The Last of Robin Hood - Movie Review by Michael Clawson

The Last of Robin Hood

Starring Dakota Fanning, Kevin Kline and Susan Sarandon

Directed by Richard Glatzer and Wash Westmoreland

From Killer Films and Lifetime Films

Rated R

94 minutes

by Michael Clawson of Terminal Volume

Even at 50 years old, actor Errol Flynn was known as a ruthless playboy with a ravishing appetite for pretty young things. So when the Captain Blood star makes a phone call to 15-year-old’s house, the mother has every right to slam the receiver down and march upstairs to ground her daughter. But this mother is smitten.

And that’s how quick a teenager is allowed to date and sleep with an aging Hollywood star in The Last of Robin Hood. Fame, it seems, goes a long way in smoothing out the wrinkles of social norms, and creased faces.

Not that this dilemma is all Flynn’s fault. Beverly Aandland (Dakota Fanning) did show up to a Hollywood movie set with a fake birth certificate saying she was 18. And she never mentioned her age, even though Flynn had his suspicions she was young — too young. Later when he finds out how old she is, he doesn’t recoil or jump out the dating pool, but manipulates Beverly’s mother, a rotten piece of work named Florence (Susan Sarandon), who justifies the pimping out of her daughter in the name of her career. “This is how all the young starlets get roles,” she says convincing no one but herself.

The Last of Robin Hood is told from the point of view of Beverly, who wasn’t raped on her first date with Errol Flynn, though it came very close. When Flynn turns up the next day, he’s head over heels for her and charms her into a relationship that lasts until his death two years later from alcohol and drug abuse. As Beverly begins to learn about Errol, she’s just as smitten as her mother, who accompanies the couple everywhere they go to divert unseemly rumors and gossip magazines. Beverly reminds Errol of a “little sprite … a wood nymph,” so he calls her Woodsy, which is not a flattering nickname when yelled across rooms at parties.

Flynn is played by Kevin Kline, an actor who also dated (and married) a much-younger starlet — though Phoebe Cates was very much a legal adult when they began dating. Comparison images reveal similarities yet Kline’s version of Flynn is not as dashing as Jude Law’s swashbucklin lothario from The Aviator. Kline does a commendable job, except he’s just not given much to work work around. Flynn could command a room and seduce women with ease, but the script writes him as a hollow shell of want and need. The frustration that Flynn was experiencing as his career faded was likely immense, but the The Last of Robin Hood seems more concerned with tacky spectacle — wooden canes to illustrate his deteriorating health, hidden flasks to show his alcohol dependence, and barely a mention of his communist flop, Cuban Rebel Girls, which Beverly starred in. Even a scene with Max Casella as a young Stanley Kubrick casting Lolita could not put Flynn’s career into perspective.

Fanning, like Kline, seems to struggle with the script, which is as knotty and floatable as her nickname. Dialogue is terribly written, and occasionally terribly acted, and much of the lightweight staging and tempo give the impression of a Lifetime TV movie. I wasn’t surprised to see Lifetime Films produced it — it just looks cheap. I will say this for Fanning, she does convey the innocence of and frailty of a 15 year old. Her whisper-thin frame and her childlike voice give credibility to her character’s age, even as Fanning pushes closer to 21 years old.

Sarandon, though, is a mess. Her performance is all over the place, except where it needs to be. And her mother character’s motivations are all over the place. By the end of the film I wasn’t sure if she really wanted Beverly to succeed, wanted a free ride or was herself in love with Errol Flynn. When Florence tells Beverly’s father about Flynn’s advances, the dad flips. “Errol Flynn is a walking penis,” he shouts. I liked this guy, and I wanted other characters that smart.

In the end, though, the Lifetime audience will love this. Everyone else, not so much.

Innocence - Movie Review by Eric Forthun

Innocence  

Starring Sophie Curtis, Kelly Reilly, Graham Phillips, Linus Roache, and Sarah Sutherland

Directed by Hilary Brougher

Rated PG-13

Run Time: 96 minutes

Genre: Romance/Horror

Opens September 5th

By Eric Forthun of Cinematic Shadows

When did films with teenage leads become so woefully simplistic and nonsensical? Innocence falls into the excessive batch of supernatural young adult films that doesn’t develop characters, fails to tell a consistent narrative, and underutilizes talented actors in supporting roles. The film opens with a tragedy as most of these stories do, with Beckett Warner (Sophie Curtis) spending time with her mother and father on the beach. While surfing, her mother goes underneath a wave and never comes back. A family gathering quickly turns into a mournful afternoon. To escape the tragedy, her father, Miles (Linus Roache), and Beckett move to Riverdale and she becomes enrolled in the exclusive Hamilton Preparatory School. Here, the colors of the film shift to dark, ominous blacks and grays, signifying that something is wrong with Beckett’s developing education.

When moving, she runs into Tobey Crawford (Graham Phillips), a young man with the face of a lost puppy and the emotional range of a brick wall. Tobey and Beckett fall in love because…well, that kind of thing doesn’t need an explanation, does it? The characters just need to meet cute, which in this case involves Beckett encountering some strange ghost in a closet before turning around to see Tobey. Outside of that romance, though, Beckett begins to feel exhausted and sickly in the school, leading to a meeting with the nurse, Pamela (Kelly Reilly). She wants to help and prescribes Beckett some pills, and also decides to start dating Beckett’s father because he’s lonely and the story needs conflict. Characters join in loving embraces as if they are robotic beings with no semblance of emotion. The story demands that since it underlies the whole “something is really wrong with this place” vibe. Explanations are pushed to the side in the wake of shock value and completely incidental discoveries.

My favorite discovery probably lies in Beckett entering a house that was seemingly left unlocked, only to trip over a vacuum and hit against a mirror. In doing so, a picture falls out from behind the mirror that explains everything. Whenever I have a secret and I want to hide it from people, I usually tuck it away behind a tangible object that needs a simple nudge to expose the whole plan. Innocence uses many of these devices to tell the story as quickly and inanely as possible. Another grating element that the film employs is random jump scares; horror needs to be built on atmosphere, tension, characters, and post-production content like editing and sound design. What the audience sees here, however, are jarring, aggressive cuts to grayed-out girls that seem to be haunting the school grounds. How is it scary when it’s just meant to jolt the viewer?

The acting from the two young leads is woefully bad, with Curtis and Phillips attempting to make material out of their characters when there’s simply nothing within the film. These characters have no single defining characteristics. That’s not an exaggeration, either. Beckett’s mom died and she’s seeing ghosts. Tobey is supposed to look cute to please teenage girls that may see the film. It’s also striking how primitive the storytelling becomes in the final half hour, relying on ridiculous supernatural lore that never makes sense with the main narrative. Kelly Reilly, a terrific supporting actress that has shined in films like Flight and Calvary, is wasted here as a mysterious woman that has secrets but never feels like a tangible creation on screen. I suppose that’s my biggest problem with the film. Director Hilary Brougher shows promise in the film’s opening moments with utilizing screen space, but her film falls apart under the emptiness of its content. There’s nothing behind the characters, their actions, the plot, or the setting. Innocence cannot draw the audience in because it doesn’t have a story to tell.

The November Man - Movie Review by Michael Clawson

The November Man

Starring Pierce Brosnan, Luke Bracey, Bill Smitrovich, Olga Kurylenko and Will Patton

Directed by Roger Donaldson

Rated R

108 minutes

by Michael Clawson of Terminal Volume

The November Man is about as clumsy as spy movies get.

The dopiness starts almost immediately, when the lead spy puts on the suit of America’s top diplomat and no one knows the difference. There’s even a parade for the diplomat because apparently that’s what people in other countries do for American ambassadors — wildly attended events with huge receiving lines and lots of waving flags. And then, during the little parade, no one notices that the diplomat is not the diplomat, but in fact a CIA agent with noticeably different physical characteristics.

Yeesh, this movie goes on like this, every worthless piece of it. The CIA agent’s home computer boots to the CIA login page with a massive spinning logo, because that’s completely subtle for a spy working in another country. When a call is being traced a nerdy tech guy stands next to the phone prancing, presumably with a full bladder, and doing the “keep him on the line as long as you can” motion and holding, I kid you not, a wi-fi router up to the phone. In the same scene, spy agents arrive to an operation in a caravan of noisy dirtbikes, and then the lead spy makes a V with his fingers, points at his eyes and says, “I want eyes on him.” How did the other agents not chuckle at him a little? “Boss, we can hear you fine. Hand signals not necessary.”

The film stars Pierce Brosnan, a former James Bond, so really there is no excuse for this behavior. Yes, Brosnan’s Bond films had some flagrant spy stupidity — the invisible spy car, outrunning glacier tsunamis with parasails, and bagpipe guns — but the movies were always meant to be a little tongue-in-cheek and silly. But never idiotic, not like this heap.

Brosnan plays Devereaux, a retired CIA operative who is re-activated by his former chief, a man who is so secretive that he never bothers to tell anyone that he has brought an old spy into the case he’s working. This causes mayhem later when Devereaux turns up to rescue a female agent and everyone at the CIA is like, “Who’s this guy?” One agent, a young Jon Bon Jovi lookalike, can only manage to say, “Whose car is that she got into?” but his acting is so limited that it sounds more like, “Whose car. Is that she. Got. Into?” Siri has better diction.

