith). They hope to explore run-down buildings and other disheveled places at their lowest moments in order to maximize their ability to be turned around; much like their customers that may be lost or near the end of their lives, they want to find a new life for these hotels. Evelyn (Judi Dench) is still one of the mainstays who works as a researcher for a fabric and linens company that wants to extend her a job as part of their expansion. That would mean moving and leaving behind the life she's created, including her semi-fling with sort-of-married Douglas (Bill Nighy). Meanwhile, he is attempting to cope with her potentially leaving and the arrival of his wife and daughter from the UK. Carol (Diana Hardcastle) and Norman (Ronald Pickup) are in the midst of their affair being bothered by their pursuits of other partners, and the arrival of Guy (Richard Gere) and Lavinia (Tamsin Greig) as two hopeful customers at the hotel make for a mish-mash of events.

What's so striking about this ensemble piece is that it keeps the exact same admiration for India despite its new additions and ability to grow more grim as these characters mature. There's a sense of familiarity and loyalty to these characters that is refreshing and wholesome; nowhere to be found is a secret desire to kill off these old people in favor of newer voices like Gere. Instead, they want to expand the world and invite new folks into their place of leisure. The performances all-around are undeniably terrific and they hold a stronger power here now that these characters have been developed in a previous 120-minute narrative. They are free to roam and feel their stories blossom with newfound developments. That sense of camaraderie defining the Marigold Hotel franchise is the focal point of their success, as these characters are simply lovable and compassionate individuals, a rarity in film. Tack on the fact that they are all over 60 (minus Patel, who really shines opposite these older voices) and it makes for a funny, moving, and altogether enjoyable tale, even if it feels like a road previously traveled.

Chappie - Movie Review by Eric Forthun

Chappie  

Starring Sharlto Copley, Dev Patel, Sigourney Weaver, Hugh Jackman, and Watkin Tudor Jones

Directed by Neil Blomkamp

Rated R

Run Time: 120 minutes

Genre: Action/Sci-Fi

Opens March 6th

By Eric Forthun of Cinematic Shadows

Chappie is a muddled misfire from director Neil Blomkamp, who stormed into the cinematic world with his thrilling sci-fi actioner District 9.  His debut remains a compelling film because of its astute South African social commentary and its fantastic lead character arc that carries the bulk of the film’s emotional heft. Blomkamp’s follow-up was Elysium, a film I enjoyed for its ambition even if its execution remained faulty. He’s a director concerned with strong social issues like poverty and the innate evil within many human beings, a factor that carries over perfectly to science fiction. Yet his problems as a filmmaker have only grown more obvious and, sadly, more frustrating, as Chappie is littered with brilliant ideas that never cohesively blend. It's an impatient film that only wants to address ideas and then move onto the next, disregarding the need to let themes simmer and grow into something unique and visionary. The performances are largely unlikable and unpalatable, while the film's thematic message falls incredulously far from its initial message. I simply cannot connect with Blomkamp's films when they come across as this incoherent and tone-deaf, especially when a great story is within arm's reach.

The film's titular character is one of many robots that works for the police force in Johannesburg. Their programmer is Deon (Dev Patel), a genius that has been developing the robots for years in hopes of finally finding a means of achieving truly artificial intelligence; that is, robots with a conscience. It's a fascinating topic that has ultimately been done many times before in various sci-fi entries, including the film's clear inspiration Short Circuit and last year's Transcendence. When Deon finally cracks his code and uncovers a means of birthing an A.I. system with the ability to think and feel on its own, he creates Chappie (voiced by Sharlto Copley, star of District 9 and villain in Elysium). His opposition comes from his business-minded boss, Michelle (Sigourney Weaver) and war-hungry ex-soldier Vincent (Hugh Jackman). As Deon gets involved with criminals that want to exploit the police bots, he is brought into a heist plan Ninja (Ninja) and Yolandi (Yo-Landi Visser) want to execute with newly intelligent Chappie. This leads to a complete fiasco as society begins to challenge the safety of the police bots while Chappie must avoid the temptations of humanity's evils.

The greatest problem with Chappie simply comes from its one-dimensional, unlikable characters. Yolandi and Ninja are two characters played by non-actors of the same name, who effectively act like white gangsters poorly emulating cultural stereotypes. It's tone-deaf, particularly as the film spends the majority of its time in their company and aims to elicit sympathy from such grotesque creations. Blomkamp's ambition is unwavering and continues to be his downfall, since he employs lofty ideas but continues to find ways to hinder their success. The implausible motivations introduced in the final half hour squander any hope of a strong payoff, with Jackman's Vincent transforming into a poorly conceived villain with a Christian belief system and an insane thirst for blood. The film also revels in helpless violence and slow-motion murders when the audience doesn't care about who or what is happening. Chappie is a compelling creation; he is a robot that acts as an innocent child raised in a brutally helpless and impoverished culture. Yet the characters surrounding him make the film a chore; if Chappie were on screen the entire time along with Hans Zimmer's excitingly electronic score, maybe Blomkamp's latest misjudgment could be saved.

My Favorite Movies: Film Noir by Michael Clawson

My Favorite Movies: Film Noir

by Michael Clawson of Terminal Volume

Film noir is classic moviemaking, because when you talk about film noir you’re not talking about a setting, like the desert in a western, or genre pictures, like sword-and-sandal epics or science fiction. What you’re actually talking about are the nuts and bolts of moviemaking: the rhythm of the dialogue, the tightness or looseness of the editing, the placement of the camera, the visual composition of light and shadow. This is why noir transcends genre, and why it could, and has been, a science fiction, a western, a crime thriller or a romantic drama. It can be anything it wants.

In the spirit of the Phoenix Film Festival’s Your Favorite Movies series, here are 10 of my favorite noir pictures from the golden age of noir in the 1940s right on through to today. You’ll notice by my choices that I like my noir a little pulpier than you might be used to. I’m also excluding one of my favorite noirs, which I will be adding to an upcoming list of my all-time favorite movies.

Double Indemnity — Insurance salesman Walter Neff has killed a man, staged his death and is now planning on running away with the man’s girl. But as he walks home, he’s startled by his ears: “I couldn't hear my own footsteps. It was the walk of a dead man.” With Raymond Chandler’s brutal dialogue, Billy Wilder’s pinpoint-precision directing, and the white-hot chemistry of Fred MacMurray and Barbara Stanwyck, Double Indemnity embodies all that was great about noir in the 1940s.

L.A. Confidential — Curtis Hanson’s 1997 adaptation of James Ellroy’s LA Confidential is a compendium of noir themes transplanted back into their 1940s source material. It’s a modern film, but other than color and modern actors — and breasts and violence — it looks, acts and sounds vintage. Told from varying viewpoints from within the Los Angeles Police Department, the film gave us Russell Crowe, Guy Pearce (who would later do another modern noir, Memento) and returned to us Kim Basinger as the sexiest screen siren since Rita Hayworth did that hair flip in Gilda. The plot can be hard to follow, but dig in deep and it’s rewarding beyond measure.

Detour — Edgar Ulmer’s 1945 low-budget Detour is down and dirty noir of the most basic order. It has a loser hero, a femme fatale, schemes with money and false identity, a convenient murder, crimes of circumstance … it borrows from all the classic building blocks of the noir catalog. Tethered, quite literally, to the plot — about a hitchhiker who assumes a dead bookie’s identity — is a murder so shocking that it still startles even after all these years.

The Killers — Famously based on an Ernest Hemingway story, Robert Siodmak’s 1946 noir staple begins like many noirs, at the end. Two hired thugs turn up to murder a former boxer (Burt Lancaster), who is tipped off to his impending doom, but refuses to flee. After he’s killed, others begin tracing his tragic trajectory backward, revealing crime, deception, and, you guessed it, a woman. The film was remade in 1964 by Don Siegel with Lee Marvin and Ronald Reagan, and John Cassavetes in the Lancaster role. They switched boxing to race car driving, but the general premise is the same. The first film is the better version, although both are great.

Body Heat — Lawrence Kasden’s steamy 1981 thriller Body Heat is an accessible entry point into a long legacy of noir classics that rely on gullible men and seductive women. The man here is William Hurt, playing a greasy lawyer, and the woman is Kathleen Turner, the trophy wife to a rich executive. They conspire to kill her husband, but then everything falls apart, like Walter Neff before them. The lighting is gorgeous, the sex scenes are legitimately sexy, and the Turner’s hroaty purr is just perfect for this material.