Eventually it’s obvious that Devereaux is being set up, but I’m not sure that was the villain’s plan all along. It’s an accidental setup. In any case, Devereaux tracks down Alice (Olga Kurylenko, a former Bond girl), who has information on a Russian general in line to become president. The general did some bad things in Serbia, where much of the movie takes place and where a flexible hitwoman is sent to dispose of everyone. We know she’s flexible because she checks into her hotel room and promptly does the splits on the floor. Because why not? Her splits move is made more hilarious later when she’s delayed by a dying man’s final grasp for her foot. All that flexibility and she’s held up by the weakest trip move on the planet. (It should also be noted that the dying man is a reporter who works for the New York Times, yet he calls his voice recorder a dictaphone just like your grandpa.)

Anyway, The November Man is just cruising along with Devereaux murdering everyone and stumbling into action scenes, until eventually he has to settle an old score with Jon Bon Jovi (Luke Bracey). This is done by Devereaux getting drunk, slipping into Bon Jovi’s apartment and holding a gun to his civilian girlfriend’s head and then severing her femoral artery to prove a point that agent’s shouldn’t date while on duty. This poor girl, did she know what she was getting into when her agent received November Man.

Women aren’t treated well here. They’re all held hostage at one point, or appear naked in strip clubs. Late in the movie, Kurylenko has to disguise herself as a hooker (in the shortest miniskirt ever filmed) to get what she wants from the evil general. But the low point of female objectification comes during an interrogation scene involving a creepy old man being questioned by a young female agent. The first thing out of his mouth: “Show me your tits.” The audience laughed at this line, not because it was funny, but because it was comically awful. And sorta embarrassing to witness.

I want to like Brosnan, but his performance is all over the place — at times he’s a cool spy guy, but it never lasts as he descends into drunken rampages. He’s trying to move past his James Bond years, and I don’t blame him, but I think he accomplished that already with 2005’s wonderful hitman dark-comedy The Matador. And not only is November Man redundant to his anti-Bond plans, but it’s all kinds of bad.

It’s directed by Roger Donaldson, who's made some noteworthy spy movies before, including the Pentagon thriller No Way Out. He’s also worked with Brosnan before, in Dante’s Peak, a movie that, when mentioning Donaldson-Brosnan pairings, can now be called “the good one.”

The Trip to Italy - Movie Review by Michael Clawson

The Trip to Italy  

Starring Steve Coogan and Rob Brydon

Directed by Michael Winterbottom

From IFC Films

Not rated

108 minutes

by Michael Clawson of Terminal Volume

The Trip to Italy is a travelogue with Michael Caine, Robert De Niro and Al Pacino, but without all the aggravation of, you know, Michael Caine, Robert De Niro and Al Pacino. Actors, yes; travel guides, no.

In their place are Steve Coogan and Rob Brydon, best friends playing themselves in what can only loosely be described as a film. It’s more food channel globe-trotting. Think of an Anthony Bourdain reality show, but with Batman impersonations. Yes, Coogan and Brydon are prone to impersonations, including several from the Batman franchise, from which they do muffled Tom Hardys and half a dozen varieties of Michael Caine. The two actors share conversations in other men’s voices, and to them it’s just natural and fluid. In the middle of their impersonations they dine on glorious Italian feasts, peer out over gorgeous vistas and cozy up in hotel rooms that are likely more expensive for one night than most people’s homes for a month.

Fine food, impersonations and fancy locations. This is generally the ebb and flow The Trip to Italy, which is a sequel to 2010’s The Trip, both of which are culled from episodes of the BBC show, also called The Trip. There is not much plot, other than what is established in the dialogue: Steve misses his son and communicates frequently with him, and Rob has a family back at home that would be dismayed at his vacation activities. Food is eaten, scenes are taken in, hotel beds are crashed into, and then it all starts again the next day as the two men bop through Italy for a newspaper article about food and travel.

The scenes of the men chatting are intercut with B-roll of locals walking through their city squares, little European cars rumbling up cobbled streets, and of line cooks tossing sizzling vegetables and sous chefs plating elaborate appetizers. This could all be very pretentious and boring if not for Steve and Rob’s contradictory interests: there they are in the pinnacle of luxury talking about Bane’s facemask from the The Dark Knight Rises. Had they gone to opera one of them would have brought a whoopie cushion along.

The impersonations, it must be said, are very good. Their Michael Caine voices have been heard before, but they never get old. Not only can they do Caine, but they can do him from a variety of eras — from the Italians Jobs’ shouting to the Dark Knight’s weepiness. They also do convincing versions of Anthony Hopkins, Woody Allen, Hugh Grant, Roger Moore and Sean Connery, and yes, Pacio and De Niro. Much of the dialogue is disposable, though several lines are worth keeping. In one scene, Steve comments about a women, “She has a lovely gait.” Rob adds: “It’s probably padlocked.” At one point they put in Jagged Little Pill by Alanis Morissette so they can croon nostalgia through the Italian countryside.

If you saw the first Trip, or enjoy the TV series, then you know what you’re walking into. If not, then The Trip to Italy might be a hard sale. Too little happens, and what does happen is repeated from scene to scene. The locations are amazing, and the food will turn your stomach into a big hungry knot, but the film doesn’t have much to offer other than Steve Coogan and Rob Brydon, both of whom are likable guys.

But here’s the thing about vacations: no matter how much you like your travel companions, you eventually get sick of them. That’s the case with your every family vacation ever, and also with The Trip to Italy.

The Trip to Italy - Movie Review by Eric Forthun

The Trip to Italy  

Starring Steve Coogan, Rob Brydon, Rosie Fellner, and Claire Keelan

Directed by Michael Winterbottom

Not Rated

Run Time: 108 minutes

Genre: Comedy/Drama

Opens August 29th

By Eric Forthun of Cinematic Shadows

The Trip to Italy is a more incisive, spontaneous film than the first entry from 2011. Much like its predecessor, the film was cut from a series of episodes from the British television show into a feature-length theatrical release. Both films feel episodic and highly improvised due to the nature of the filmmaking itself and the terrific comedic actors on screen, Steve Coogan and Rob Brydon. They elevate this sequel to more sweeping, personal heights. The comedy feels more ripe since it is less reliant on immature conversations but rather allegories about the characters’ lives and the acceptance of growing up past their sophomoric, babbling comedy. The comedy doesn’t always work, as is inherent with improvisational humor in a structured setting, but the final half hour adds a level of poignancy and artistry to the storytelling that makes the comedy tragically insightful. These are flawed characters who use their comedy to escape their depressing personal struggles.

The story is simple: two men, Steve and Rob (playing versions of themselves), travel to Italy for six meals in six different places. They visit restaurants in Liguria, Tuscany, Rome, Amalfi, and Capri, along with side adventures to the ruins of Pompeii and the Roman catacombs. What’s striking about the film is that the premise should rely heavily on the food itself, yet the characters always put that on the back burner. The structure is similar to the first in that the scenes show the chefs preparing the food while cutting between the conversation in the dining room, and there’s a a certain twist on those elements from the first time around. The Trip established Steve as a promiscuous, rambunctious sort that didn’t have the level of success and recognition as Rob, making him a more bitter and inherently more lonely man. This narrative, however, focuses on Rob’s utter inability to sustain his marriage and using his impressions to escape the sad state of his own reality. The story allows harkens back to his personal turmoil and uses that to fuel conversations at lunch.

Buddy comedies don’t usually frame themselves as character studies but rather narratives filled with eccentric characters butting heads with one another. The Trip to Italy shatters that with its independent storytelling leanings, opening and closing with shots of the same character each capturing a transformation. Steve feels like the center of the story due to those bookends despite his career not progressing as rapidly as Rob’s. The latter gets the opportunity to audition for a role in a Michael Mann film over in the States; he constantly describes it as the lead despite knowing that he dies halfway through and acts as the mob’s accountant. But hey, he can brag about it if he wants. Nonetheless, this fuels Steve’s jealousy alongside Rob’s supposedly successful, happy marriage. My, how things have changed from the first film, with Rob now struggling to maintain a connection with his wife long-distance while she is busy taking care of the kids. He also cheats on her with a young woman that finds him hilarious, so naturally things are a little rough.

Impressions remain the focal point of the comedy and both actors bring their best voices. The dueling Michael Caines return, where the characters now talk about his work in The Dark Knight Rises and constantly argue that the other simply isn’t doing it right. There are also little glimpses of Dustin Hoffman, Woody Allen, Christian Bale, and Tom Hardy (as Bane, of course). While those are the main attractions for laughs, the film shines when it allows the characters to make observational humor, like a genius interaction at Pompeii discussing a man trapped in a glass box. In those tiny moments the film feels like a strangely brilliant beast. Coogan and Brydon bring a conversational nature to the film with their natural exchanges, reacting wholeheartedly to the other’s offbeat, unwritten jokes. These characters are sad and lonely for most of the film’s duration even if that never emerges at the surface. The final ten minutes are quietly, methodically biting, proving that The Trip to Italy is a comedy that feels light until it delivers a gut-punch of a conclusion.

As Above, So Below - Movie Review by Eric Forthun

As Above, So Below  

Starring Perdita Weeks, Ben Feldman, Edwin Hodge, and François Civil

Directed by John Erick Dowdle

Rated R

Run Time: 93 minutes

Genre: Horror/Thriller

Opens August 29th

By Eric Forthun of Cinematic Shadows

I often insist that found footage horror films serve no justifiable purpose in the cinematic landscape. They are generic, plodding, dull, jump scare-heavy features that have derivative characters doing nonsensical things. As Above, So Below follows that familiar formula but delivers on atmosphere and balls-to-the-wall craziness that so few horror films aim for nowadays. The characters even serve a purpose within the convolutedly plotted story as it aims to be more than base-level scares! The horror. But a far too packed conclusion with too many loose ends alongside a soft message for its protagonists leaves the film with a sour taste in the viewer’s mouth. The story opens with Scarlett (Perdita Weeks), an adventurous, intelligent girl sneaking into Iran to navigate caves that are about to be collapsed underneath the city’s infrastructure. There, she discovers a supposedly lost language map that can lead her to a magical stone that will act as a supreme source of power through alchemy and medical wonder.