Out of the Past — One of the all-time classic noirs, Jacques Tourneur’s 1947 Out of the Past stars two of the great, Robert Mitchum and Kirk Douglas, in a flashback-heavy crime thriller involving hush money, tax records, love triangles and cold-blooded murder. Visually, the film is luscious, with these beautiful black and white compositions, many of them with curly tendrils of cigarette smoke snaking their way through the inky blacks. If there was ever a film where the shadows could come alive and strangle the actors, this is it.

Touch of Evil — When people talk about Touch of Evil, they often talk about the brilliant three-minute-plus tracking shot that opens the movie. It’s a masterpiece as far as long takes go, but so many discussions end there, long before the heart of this gorgeous film has been unearthed. Of course, the film is also steeped in lore, with director Orson Welles fighting, and losing — and then many year after his death, winning — for final cut of the film. Today, with Welles’ cut, the film is noir legend, from its shadowy interiors and brazen dialogue to its cynical worldview and devastating conclusion.

Brick — Rian Johnson’s 2005 hard-boiled detective thriller takes place in a high school with teenagers. When one character talks about getting suspended from school, it’s given the same weight as Sam Spade losing his detective license — the film winks at you, but also expects you to buy into its rarely subtle interpretation of noir. And it all works brilliantly. As soon as you surrender to the setting and the characters, the noir elements take over, creating a convoluted web of crime, innuendo, deception and even murder, some of the many grown-up acts these teens undertake to prove a larger point about the genre and its long reach.

Basic Instinct — Yes, yes, Sharon Stone doesn’t wear panties. That’s what people remember about the film, but never that Stone was modernizing the femme fatale in big sweeping brushstrokes. Paul Verhoeven’s 1992 erotic thriller is a monument to the character, whose roots can be traced back to the very beginning of noir. Also, Michael Douglas is great, playing a cop who is blinded by his lust.

Chinatown — Roman Polanski’s 1974 Chinatown was one of the early throwbacks to the classics, and it was a terrific success because it understood the characters, their roles in larger plots and the sense of dread that hangs over noir plots. These films don’t have happy endings. They don’t skip off into the sunset. Noir means black, and things have to end in the darkness, which is what Chinatown is.

Focus - Movie Review by Monte Yazzie

Focus Director: Glenn Ficarra and John Requa

Starring: Will Smith, Margot Robbie, Adrian Martinez, Gerald McRaney, Rodrigo Santoro, and BD Wong

A jigsaw puzzle can be put together in many different ways. Some start with the edges, while others focus on distinguishable objects. In the end it's a pleasant process of time spent in a non-too-complicated exercise. “Focus” from Glenn Ficarra and John Requa, the team behind 2011’s “Crazy, Stupid, Love”, has this same quality. It's an enjoyable though unbalanced caper and con artist film that has undeniable coolness but unfortunately struggles to find direction with the  chemistry of the leads and narrative structure to make it as memorable an experience as it might have been.

Nicky (Will Smith) is a con artist who runs a team of pickpockets and scam artists during the week of the Superbowl in New Orleans. It’s the perfect gig for the group to make a few easy million dollars taking advantage of gullible and ignorant tourists. Jess (Margot Robbie) is a rookie thief who tries to swindle Nicky with a blundered ploy that he easily identifies. Jess becomes enamored with Nicky’s abilities and tracks him down in an effort to learn and be trained by him. Nicky, living by the crooks rule of never letting heart get involved in business, allows Jess into his group but leaves her when things get too serious.

Chemistry, especially in a film like “Focus”, plays an integral aspect in the execution of the film. Take for instance Faye Dunaway and Steve McQueen in 1968’s “The Thomas Crown Affair”, a film that is a clear influence here, where a major part of what makes that film work so well is the undeniable chemistry between the leads. Will Smith and Margot Robbie’s relationship at times comes off natural while other times it feels forced and flat. When it works in early scenes where the two actors are given time to share the screen in moments of flirtation and playful charm without clear insight into their intentions, the film builds a chemistry that assists the distrusting qualities of a story about deceitful con artists. However, as the film progresses and the mystery is slighted for a lazy love story, the chemistry of the actors is lost amongst a story that feels confused with the directions it wants to take. Though it’s easy to see what the film wanted to be, especially in a scene involving Nicky and an egocentric gambler (BD Wong). The moment plays out with building tension, two gamblers who care less about risk than they do about their ego, lending Will Smith the opportunity to be conflicted rather than cool and the narrative to embody the confidence and cunning qualities of the con artist it portrays.