Her journey needs some guidance, though, so she draws upon her old friend, George (Ben Feldman), to decipher where exactly these maps lead. Sure enough, they belong to a place in the Paris catacombs, a 200-mile stretch that holds over six million deceased citizens underneath the city itself. Various parts of the catacombs have collapsed and some areas have secret tunnels that no one has ever discovered. Until now, since they know exactly where to look. A young local, Papillon (François Civil), guides these rambunctious fellows through the catacombs and leads them through various rough spots, only for things to go south quickly. Inner demons emerge as characters begin to battle claustrophobia, the troubles of their past, and the growing unrest as they continue to go lower and lower. They see what has haunted them all of these years as they sift through caverns and ever-increasing holes. It’s as if they are descending into Hell.

The film deserves credit where credit is due. The story, however convoluted and contrived it becomes in the final act, remains engaging and entertainingly confusing during its course. Loose ends feel like they are constantly being addressed and the lore is dense and sprawling. The problem remains within the premise of the filmmaking itself: why, oh why, does the film need to be in found footage format? What does it possibly add? The first thirty minutes are hackneyed, awful filmmaking in terms of its direction and look. The film is inappropriately framed and doesn’t rely on any cinematic stylings, nor does it feel more personal due to its connection with the characters. Instead, it feels like the shoddy, cheap way to go when making a horror film in today’s age. While films like The Descent have handled this kind of narrative more thrillingly and not relied on the gimmicks of the filmmaking style, here the presentation feels insincere to the audience and like a knock-off rather than an original idea.

Claustrophobia does play an important part in the film’s effectiveness. Most characters have cameras pinned to their headlights except for Benji (Edwin Hodge), who carries a handheld that he usually places in front of him when navigating through spaces. A brilliantly staged scene has him being the last of the pack going through a tight spot and getting stuck; instead of shifting the camera, director John Erick Dowdle lingers and lets the uncomfortable sense of hopelessness grow. The film truly creates an unnerving feeling with an emphasis on closed walls and other visually demonstrative cues of unrest. Yet the story itself becomes incomprehensible and overblown in its explanations. The narrative doesn’t make much sense with too much mixed Egyptian/Parisian/personal mythology to prevent thematic coherence or narrative sense from occurring. As Above, So Below is exciting when it avoids horror conventions, but more often than not it falls on those crutches and never walks on its own.

Sin City: A Dame to Kill For - Movie Review by Michael Clawson

Sin City: A Dame to Kill For  

Starring Jessica Alba, Josh Brolin, Eva Green, Mickey Rourke, Joseph Gordon-Levitt, and Powers Boothe

Directed by Robert Rodriguez, Frank Miller

Rated R

Run Time: 102 minutes

Genre: Action/Crime

Opens August 22nd

by Michael Clawson of Terminal Volume

“I was born at night, but I wasn’t born last night,” Josh Brolin’s hard-boiled avenger says to the Dame to Kill For, who coos and saunters over to him, her hips swiveling in see-through négligée, her eyes white orbs blinking seductively in the shadows. The noir drips from the screen in puddles. Bring waders.

Sin City: A Dame to Kill For is less a sequel to 2005’s Sin City than it is an appendix of new characters and alternative viewpoints. I spent much of the movie trying to figure out why Marv, Mickey Rourke’s bruiser from the first movie, was alive and well and still picking fights in that dive bar where all the strippers leave their clothes on. The answer is, of course, that this is a prequel, though even that’s questionable as Bruce Willis, another dead guy from the first movie, turns up as a ghost.

So really, don’t worry about the details, because what you’re going into this for is the pulpy crime drama, the stylized violence and the oozing sexuality. It also helps that the movie looks completely bonkers — panels from the graphic novel are snipped from the page and pasted hastily onto the screen using a mixture of rubber cement, grit and blood. Scenes are shot in silhouette, with accents of vivid color, using unrealistic cell-shaded backgrounds, and with dramatically noirish compositions with eviscerating shadows. The visuals are no better than the first movie, but that’s OK because the first movie has yet to be topped, even as The Spirit and 300 — both children of Sin City author Frank Miller — have notably tried.

Like the first Sin City, this one tells several intertwining stories at once. The main character, or the most main character, is Dwight played by Josh Brolin. He’s one of James M. Cain’s loser-heroes, a Walter Neff with a trenchcoat and a bad attitude. Dwight is skulking through the night when Ava (Eva Green) turns up and baits him, hooks hims and then, gyrating her constantly exposed breasts, reels him in. She inspires all kinds of noir monologue from him, including this gem: “She’s late like always and like always she’s worth the wait.” Green, who slithers across the screen in fleshy curls, chews up the scenery and dialogue like she hasn’t eaten since June.

As Dwight gets wrapped up in Ava’s (and Ava’s Boob’s) dilemma, elsewhere we meet up with Marv (Rourke), who’s still the eternal protector of Nancy (Jessica Alba), a stripper who never strips, though she does a routine late in the movie that is terrifyingly aggressive even for a shady biker bar. Nancy was in the original film, and she returns here with little to do, even as she attempts to murder Senator Roark (the joyfully vile Powers Boothe), whose reach into Sin City’s criminal underworld is vast. Roark also figures prominently in a plotline involving Johnny (Joseph Gordon-Levitt), a young gun with a sixth sense about gambling. Like Brolin’s character, Gordon-Levitt is given lots of Raymond Chandler-inspired dialogue. “Dammit, Johnny, hate yourself when you got the time,” says Johnny.

Film noir is a Hollywood staple, and easy to mock, and Sin City lampoons it more than it honors it. But that’s not a complaint, because noir is limitless, from the high school drama Brick to the outwardly spiraling Memento. The genre has transcended Chinatown and Double Indemnity to include Sin City and all its high-contrast, black-and-white ultra-stylization. That being said, the franchise can feel very gimmicky and there are times when the plots are victims to the film’s over-simplification of noir themes. Christopher Meloni has a brief chapter where he’s required to play a smitten detective to Ava’s femme fatale. At no fault of Meloni or Green, the sequences feel hammy and overplayed, and they reveal limitations to Sin City’s hyper-noir.

All in all, though, this is a taut sequel with some notable performances — mostly Rourke, Brolin and Green — as well as some memorable minor performances, including ones by Juno Temple, Lady Gaga, Ray Liotta and a hilarious turn by Christopher Lloyd as a skeevy doctor-for-hire. The film is directed again by Robert Rodriguez and Frank Miller, who must have had fun bringing Miller’s violent pages to the screen. Rodriguez might just be the king of exploitation, schlock, cult and other varieties of novelty B-movies, and Sin City: A Dame to Kill For is further proof he has no interest in directing a “normal” movie. That’s fine by me.

Lastly, I don’t normally mention this, but if you can see Sin City in 3D do it. The graphical nature of the film, and the way it jumps out of comic panels, creates an interesting three-dimensional effect that is unique to this film. And it features the first pair of characters that are entirely designed for 3D — Ava’s Boobs. Decide for yourself if that's a good or a bad thing.

Sin City: A Dame to Kill For - Movie Review by Monte Yazzie

Sin City: A Dame To Kill For  

Director: Robert Rodriguez and Frank Miller

Starring: Josh Brolin, Eva Green, Joseph Gordon-Levitt, Jessica Alba, Mickey Rourke, Rosario Dawson, Powers Boothe, Jeremy Piven, Christopher Meloni, Ray Liotta, Juno Temple, Dennis Haysbert, Bruce Willis, and Christopher Lloyd

102 Minutes

Rated R

From Miramax Films

By Monte Yazzie (www.thecodafilms.com)

In 2005 director Robert Rodriquez transformed author Frank Miller’s neo-noir graphic novel “Sin City” into a stunning, cutting-edge film. Rodriguez, adoringly making a living comic book, utilized a groundbreaking mix of digital style and animated renderings. “Sin City: A Dame To Kill For” is a continuing story involving old and new characters. Miller, who also co-directed, utilizes an established story as inspiration but also includes two new tales. The narrative, somewhat fragmented, is again a gritty crime noir piece with intensified aesthetics of violence, sex, and revenge. Rodriguez and Miller keep everything relatively familiar, though “Dame” wields uncompromising style into every scene it doesn’t demand much more.

No one is innocent in Sin City. Some familiar faces still dodging their demise, but also a few new ones looking for trouble, journey about Sin City’s desperate streets. Nancy (Jessica Alba) hasn’t been the same since the suicide of her protector in the first film, a cop named Hartigan (Bruce Willis). An early image of a lost Nancy, scantily clad with a bottle of hard liquor and a handgun, is the descriptive sum of themes for the film. Her plight of desperation and revenge is one echoed throughout the mirage of extravagant visual style and outlandish violence. Nancy’s entrancing dance has a purposeful aggression this time around; her vengeful sights are squarely set on the powerfully corrupt Senator Roark (Powers Boothe). Willis makes a welcome cameo as a ghostlike guardian of sorts, while Boothe shines in an unpleasant role within two of the stories. The narrative struggles with keeping the shifting stories interesting. Especially Nancy’s story which unfortunately gets lost amongst the others but displayed potential of being the most interesting because of the characters extensive arc within the world.

Just like the first incarnation, “Dame” weaves storylines throughout each other with Nancy’s dive bar workplace playing the community intersection for the stories. Marv (Mickey Rourke) a bruising and bruised staple in the degenerate packed tavern watches over Nancy, but visitors are always welcome. This includes a cocky gambler named Johnny (Joseph Gordon-Levitt) who is playing a dangerous hand during a card game with Senator Roark. While Dwight (Josh Brolin replacing Clive Owen), a returning character from the first film, seeks retribution after deadly dealings with a femme fatale (Eva Green). The cast, even some unmentioned here, are exceptional throughout. Rourke in full comic makeup seems tailored to play Marv’s brawly presence. Gordon-Levitt is also good, squaring off against Boothe in a flow of tough guy sentiments and power gestures that are heightened in the realm of a poker game. Brolin, always interesting to watch, seems somewhat overshadowed playing opposite the best performance in the film by Eva Green. Green’s hyper sexualized performance as Ava seems to share all the best attributes of villainous women all wrapped into her character. Vulnerability and voluptuous beauty utilized to make men into her controlled marionettes.

“Sin City: A Dame to Kill For” continues its seedy sex and violence fueled tale with the same unique visual style established in the original nearly ten years ago. While the style and story are not entirely fresh, Frank Miller’s knack for constructing interesting characters and Rodriguez’s capable skill as a director keeps a relatively average sequel entertaining enough for those ready for another trip to Sin City.

Monte’s Rating

3.50 out of 5.00

Sin City: A Dame to Kill For - Movie Review by Eric Forthun

Sin City: A Dame to Kill For  

Starring Jessica Alba, Josh Brolin, Eva Green, Mickey Rourke, Joseph Gordon-Levitt, and Powers Boothe

Directed by Robert Rodriguez, Frank Miller

Rated R

Run Time: 102 minutes

Genre: Action/Crime

Opens August 22nd

By Eric Forthun of Cinematic Shadows

The original Sin City was a defining mark of modern film noir, combining comic book stylings with a genre heaped in black-and-white cinematography and seedy individuals. The elements meshed perfectly and created one of the most visually stunning films of the past decade. Now, after a nine-year hiatus, Sin City: A Dame to Kill For enters the cinematic landscape as one of the most unnecessary sequels ever made, a convoluted, immature spoof of the original. Frank Miller picks up partial directing credit and writing credit for this entry, having written the graphic novels but also creating two new narratives for this feature: “The Long Bad Night” and “Nancy’s Last Dance.” Due to these additions, the film features multiple storylines that are set in different time periods without warning the viewer, creating an off-putting sense of thematic inconsistency. The stories feel held together by expired glue and remind us that when an anticipated sequel arrives, it needs to deliver what it promises.

The story has four central episodes, cut together to form a single narrative: “Just Another Saturday Night” follows Marv (Mickey Rourke) regaining consciousness on the side of the highway surrounded by dead bodies, wondering how he got there; “The Long Bad Night” focuses on Johnny (Joseph Gordon-Levitt), a lucky gambler who beats Senator Roark (Powers Boothe) in a game of poker that changes his life forever; “A Dame to Kill For” looks at Dwight (Josh Brolin), a man struggling with keeping himself in order especially when his former lover, the titular Ava (Eva Green), returns; and “Nancy’s Last Dance” centers on Nancy (Jessica Alba) dealing with Hartigan’s (Bruce Willis) suicide and turning herself into an alcoholic, vengeful dame aiming to take out Roark once and for all. Returning characters include Gail (Rosario Dawson) on a visit to Old Town along with newcomer detectives Mort (Christopher Meloni) and Bob (Jeremy Piven).

Sin City is full of jealousy, revenge, lust, love, and a whole lotta sex and violence. Ava is the dame the title refers to, acting as one of the most sexually charged characters I’ve seen on the big screen. She’s a character that never falls in love and manipulates men with her sex, whether that be Dwight or a married detective like Mort. She’s venomous and purely evil. When the camera moves over her naked body, it’s not signifying a lust for her so much as her raw sexuality acting as such a hypnotic force over the male characters. Most females in Sin City seem to embrace their sexuality and use it as a means of power. Men, on the other hand, use their brute force and occasional cunning to outmaneuver brutes, which creates an uncomfortably simple dichotomy. Everyone knows that Nancy strips and Marv will kill anyone with his bare hands, so does there have to be countless scenes that show those particulars happening over and over again? At a certain point, the storytelling grows lazy and monotonous rather than inventive and revelatory.

Much like the first film, Robert Rodriguez not only directs but also edits and cinematographs this adventure. It makes for a rapid-fire, blazing whirlwind of comic frenzy. The first ten minutes are belligerently paced and never let up, confusing the audience by re-introducing a character thought dead (in Marv, who was seen executed in the first film). The problem with this idea is that the narrative never comes together cohesively; by having multiple stories that do not cross time-wise, many of them lose meaning and don’t provide context for the first film. Rather, they feel wholly unnecessary. The 3D is well framed and deliberately used, perfectly captured for a world as visually arresting as Sin City. The performances are committed all-around, but Eva Green proves that if a long-awaited sequel needs a powerful, sexualized woman (after her work earlier this year on 300: Rise of an Empire), she’s the one. Yet Sin City: A Dame to Kill For fails to make much sense in its relevance to the overall story, feeling like mish-mashed vignettes that aim to capture the spirit of the original but fall flat.

Life After Beth - Movie Review by Michael Clawson

Life After Beth  

Starring Aubrey Plaza, Dane DeHaan, John C. Reilly, Molly Shannon and Anna Kendrick

Directed by Jeff Baena

From A24

Rated R

91 minutes

by Michael Clawson of Terminal Volume

I’ve heard of dark comedies, but here’s a dim one.

It begins as a weepy death drama about a boy coping with the sudden demise of his girlfriend, then turns into zombie romance and eventually ends as a post-apocalyptic nightmarish comedy. And at no point does it elevate above dismal.

Life After Beth is a collection of wasted talent, vapid gags and awful dialogue. It doesn’t pass the Siskel Test, which asks if the film is more interesting than a documentary of the same actors having lunch. Not only would a movie of John C. Reilly picking through a Cobb salad be more interesting, it would qualify as humanitarian aid in the wake of this turd of a movie.

We begin with Zach (Dane DeHaan) in the grocery store arguing with a clerk because the store doesn’t sell black napkins for funerals. The punchline of this scene is told flatly from the clerk: “Um, try a party store.” It’s all downhill from here. Zach is going to his girlfriend's funeral, where it takes half a dozen scenes to establish that the girlfriend is Beth (Aubrey Plaza) and she died from a snakebite while walking through the woods.

This is a hopeless lump of a movie, but for about three minutes it had potential when Zach starts hanging out with Beth’s parents, played by John C. Reilly and Molly Shannon. Reilly, playing the awkward doofus, sits down with Zach to play chess and smoke pot, and they commiserate life without Beth. It’ll be OK, they tell each other. “I love you, man.” “I love you, too. Hang in there.” And then the scene ends and the movie implodes shortly after.

Beth, it turns out, is still alive and she’s essentially a zombie, though not a typical zombie. She doesn’t shamble or lunge, and her bites don’t create new zombies. She’s just alive and growing increasingly more unhinged. After first she’s just hyperactive and aggressively sexual, which catches Zach off-guard. But then she goes homicidal, tearing apart a lifeguard shack, building a mud hut in her attic, and letting a car roll over her chest. Anna Kendrick turns up for no other reason than to spare Plaza for more embarrassment.

The wheels essentially come off Life After Beth at this point. Plaza and DeHaan, so good in everything else they’ve ever been in, are paralyzed by a plot that makes no sense and dialogue that was randomly generated from third-grade book reports. Much of Plaza’s lines involve her blurting out incoherently and then pouncing on props on the set. There is no comedy here. Not a single chord. Not a whisper of a note.

As the horror continues, Zach and Beth bop around town and civilization crumbles as more of the dead rise from the grave. Eventually, Beth goes so crazy that Zach ties her to an oven that she promptly tears from the wall so she can walk through the woods until Zach does something that a producer should have done to this movie — he puts her out of her misery.

The movie is written and directed by Jeff Baena, who last worked on I Heart Huckabees, which explains a lot. He has directed an ugly movie, and a terrible one. But his movie has a great title. Life After Beth. It’s looking into the future, hopeful and optimistic. It reminds me of that moment right after I saw it, when everything felt new and pure, when Life After Beth was already far, far, far behind me.

Life After Beth - Movie Review by Monte Yazzie

Life After Beth  

Dir: Jeff Baena

Starring: Aubrey Plaza, Dane DeHaan, John C. Reilly, Molly Shannon, Paul Reiser, Cheryl Hines, Matthew Gray Gubler, and Anna Kendrick

91 Minutes

Rated R

By Monte Yazzie (www,thecodafilms.com)

There is never a lack of social commentary or awareness in the horror genre, but it seems rather prominent in zombie films. Going back to Romero’s films, zombies may not say much coherently but that doesn’t mean they aren’t trying to say something. “Life After Beth”, a romantic zombie comedy from director Jeff Baena, avoids delving too deep into sociopolitical sentiments but instead attempts to showcases the complications and awkwardness of love and relationships.

Beth (Aubrey Plaza) is dead. Having died in a hiking accident after getting bit by a snake, her boyfriend Zach (Dane DeHaan) is mourning and struggling with the guilt of the shaky ground their relationship was left on. Zach visits Beth’s parents (John C. Reilly and Molly Shannon), playing chess with her dad and organizing belongings into boxes with her mom. Zach is coping until Beth’s parents begin to act strange, not answering their door or communicating with him. Frustrated and wanting answers Zach spies into their home and witnesses something unbelievable, Beth alive and walking around in the house.