Will Smith still has an indisputable charisma. Whether his cool, calm, and comedic demeanor in every situation, serious or otherwise, or the emotional intensity that he accompanies with teary-eyed sensitivity, it’s never a stretch for him to play these composed yet emotionally guarded characters. Margot Robbie makes a great femme fatale here but she also shines during emotional moments when her character becomes vulnerable to Nicky. Robbie has been consistently good in her short film career so far.

“Focus” has a slick and crafty quality initially but unfortunately stalls in the second half and succumbs to repeating many of the scenes it already utilized to establish the motivations in the beginning. Though Will Smith and Margot Robbie are interesting to watch, a weak narrative undermines the chemistry that could have elevated this film above some of the flaws it falters into.

Monte’s Rating

2.75 out of 5.00

Mommy - Movie Review by Eric Forthun

Mommy  

Starring Anne Dorval, Antoine-Olivier Pilon, Suzanne Clément, Alexandre Goyette, and Patrick Huard

Directed by Xavier Dolan

Rated R

Run Time: 138 minutes

Genre: Drama

Opens February 27th

By Eric Forthun of Cinematic Shadows

Mommy is Xavier Dolan's thrillingly unique vision of a troubled mother-son relationship. Shot in a 1:1 aspect ratio, the film is a jarring look at a mother facing an ethical dilemma surrounding her compulsive, abnormally grotesque spawn. As a widow, Diane (Anne Dorval) must raise her violent son, Steve (Antoine-Olivier Pilon) in a troubled environment, which grows increasingly threatened from a mysterious new neighbor across the street. Dorval's performance as Diane is marked by tenacity and a profound melancholy; her decision to remove her son from self-imposed institutionalization defines her internal desire to love her son and her external apprehension toward embracing him. Pilon's role as Steve has been noted as a semi-autobiographical role for Dolan, who has attempted to express himself directly through his films with other works like I Killed My Mother. Here, Dolan infuses the straightforward narrative with a sci-fi conceit in the opening moments, laying the groundwork for an emotionally riveting, daringly original feature.

Steve is known for his violent outbursts and struggles with ADHD after his father's death. When his mother takes him out of the institution, she must move to home-based work in order to ensure his safety. That involves homeschooling her 15-year old troublemaker, even looking for help from the stuttering neighbor Kyla (Suzanne Clément), who proves to be a welcome adversary to Steve's abrasive nature. The three form a harsh dynamic that involves Steve's manipulation of the two both emotionally and physically; this furthers the complication of the film's central conceit, in that involuntary institutionalization can be enforced by parents through a fictitious Quebec law, the S-14. This allows parents to submit troublesome children to state care without any questions asked. While it's recommended to Die (the titular mother's nickname, and a potential excuse for Dolan to mirror his debut feature that hinted at homicidal feelings for his mother) by outsiders, she cannot fathom deserting her child. At least, not after already doing that once in the wake of her husband's passing.

Dolan's unusual cinematography adds a portrait-like feel to much of the work. Some will see it as pretentious, but it's masterful when it's used as a means of exposing Die's emotional state. She's suffocated and trapped by Steve's destructive nature, so in the moments that her mind and soul feel free, the cinematography proves powerful. Dolan is an intelligent young director (still only 25) that understands the conventions of melodrama and flips them on its head. He utilizes dispassionate actions and builds a sense of regret that overwhelms characters after their harsh decisions; a brilliant physical altercation between Steve and Kyla epitomizes that challenging dichotomy. One commits a horrible act and the other feels isolated, only for the audience to grow conflicted on how they should feel due to what we know about these characters. Yet their actions always remain true to the individuals, and the emotional core of the film swells with immense empathy in its second half. A four-minute montage stands as one of the most affecting scenes I've ever encountered. Mommy is such an engrossing work that will leave some cold, others confounded, and a few amazed; regardless, it's worth seeing.