Aubrey Plaza has proven capable in small roles like a supporting spot in “Parks and Recreation” and in leading roles like “Safety Not Guaranteed”. Whether the expected deadpan sarcasm she is known for or a surprisingly heartfelt dramatic turn, Plaza has displayed potential range. She shows these qualities quite well in “Life After Beth”. After returning from death, Beth is oblivious to her demise and confused about her past. All she is sure of is her relationship with Zach and an unexplained test that she has to prepare for. Baena, who also wrote the script, touches on some interesting relationship ideas. Zach is offered the fortunate position of amending his regrets with Beth, but just as relationships change so has death changed Beth. She isn't the same, and the narrative builds this up comically with uncomfortable private moments that find the highly affectionate couple struggling with intimacy, like a funny moment where Zach has difficulty kissing Beth because of her unpleasant breath. But there are also moments of tension and fury involving Beth, who is confused emotionally and increasingly agitated at the people trying to control her.

Unfortunately the interesting themes of love and relationship are clouded by forced comedy. In one scene involving a funny and unexpected cameo, the timing feels unneeded at that particular moment in the film. This continues to happen during moments that seem to hold the most meaningful intent for the characters. While a few of these comedic breaks keep the tone from becoming too serious, it mostly functions in undermining the potential narrative insights. As the film progresses, the good ideas become more muddled and the film loses grasp on the direction it wants to go and the statement it wants to make.

“Life After Beth” can be quite humorous in parts, displaying a charming touch of comedy amidst some inventive genre touches. DeHaan and Plaza shine in the leading roles, with good support from the assisting cast, however the film struggles with finding a direction to go and balance between when it should be insightful and when it should be funny.

Monte’s Rating

2.50 out of 5.00

Life After Beth - Movie Review by Eric Forthun

Life After Beth  

Starring Aubrey Plaza, Dane DeHaan, John C. Reilly, Molly Shannon, Cheryl Hines, and Anna Kendrick

Directed by Jeff Baena

Rated R

Run Time: 91 minutes

Genre: Comedy/Horror

Opens August 22nd

By Eric Forthun of Cinematic Shadows

Life After Beth attempts to breath life into the zombie genre but falls flat due to an inconsistent tone and sporadically affecting humor. The film often feels like a piece of sketch comedy that doesn’t have much substance past its initially amusing premise: a young man’s recently deceased girlfriend is mysteriously brought back from the dead, and she doesn’t seem like the same person. It’s admittedly compelling, but the film never takes advantage of providing commentary on the state of mourning or reflecting upon the nature of zombie storytelling. Instead, the story relies on being amusing and occasionally funny rather than delivering a full-fledged story. The performances are committed and engaging, particularly those by Aubrey Plaza and John C. Reilly, but too many open ends and strange musings leave the film feeling empty and lifeless like its title character.

The story centers on Zach Orfman (Dane DeHaan), a teenager that at the start of the film is seen mourning the death of his girlfriend, Beth Slocum (Aubrey Plaza). Zach is close to Beth’s parents, Maury (John C. Reilly) and Geenie (Molly Shannon), and he connects with their feeling of loss and hopelessness. They all wish they could have told Beth things before she died, and not have had their last conversation be so bad, but that’s always how mourners will feel after the loss of a loved one. Zach is depressed, his brother treats him terribly, and he needs to find a way to get past Beth. Then, one day when over at the Slocums’ house, he sees his ex-girlfriend through the window walking down the hallways. It can’t be. She’s dead. He saw the body buried, so he visits the graveyard and finds a hole right in front of her tombstone that points to her rising from the dead. Sure enough, after nagging the Slocums to let him see what’s happening, Beth comes back into Zach’s life and seems good as new.

Of course everything is not what it seems. Jeff Baena is a first-time director here, having previously co-written I Heart Huckabees with David O. Russell. He has a knack for deriving comedy out of the characters themselves rather than the actions, which lends itself well to an offbeat zombie comedy. The first half hour is ripe for material to come from a strange father-in-law figure and an aggressively personal brother, but the story can only carry that momentum so far. Most of the film’s second act uses suspense as a means of driving narrative; there’s no surprise in the fact that Beth is a zombie because, obviously, she rose from the dead and we know that a snakebite killed her. Now if the story meanders and the comedy remains, that would mean something else entirely. But much of the middle is defined by Zach falling back in love with Beth and falling right back out of it as she goes crazy and wants to eat his brains.

There’s commitment to the premise itself and from the actors, which keeps the film from being a bore. Plaza is solid in providing her character with an emotional tie, allowing the heart to shine through her strong desire for consuming human flesh. DeHaan is serviceable in the lead but doesn’t do much with the material due to his character being a thin protagonist. Reilly and Shannon are both terrific comedy actors who propel themselves wonderfully toward the absurdity of the concept. Yet despite all of this energy from the actors, they can’t make the material less trite or commonplace than it is. The story attempts to infuse heart into the final ten minutes but feels strangely distanced and off-putting. The lack of explanation for the dead rising, as they increasingly do throughout the film, leaves the audience with a supernatural take that never meshes with the narrative. Life After Beth is tonally odd and poorly executed, a solid idea stretched out far too much for comfort.

If I Stay - Movie Review by Eric Forthun

If I Stay  

Starring Chloë Grace Moretz, Mireille Enos, Jamie Blackley, Joshua Leonard, and Stacy Keach

Directed by R.J. Cutler

Rated PG-13

Run Time: 106 minutes

Genre: Drama/Romance

Opens August 22nd

By Eric Forthun of Cinematic Shadows

If I Stay is based on the best-selling novel by Gayle Forman, centering on a teenager that has an out-of-body experience after her family gets in a car accident and she enters a coma. The story feels ripe for cinematic storytelling and strong visualizations, but it ends up demonstrating that too many young adult romances nowadays have to look, feel, and sound exactly the same to appease fans. The story must focus on a romance defined by an inconvenient but far too powerful love and continuously demonstrate that the characters are deeply infatuated with each other but also concerned about what the future has in store. The performances are strong when the narrative lets them get into the quieter, more intimate moments of the story; Chloe Grace Moretz is always a pleasant force on screen, and when her character’s love of music shines through, the story feels like something more grand. More often than not, however, it wallows in the amped-up melodrama that defines a young-adult romance in the modern age.

The film focuses on Mia Hall (Chloe Grace Moretz), a talented cello player in high school that’s surrounded by a loving family heaped in music. Her father, Denny (Joshua Leonard), was in a punk band in the ’90s and played around the Portland area to local success. Her mother, Kat (Mireille Enos), was a bonafide groupie that exposed her daughter to music early. A scene where Kat, with a pierced nose and dyed hair, holds Mia as a toddler at a concert with huge, construction-like headphones demonstrates the way music has influenced the family. Mia aims to get a full-ride scholarship backed by her talents, but those dreams are a bit complicated by Adam (Jamie Blackley), a talented guitarist/vocalist in an up-and-coming band. They quickly fall in love and soon realize that their future plans may not cross. This complicates things, and their relationship is on the rocks when Mia’s life is changed forever by that horrific accident.

Most of the love story is told through flashbacks as Mia wanders around the hospital where she’s comatose. As their story becomes defined, however, the scenes mix together like a dreamy haze and feel interchangeable. Most are meet-cute expressions of young love that grow tired. There’s also inexplicably another example of a teenager losing her virginity in a place that the story deems symbolic but ends up feeling woefully unromantic and off-putting. But I am not the core audience of the film, particularly their niche demographic of cello-playing high schoolers that fall madly in love with young rockers. The story also creates an uncomfortably needy male interest in Blackley’s Adam, making him a self-centered character that gets angry at Mia not for hiding that she applied to a school out of state, but that it ruins their plans of being together. His parents neglected him as a child so he doesn’t want to lose her, but it feels like far more of a guilt trip on his part rather than an emotionally backed decision.

The performances from Moretz and Enos elevate the film to a middle-of-the-road affair. Enos has acting talent, as evidenced by her excellent work on The Killing, and she brings life to some trite dialogue in important scenes. She calls true love a bitch and says that life is full of difficult decisions; the scene should be unwatchably cliché, but it remains tolerable because of her empathy. Moretz mostly acts concerned in the hospital scenes, but Mia’s love for music substantially drives her performance. Stacy Keach is also wonderful in the small role he’s allotted. But there’s a scene that defines the blandness of the film: as the characters walk out of their first date, a long tracking shot begins that follows them down a path after an establishing shot shows the scope of the scene. As the long take starts to make the scene feel naturalistic and poignant, the camera jumps to the pre-existing establishing shot and then to another angle that doesn’t add to the scene itself. If I Stay takes the easy road for much of its journey, becoming emotionally indistinguishable from the glut of young-adult romances in the marketplace.

When the Game Stands Tall - Movie Review by Eric Forthun

When the Game Stands Tall  

Starring Jim Caviezel, Alexander Ludwig, Michael Chiklis, Laura Dern, and Clancy Brown

Directed by Thomas Carter

Rated PG

Run Time: 115 minutes

Genre: Sports/Drama

Opens August 22nd

By Eric Forthun of Cinematic Shadows

I’m a sucker for sports films. Seeing the way that a particular game can bring individuals together and create a sense of unity and pride is thrillingly unique, particularly on the big screen. Not all sports films are created equal, and that’s apparent in When the Game Stands Tall. It’s inconsistently moving fare, but also an impassioned cry for togetherness and maturity with sports as the defining catalyst. There’s something strange about how it’s presented on screen, surrounded by death, heartbreak, doubt, happiness, abuse, laughter, and pretty much any other cinematic element you can draw up in your mind. There are many loud moments, telling the audience that something big and emotional is happening! But the film works when it embraces the quietness of its endeavors, looking into the characters and letting them foster on screen. When the characters talk about ideas, the film strays; when they get into who they are as people, we care.