The Lazarus Effect - Movie Review by Eric Forthun

The Lazarus Effect  

Starring Mark Duplass, Olivia Wilde, Donald Glover, Evan Peters, and Sarah Bolger

Directed by David Gelb

Rated PG-13

Run Time: 83 minutes

Genre: Horror

Opens February 27th

By Eric Forthun of Cinematic Shadows

The Lazarus Effect is like that crazy uncle at your family gatherings that comes nicely dressed one time, making you think he's going to act differently. Instead, he just looks good while spewing off a bunch of nonsense that leaves everyone confused and disoriented, hoping that maybe next time things won't be such a mess. Most mainstream horror films as of late fall into that category, and The Lazarus Effect is no exception. It's a nonsensical affair that exudes pretension and self-righteousness when it's really just a painfully familiar and vapid horror story. The story focuses on Frank (Mark Duplass) and Zoe (Olivia Wilde), two scientists working on an experiment that began as a means of reviving coma patients from their mental state. Slowly but surely, it evolved into experimenting on recently deceased animals in hopes of bringing them back to life. They are joined by Clay (Evan Peters), an e-cigarette smoking slacker that's also a complete genius, and Niko (Donald Glover), the shy scientist that not-so-secretly has a crush on Zoe.

They hire a documentarian, Eva (Sarah Bolger), to film their lab tests, and she basically acts as eye-candy for the two single guys while miraculously not having any of her own characteristics. It's impressive. Outside of Zoe, who is developed as a religious believer with a troubled and traumatic childhood, each character is treated like their respective horror movie clichés. Except they also don't really follow them at all, only when they need to die (side note: why does the black guy always die first in horror films?). Nonetheless, an experiment gone wrong one night leads to Zoe's death, with the entire group debating about the ethics of reviving her using their technology. I should probably preface this rapid plot development by the fact that they bring a dog to life who acts aggressively around everyone except Zoe (bear with me), an enigmatic company steals their technology when they pretty much agree that no one would spend the amount of money provided on them (a story that goes nowhere, but it gets better), and some wonderful coincidences that allow for them to break back in to their own lab to do these tests when they literally had everything taken away of them. Who needs plausibility, right?

No surprises here, as Zoe gets revived and everything goes crazy. The ultimate problem with The Lazarus Effect is not simply its clichéd storyline or its emotionless characters, but its complete and utter disregard for being exciting. There's nothing thrilling about its cinematography, score, sound effects, scares, or visual flair. It's a repetitive film. There are numerous scenes that show us, at a variety of different angles (!), a fiery hallway that dominated Zoe's childhood memories, but it never delivers a payoff until an out-of-left-field type plot twist. As Zoe grows increasingly powerful, the film grows even less interesting. She's unstoppable, like a version of last year's Lucy if the character wanted to murder scientists. The story hints at the malevolence behind many pharmaceuticals and attempts to tackle religion, but it ain't no Exorcist. The cast should make for a compelling story, especially with Donald Glover as a comedic sidekick and the capable Duplass in the lead. But even Wilde cannot save the film in a role where she's basically asked to be crazy. The one solid thing about The Lazarus Effect is that it runs a scant 83 minutes, making the experience mostly painless and gone in a hurry, like a tooth getting yanked out.

My Favorite Modern Westerns by Michael Clawson

Great modern westerns by Michael Clawson of Terminal Volume

No genre is more ubiquitous to Hollywood than the western. Some of the very first films were about cowboys, horses and gunfights. The genre is so old that when the first westerns were being made there were certain parts of the country that were only partially removed from the Old West. Westerns were to audiences then what 90s movies are to us now — fading, but still very clear memories.

Yet, every year there is renewed interest in the western. It’s not a ton of interest, not like other genres, but enough that we’re reminded that the western will never die, even though the original stars — Tom Mix, Gene Autry, Will Rogers, Harry Carey — have been replaced by John Wayne and Clint Eastwood, themselves replaced by others.