The film tells the story of the De La Salle High School football team, who rose from obscurity due to an 151-game winning streak that stands as the longest winning streak in American sports history. Their coach, Bob Ladouceur (Jim Caviezel), has received offers from many prestigious colleges to coach their teams, but he always refuses. He says that students in college don’t give him as much to teach them; he likes the idea of fostering these students into good, moral citizens. There’s something honorable about a man profoundly embracing his profession in education. He teaches discipline and family for the team, which a lot of time emphasizes religion and the importance of God upon their lives. Whatever he’s doing, it’s working. After the team wins yet another state championship, they must prepare their juniors to lead the squad next year. That includes his son, Danny (Matthew Daddario), and star running back Chris Ryan (Alexander Ludwig).

Danny feels disassociated from his father due to a strained coaching relationship and his father’s stern nature. Chris has to deal with a verbally and mentally abusive father, Mickey (Clancy Brown), who insists that his son break the state’s touchdown record and never lets him lose sight of the goal. The film focuses on many other subplots, including one involving the seniors that are heading off to college and getting accepted to great programs like Oregon. But there are endless hardships for everyone involved, particularly after their winning streak snaps with the new set of juniors. The story addresses that element early on, setting up the streak as an embattled part of their high school careers. Can they overcome such a heartbreaking, devastating loss? Or will they let this streak and its end define them? Thomas Carter’s film weaves all of these stories around the idea that their team is a family, one that must stick together and support one another through anything and everything.

When the Game Stands Tall doesn’t just wear its heart on its sleeve; it’s all over the front and back of the jersey like large white numbers. The film is rocky tonally and conceptually, often falling flat on developing supporting characters and instead having them talk a lot about concepts and beliefs. There’s an abundance of stories with heavy moral values, an accepted truth of a film with religion as the underlying factor that ties together all of these narratives. Carter doesn’t just allow his film to preach religion, though, but allows it to act as a means of understanding these characters. The film shows doubt as a psychological struggle that some of the players face when one of their most talented players is murdered. Why would a just world let such an unjust act happen? There are too many exaggerated scenes that beg these kinds of questions for the film to coherently flow, but luckily the narrative depends on the game of football itself in the second half to infuse excitement and needed drama into the characters’ lives. It’s a faulty journey, but it’s ultimately a moving sports drama that has a strong payoff.

Interview with the director of When the Game Stands Tall by Eric Forthun

Interview with director, Thomas Carter, of When the Game Stands Tall by Eric Forthun  

I recently sat down alongside Shari Green from TxtMovieClub to interview director Thomas Carter, whose latest film When the Game Stands Tall opens nationwide this week. The film centers on the De La Salle High School football team that won 151 straight games, the longest win streak in American sports history.

We talk to Thomas about his favorite football teams, his work on television, the storytelling choices made in adapting the novel, and his personal influences.

Shari: I have to ask, what’s your favorite football team?

Thomas: Well, I grew up in Texas, so I’m a Dallas Cowboys fan, but I have also been a huge Green Bay Packers fan for a long time. It’s this crazy dichotomy, and I think it’s because they are so formative in my football life.  They had a great rivalry at one point, just playing Super Bowls years ago, and the tradition of the teams has changed but the essentials remain. With Green Bay, it’s the tradition of how they play the game and the fact that it’s a small market team, along with the ownership of the team being with the people of Green Bay. The people who want to buy a small share in the team, that idea is so unique for the NFL.

S: And your favorite college team?

T: I’ve actually gone in and out of the University of Texas, since I grew up liking them. I remember when I was really small, the team wasn’t integrated and there were no black players on the team.  All of these other teams had to grow into that. I think some of the history of it [the team’s integration] is pretty bad, but my mother went to UT to get her Master’s, so it’s been part of me. I left it for a while, but I’ve kind of come back to it, so I root for them. But I live in California, so…it’s not my favorite team, but I’ve always preferred UCLA over USC. In football that’s been meaningless because they’ve had no team, but finally UCLA has a team, so we’ll see what happens.

I will say this, for the Arizona route. I have a niece that went to Arizona State and graduated, she was from California and came here. And I have a nephew that went to Northern Arizona University, so I have this connection to Arizona through them.

Eric: Moving toward the film, you have won multiple Emmys for your work on television, so how did that translate to film and inform your filmmaking?

T: Well, TV was very critical and formative in my career. I directed a couple episodes of Hill Street Blues, which was career-changing in the sense that we were doing something for the first time that was very filmic on television, that broke away from the way television was usually shot. I learned a tremendous amount on that show. A director, Robert Butler, had done the pilot and brought this new documentary-esque, handheld, long-lenses feel to television. And then I went on to do the pilot of Miami Vice, where I was able to bring a lot of things that I wanted to do, like the use of music, color, sound, and style. I had a chance to play with TV in a way that I felt movie directors did. It was a big deal to me.

S: Based on everything you’ve done, out of all of these awards, is there any other award you want to get?

T: Let’s just say I’m in the film business now, and I have a great deal of respect for the Academy. [laughs] I actually work with the Academy, I’m on the membership committee and we’re trying to do really good work beyond the awards. Just a plug for the Academy: we’re doing things for student filmmakers, writers who are coming up with original scripts, and trying to give awards and help people further their careers. It’s always good to be acknowledged and appreciated and you never know how that’s going to turn out. There are so many things that go into it. This movie as a whole project, to be noticed by the Academy…there would be nothing more exciting for any of us who worked on the film.

E: The story itself not only focuses on the 151-game winning streak, but also on the team falling apart amidst the turmoil within their structure. Why does the story center on the aftermath of the streak rather than the build-up?

T: When the script came to me in an early draft, I hadn’t really heard about it and thought, “If they always win, where’s the drama? Where’s the story going to be?” David Zelon, the producer that found this book, had the same question. He thought the book was great but didn’t know how to make a film from it. He didn’t know how to do it! So he sat down with the writer of the book, Neil Hayes, a great writer and tremendous asset to us in making this film. Neil said to him, “Did you read the hardcover or paperback?” The paperback was a new edition that added an afterword that included these years from 2003-2004 (the years in which the story takes place). When he [David] looked at that, it was clear where the story could go. When I read the script, it was dealing with that period where it takes you through part of the streak, but then into the adversity beyond the streak. What I was interested in doing was revealing to the audience how these teams are built, not that they win games, but answering the questions, “Why do they win the games? Who are they? How are these young men taught?” For me, the script was so heavy, and still is; I don’t think we solved every problem, because we were so ambitious trying to tell so many stories.

I still was struggling as a director and storyteller to figure out what the real hook was, exactly. Starting with one group of guys on the team, and moving to another group, there was this disjointed nature to the story that’s different from movies usually. I talked to Bob and Terry [the head and assistant coach, respectively] about how the team was immature and hadn’t bought into the philosophy as tightly. They were looser, weren’t behaving, some of them were feeling entitled. They hadn’t developed real leaders. And every team is different! They did this over 12 years. It’s not like having a pro football or basketball team where you have these core players that will always be there. Guys graduate every year, so each year they face a new challenge. It’s a miracle they could win that long because they weren’t winning with one team, but basically 12 different teams. Every year is a new challenge, and this was a particular challenge since they were at the peak of the streak. They felt like they could win but they knew what the challenges were. I knew then as a filmmaker that was a hook I could buy into, and how they build and repair the team. That was on top of the other obstacles in the film which are true: the personal tragedy for one of the team members, a big health scare for the coach, and you put all of that together and it’s a lot to deal with in a year. That gave me the bigger picture that this is what we are driving toward, and this is the story.

S: Did the religious aspects of the characters and the school speak to you heavily?

T: It didn’t speak to me heavily because I’m not a religious person. Jim [Caviezel] is famously a religious person, and the movie is partly financed by a religious marketing/distribution company (Affirm Films, which partnered with Sony). They make films that appeal to a faith-based audience, but I didn’t want this to be a faith-based film. It obviously has elements of faith in it, and that’s comfortable to the level that it’s true to the characters. It’s not about us trying to impose any ideas on anyone. It’s a Catholic high school, Bob Ladouceur [Jim Caviezel] does teach a religion class, but at the same time they are not coaching from a religious perspective. They’re coaching from a human values perspective, so there are faith-based people that support those values and non-faith-based people that support those values. They are values that make us better people and tie us together in a more loving way. Those are things that everyone, including myself, is enthusiastic about, because they are philosophically very powerful. Yet even within the scenes that have faith, I didn’t want them to be monolithic or monochromatic scenes; that is, I didn’t just want it to be, “Here’s a belief system, and that’s all there is.” There are challenges within the movie, like the first scene in the religion class where Bob says a verse from the Bible. I felt it was realistic that some characters, like Cam Colvin, buy into it, while Tayshon, the other character in that scene, is questioning it. He says he’s not sure how it fits into his life and what he’s seen, or what’s happened to his aunt. It’s those questions that people should continue to ask.

We had a scene near the end of the film where the kids are saying a prayer, the Lord’s Prayer, before they go into the game, and they used to say this Catholic prayer that would invoke the name of the saint, but then I was asked to take that part out because it might offend the larger evangelical community. There was this attempt to appeal to the larger audience that I felt was somewhat illegitimate to do because they are a Catholic high school, this is what they say, and surely people of different denominations should be able to embrace a story with a commonality of belief. Even I grew up myself with the church despite not being religious now. We have to be tolerant, open, and continue to ask honest questions. Faith shouldn’t mean that you become dumb and blind; in fact, faith probably means that you continue to believe even when you’re willing to open your eyes and ears and mind and continue to question. Obviously I thought a lot about that as a filmmaker, especially with the coaches teaching the kids about brotherhood, love, and dependability, something we can all support. There’s a universality in everybody’s response to the film. I’ve said a lot about that.

E: One of the characters in the film gets offered to play at the collegiate level at Oregon on a full-ride scholarship, so he’s setting him and his family up for a bright future. What do you think about football as a means of upward social mobility for a lot of families coming from high school?

T: I think any legitimate opportunity that can make your life better should be embraced. I’m thrilled that football or basketball is one of those avenues, but it’s almost this cliché…I used to be on this show called White Shadow, about a white basketball team in this lower-income area. We kept using this phrase, “ticket out of the ghetto,” and I got so sick of it partly because the opportunity for sports to carry somebody beyond a low-income means is so small on a national level. It will touch so few people that it’s almost not of consequence. Maybe a little bit more consequence to get some kids to go to college, but what we find is that most athletes that go to college aren’t graduating. Now we’re admitting to ourselves that college football is really a business. There’s so much money generated, and the athletes aren’t even benefiting.

S: I actually had that down as a question. What are your thoughts on college players not getting paid?

T: I think we have to find some way of compensating players when so much money is being made. I’ve been surprised to see how little they are allowed to accept, the rules are restrictive on them. You think from the outside, “Oh, they have a scholarship so it must be great for them.” There are some roads that are greased in the wrong way: they are put in the wrong classes that won’t help them when they graduate, most of them won’t graduate, and they are struggling to pay small bills. They don’t really have spending money. We have to find a way for them to share in that wealth, like a trust fund which has been suggested that is put away for them to accrue. There should be an increase in the money that they are allotted. Just on this press tour, I’m getting $300 per day in expenses and these guys are getting nothing. They are practicing so much that they can’t study or work. I don’t want to take lightly that they get a scholarship and opportunity, it’s tremendous, but they are not guided toward something that will truly help them after football. The truth is, like most guys in high school that don’t go onto college football, most college football players aren’t going to the pros. Even those guys, what is the average time they play in the NFL, 3 years or something like that? You’re out in 3 years, you’ve got a broken leg or a busted head, and you have no college education and probably no money at that point. I absolutely think reform is needed and I’m glad we’re working toward that.

E: On a lighter note, what are your favorite sports films?

T: I should think more about that. I’m a big fan of Remember the Titans, I really like that movie and I cry 3 times when I watch it and love the message. I really like Moneyball. I don’t know if they’d call themselves a sports film but it touches on baseball and the notion of making a team and how revolutionary it was at the time. I like other sports movies for different reasons, I just think for my personal enjoyment those movies get me more. I like the other obvious choices, but there’s something a little more special about those.

S: Is there someone in your past, like a coach or teacher, that was a mentor that carried you through these films?

T: I don’t want this answer to be a cheat, so maybe I’ll give you two answers. My mother was a teacher, and I come from a family of educators, like my mother’s two sisters and my grandmother. I got a teacher’s certificate in the state of Texas that I never use, since I went to California to make films. That’s always been a part of my personal culture with my mother being a big influence. I dedicated Coach Carterto my mom, actually. But I also had two other teachers. One was Mrs. Gordon, who was my third grade teacher and my mom’s best friend. She was an exacting teacher but really good. Another one was when I was a little kid in Texas, I went to an integrated high school and Connie Adams, my high school drama teacher, was really inclusive and courageous in how she cast the plays. They were revolutionary for a little high school in Smithville, Texas. I’ll never forget that, her courage in doing that and believing me as a theater person. I’ve been sustained by that.

Thank you guys!

E/S: Thank you!

When the Game Stands Tall opens nationwide on Friday, August 22^nd.

The Giver - Movie Review by Michael Clawson

The Giver  

Directed by Phillip Noyce

Starring Brenton Thwaites, Jeff Bridges, Meryl Streep, Katie Holmes and Alexander Skarsgård

From The Weinstein Company

Rated PG-13

100 minutes

The Giver

by Michael Clawson of Terminal Volume

Here’s the funny thing about freedom of choice: the characters in The Giver might not have it, but we as audience members do. And I recommend you choose something different to watch this weekend.

It’s not that The Giver is an awful movie — it’s rather splendid to look at, and the two key performances are noteworthy — it’s just that The Giver is woefully broken from its premise on up. Take for example, the deus ex machina from the third act: a translucent “memory bubble.” What does the bubble have to do with the plot? Nothing. What does the bubble solve? Everything. But problems begin long before bubbles blow up Phillip Noyce’s incomprehensible movie based on the popular Lois Lowry’s pre-young-adult young adult book.

It takes place in one of those dystopian utopias where people all look like walking-talking Apple products, their uniforms stitched together by a design team in Cupertino, speech patterns that are robotic and vaguely clinical, and their bicycles are props from a 1964 World’s Fair movie about “the Future.” The movie has a nice look, but an empty heart. We begin with Jonas (Brenton Thwaites), who feels like he’s different than other teens, a fact corroborated during his graduation ceremony when he’s paired with the Giver (Jeff Bridges), the community’s keeper of memories and a knowledge.

This sci-fi civilization has largely forgotten its history, from dancing and love to war and famine, because everyone is required to take drugs that blur memories, suppress dreams, stifle moods, inhibit feelings and take away the ability to choose. This, we’re told by the Chief Elder (Meryl Streep), is because when people choose they often choose wrong. By taking away memory, choice, history, pain and even color — the movie is shot in black and white at the beginning — the people are promised a peaceful society, but also a hollow one. And this is where the Giver comes in. He’s supposed to retain all the memories from the more tumultuous days in case they’re ever needed (they aren’t) or in case he’s summoned to provide political advice (he isn’t) to the high elders. It seems like the Giver and his vault of memories are kept around because the elders are dystopian hoarders.

The Giver, all gruff and snappy underneath Bridges’ grumpy performance, begins teaching Jonas what’s rattling around up in his head. They do this by holding hands so the Giver can transfer what can only be described as first-person GoPro and YouTube videos directly into Jonas’ brain. Each new memory opens up Jonas’ world more and more until he begins questioning the whole structure of his society. And then off he sleds to the “memory bubble” to reboot the population.

We’ve seen movies, and book-turned-movies, like this before, including 1984, Terry Gilliam’s Brazil, Fahrenheit 451, Gattaca and even The Hunger Games movies, but The Giver seems to most closely identify with Kurt Wimmer’s cult gun-fu action bonanza Equilibrium and, strangely enough, Gary Ross’ Pleasantville, which saw modern-day characters enter into a Leave It To Beaver-style TV show. Yes, Pleasantville, like The Giver, has long segments in black and white and then slowly introduces color during its characters’ awakenings, but it also nailed many of these same plot devices that The Giver fumbles.

Pleasantville, through its inventive writing, managed to have an open dialogue about choice and emotion and passion and pain without sacrificing the moral dilemma of the film’s universe. But here, no dialogue of that magnitude exists because it’s all been boiled down to a memory bubble that solves everything and nothing at the same time. In the film’s most awful moment, Jonas’ dad euthanizes a baby in a scene that’s meant to show how detached from reality the society has become. But with no moral reckoning for this behavior, the film essentially kills a baby for nothing. It’s an agonizing scene that proves that not only is the character detached from reality, but so is the movie.

Ignoring it’s broken center, The Giver does look rather snazzy. The effects pop and the designs are appropriately modern. Thwaites and Bridges share some scenes that are effective at establishing their complicated roles as teacher and student, or giver and receiver (stop snickering). Katie Holmes plays an unfeeling mother in what could easily be considered a skewering of Scientology. Alexander Skarsgård, so great in everything he’s in, has to kill a baby, an act from which his character never recuperates. Much of the dialogue is angular and awkward, a result of the society’s strict use of “precision of language.”

Really, though, there’s not much to love in this movie. It’s astonishingly deaf with its plot and themes, and the memory bubble finale is insulting.

And speaking of memory bubbles, maybe there’s one this movie can be stuffed into.

The Giver - Movie Review by Eric Forthun

The Giver  

Starring Brenton Thwaites, Jeff Bridges, Meryl Streep, Odeya Rush, Alexander Skarsgard, and Katie Holmes

Directed by Phillip Noyce

Rated PG-13

Run Time: 94 minutes

Genre: Drama/Sci-Fi

Opens August 15th

By Eric Forthun of Cinematic Shadows

The Giver is an ambitious adaptation of Lois Lowry’s award-winning novel, but it’s rushed, muddled, and bogged down by its intentions of making a dystopia that appeases young viewers. The novel was celebrated upon its release in 1993, read in schools around the country but also surrounded by controversy about its message. The film, on the other hand, plays the story safe and uses many dystopia trappings that feel all too familiar in the wake of recent efforts like The Hunger Games and Divergent. Here, the rules are seemingly simple: the community formed is idyllic and tranquil, with all of the citizens healthy, self-sufficient, and productive. People are happy and there is no war, pain, or suffering. Yet in attempting to create a utopia, they ultimately produce a dystopia because the citizens do not know of any kind of art or wildlife, nor do they have any memories of the past world and what used to be on Earth.

The story follows Jonas (Brenton Thwaites), a young man who fails to be chosen at an annual ceremony that determines a citizen’s place in their society. The Chief Elder (Meryl Streep) believes that Jonas has the potential to see beyond their reality, assigning him the position of “Receiver of Memory.” He will be learning from the Giver (Jeff Bridges), an old man who holds memories of the past that have gone from generation to generation. The Giver is a man who doesn’t have a filter and also doesn’t have to obey the laws of society, which include using precision of language (i.e., avoiding fluffy words like “love”), telling the truth, taking daily medication, and forgiving and apologizing for everything. Jonas has grown up with all of these rules and must learn that with these memories will come an understanding of their society. He is taught the ways of the past, both good and evil, but cannot understand how they can live in such a simple, empty way when denied life’s most precious gifts.