In the spirit of the Phoenix Film Festival’s Your Favorite Movies series, here are my favorite westerns of the new millennium. I’m cutting it off at 2000, because before that is filled with all the classics that would clog my list. And because you already know about Butch Cassidy and the Sundance Kid, Unforgiven, The Wild Bunch and, my personal favorite, Once Upon a Time in the West. By removing those and sticking to modern films, we can draw attention to the films that are carrying on the great western traditions.

1- The Assassination of Jesse James by the Coward Robert Ford — Andrew Dominik’s gorgeous ode to the west’s greatest outlaw is unlike any western that came before it. Rapturously narrated, photographed in poetic stanzas, and with acting that is devastatingly pure, Jesse James established the myth of the man and then shattered it, only to mythologize once again in its closing heartbreaking chapters.

2- The Proposition — John Hillcoat’s Australian outlaw flick was a stark wake-up about the violent implications of the cowboy way. The bad guys here are very very bad; even the good guys are just varying shades of dark gray. About a lawman who gives a man an ultimatum — bring me your terrible brother or your less terrible brother will hang — The Proposition is relentless in its pursuit of overturning the western stereotypes.

3-Open Range — Kevin Costner is the butt of a lot of jokes, but he has a sensitive eye to the Old West and its historical relevance. In Open Range he focuses on several cowpunchers and their desperate fight with a town’s heavy-handed leader. The film is notable for its realism, with gunfights taking place in agonizing realtime, townspeople who don’t vanish at high noon and relationships that don’t just take place behind swinging saloon doors. Dances With Wolves might be masterpiece, but Open Range is Costner’s smaller study of the west.

4-Meek’s Cutoff — Kelly Reichardt’s sumptuously slow Meek’s Cutoff would never get made in another age. It plods along in plain skirts, bonnets, covered wagons and so little exposition that it’s downright vague. But the film captures a rarely seen aspect of the west: tedious travel and crippling boredom. Strip the action out of a western and you have a film that is meditative and a little terrifying in its stillness.

5-The Homesman — Tommy Lee Jones’ The Homesman picks up almost in the middle of Meek’s Cutoff, with Hilary Swank escorting three insane women across the frontier, where they will be cared for by what can only be described as “someone else.” The film rattles along at a fair clip, stopping for various episodes in the wild, but then it becomes something so much more when Swank’s homely cowgirl decides she’s had enough. These later passages are so powerful and tragic that they solidify Jones’ name among the western greats.

6-Brokeback Mountain — Forever known as the gay cowboy movie, people often forget that Ang Lee’s Brokeback Mountain was a loud declaration of the western’s right to be anything it wanted, without all the white hat/black hat cliché. The film made homesexuality, cowboys, stereotypes of the Old West, hate crimes, family values … all of it relevant in a modern context. Step aside from the cultural response to Brokeback Mountain and peer into this film’s open heart and you’ll see that had a lot to say, all of it eloquent.

7-The Good, The Bad, and The Weird -- This and maybe Sukiyaki Western Django are noteworthy examples of the western being appropriated and tweaked by other countries and cultures. Cowboys are a universal idea, an archetype of brazen fearlessness and machoness. We called them cowboys, but in other cultures they were called samurai. Here in The Good, The Bad, and The Weird, they crash the two together in a fiery mess of stylized gunfights, stunts and special effects.

8-Django Unchained — Quentin Tarantino’s bloody western acknowledged something very rare in westerns: slavery. Part revenge tale, part rescue mission, but thoroughly a Tarantino picture, Django turned two men — one white and one black — loose to fight their way through the Antebellum South. By recognizing and commenting on America’s terrible shame the film committed itself to western history.

9-True Grit — I’m still a big fan of the original True Grit, but what the Coen Brothers did with their rascally remake is notable for a variety of reasons, and language is one of the big ones. Never before have we heard cowboys talk like they do here, with made-up words, stammering syntax, mumbled gibberish and tobacco drippings. Jeff Bridges is great as Rooster Cogburn, but the real star here is the authentic-sounding dialogue.

10-Appaloosa — Ed Harris’ forgotten cowboy flick does not break tons of new ground for the western genre, which is why I like the movie so much — it’s more of a callback to the way these movies used to be. Lawmen with big guns, cattle barons, outlaws, shootouts, main street confrontations … innovation in the genre can only go so far before it must reach back into the past and borrow from what already works. And there is nothing wrong with that.