The premise is compelling and crazily ambitious. Like most films of the sort, though, with great ambition comes great responsibility. The film grows increasingly faulty over its running time and seems to leave out important elements that would help illuminate the nature of the world. How exactly did this society form? That’s a nagging question that gets a roundabout response: well, the world was a bad, evil place, so this society had to be created in order to preserve humanity. But how did they come to exist on top of a rock formation above the clouds? Phillip Noyce’s film cares more about ideas than particulars, which I cannot necessarily fault. The ideas are lofty and epic in scope, with the society itself acting as a strange form of socialism that numbs the brain and eradicates all sense of emotion from the equation. The society must sustain itself and prosper; the will of the people does not matter as long as the society grows stronger.

Color is an important element of the film, too, with much of the beginning taking place in black-and-white to signify the simplicity and emptiness of the citizens’ lives. Color only emerges when Jonas opens himself up to the past and sees what the world has to offer; his brain can be free and feel as much as it desires. Thwaites is a solid choice for the lead, providing some heft to the role by allowing subtleties to emerge when the script allows. The love story surrounding him and Fiona (Odeya Rush) is muddled and lifeless, with Rush proving unable to make the most of a mild, inconsequential character. Bridges and Streep are remarkable when on screen, particularly when they share the frame; they are dynamic and versatile, giving the story even more gravitas and meaning. Yet the film becomes muddled and far too absurd in its last half hour, using vague symbolism and an open-ended conclusion that asks more than elaborates. The Giver is a film with a heavy message but an unsure voice.

The Expendables 3 - Movie Review by Eric Forthun

The Expendables 3  

Starring Sylvester Stallone, Jason Statham, Harrison Ford, Arnold Schwarzenegger, Mel Gibson, and Wesley Snipes

Directed by Patrick Hughes

Rated PG-13

Run Time: 126 minutes

Genre: Action/Adventure

Opens August 15th

By Eric Forthun of Cinematic Shadows

The Expendables franchise is defined by the self-aware nature of the title action actors, knowing that they are far too old for the work they are doing on screen. That allows for Sylvester Stallone to bring together all of his favorite stars to celebrate the old way of doing things and how grand it can be. His ultimate goal with these films seems to be the celebration of 80s actioners that showed characters kicking ass and fighting bad guys that wanted to destroy the world. Yet like his stars, these films have grown tired and worn out. The peak was the second film, an entertaining romp that capitalized on the absurdity of the franchise by amping up the action and supporting characters to a ridiculous level. Yet the latest entry undermines the excitement inherent with the series: the PG-13 rating makes the bloodless action feel inconsequential and the story involves young characters to make the older gentlemen feel outdated. Sure, the dialogue will always be awful and the acting atrocious, but at least there was some spontaneity in the others.

The story this time around follows the usual suspects as they attempt to rescue an old pal and stop another one. Barney (Sylvester Stallone), Christmas (Jason Statham), Gunner (Dolph Lundgren), and others break their friend Doc (Wesley Snipes) out of an armored train prison. Could you honestly say that your friends would do the same? As they head to Somalia to track down a nuclear weapons dealer, they run into an old member of their group: Stonebanks (Mel Gibson), a ruthless madman that wanted to become the leader of his own pack. He broke off from the group and basically wanted to become evil. At least that’s what the film says. He’s also masterfully defined by his desire to buy works of art worth millions of dollars that he doesn’t really like. The Expendables hunt down Stonebanks with the guidance of Drummer (Harrison Ford), a character that effectively replaces Church because Bruce Willis wanted to be paid too much. Oh yeah, and Trench (Arnold Schwarzenegger) is back, mostly appearing in Hawaiian shirts and looking like he’s confused about why he’s a recurring character.

The Expendables 3 is defined by many of the same traits that dominate the previous entries in the franchise. Characters talk about things as if they are always cracking painfully obvious jokes or delivering one-liners. I’m not sure there’s ever a moment in the film when there isn’t a reminder that these are all actors from famous franchises, and hey, listen to Ah-nuld reference getting to the choppa! The addition of a female character named Luna, played by MMA fighter Ronda Rousey, is ambitious and a bridge being established for the planned Expendabelles film (a spin-off of female action stars). Luna acts as a strong female force that wants to stand her own ground amidst all of the testosterone. She can kick some serious ass. She’s also one of many new additions that bog down the latest entry and add on an extra half hour to the running time; even Antonio Banderas, a wonderfully talented and charismatic actor, feels woefully out of place, being demoted to an annoying sidekick rather than becoming an actual character.

Yet the action is the shining star of these films, the beacon of hope that guides the viewer toward a satisfying viewing. It’s a disappointment, then, that the film undermines all of the action by taking away every element that made it distinguishable in the previous efforts. Here, the teen-friendly rating demonstrates a desire to appease younger viewers, but in doing so the action becomes woefully bland and lifeless. Outside of an exciting car chase in one of the film’s opening moments, every fighting sequence feels choreographed and mechanical. Characters never get wounded and nothing important happens to any of them when they are facing danger. As they are attacked by hundreds of men and have multiple tanks and helicopters shooting at them nonstop, you would think one character would get hit by a single bullet. Even Gibson’s character remarks that it shouldn’t be that difficult. But alas. These films meet the standard they have set: there’s high octane action, cheesy jokes, and too many characters to care about any particular one. In that regard, The Expendables 3 delivers.

Calvary - Movie Review by Eric Forthun

Calvary  

Starring Brendan Gleeson, Kelly Reilly, Chris O'Dowd, Aidan Gillen, and Dylan Moran

Directed by John Michael McDonagh

Rated R

Run Time: 101 minutes

Genre: Drama

Opens August 8th

By Eric Forthun of Cinematic Shadows

Religion remains one of the most fundamentally difficult topics to tackle in cinema. Make a preachy film and the filmmakers isolate the skeptics and nonbelievers; make an aggressively pointed film and the religious audience grows divided over whether to support or condemn the picture. Calvary is one of those rare occurrences, however, where a film both celebrates and lambasts religion, creating an impressively detailed canvas of humanity and the crisis of faith at our core. The film focuses on Father James (Brendan Gleeson), a good man that turned to religion after his wife tragically died and his daughter lost herself in the midst of her family falling apart. Even though James was far from a perfect man, he inherently hopes for the best for everyone and seeks happiness and forgiveness for those that need it. Ironic, then, that the film opens with a man in confession telling the father that he will be killed the following Sunday to send a message to the world.

The victim had been abused by the Catholic Church when he was younger. The film’s opening line is shocking: “I first tasted semen when I was seven years old.” Here, the story shows a good man listening to the rape that this innocent man faced day after day in his younger years. He blames religion and all men of faith for what happened to him, saying that a good man must die in order to make a strong statement about what went wrong. If a bad priest dies, then no one will care because, hey, he deserved it. But a good man dying? That’ll get everyone’s attention. James’ daughter, Fiona (Kelly Reilly), visits town after her father reels over the threat he just received. She recently attempted suicide and feels abandoned by James, who left to become a priest instead of loving his daughter when she needed it most. She refers to him as “father” once, coldly drawing a parallel between the distance she feels from him due to his fatherly status in the church.

Writer-director John Michael McDonagh builds the narrative around a whodunit foundation, but the story navigates episodic scenes that are defined by the supporting characters. Jack Brennan (Chris O’Dowd) is a butcher whose wife is cheating on him; she indulges in plenty of other men and some cocaine when given the chance. Dr. Frank Harte (Aidan Gillen) is an atheistic surgeon that mostly believes his patients will die. He’s a pessimist at heart that brutally attacks and belittles religion for fun. Michael Fitzgerald (Dylan Moran) is a wealthy, lonely man that cares more about artificial happiness than peace of mind. In one telling scene, he asks Father James if a painting he owns has any meaning. James asks, “Why does it have to have meaning?” Michael insists that everything has to have meaning in life or else, what’s the point? Fiona challenges that notion of meaning as well. In confession, James tells her that life has just as much meaning at 30 as it does at 60, but she thinks that’s all fluff without any substance.

Characters question the nature of religion and whether it is, indeed, a dying belief system. But Calvary isn’t a film that exists to tear apart religion at its seams; rather, it aims to introspectively look at a troubled protagonist that sees the doubt and hate in most people rather than the good. There’s a sense that humanity is inherently evil based on the narrative, a testament to Satanism more than any thread of Catholicism. Brendan Gleeson delivers one of the year’s best performances as James, providing him with a kindly invasive nature, using his religion as a means of exploring the tenets of being a good human being. McDonagh has managed to create a stunning feature marked by its challenge of religion as the ultimate punisher and judge. Characters remark that faith acts as a way for people to understand death, but if religion doesn’t mean more to the follower, then why believe in the first place? Calvary gravely voices that a religion’s dark past can overwhelm the present and make the most fervent believers question the foundation of their humanity.

The Hundred-Foot Journey - Movie Review by Eric Forthun

The Hundred-Foot Journey  

Starring Helen Mirren, Om Puri, Manish Dayal, and Charlotte Le Bon

Directed by Lasse Hallström

Rated PG

Run Time: 122 minutes

Genre: Drama

Opens August 8th

By Eric Forthun of Cinematic Shadows

The Hundred-Foot Journey has one of the strongest first halves of any film in 2014, filled with strong social commentary, developed characters, and an exquisitely articulated love for food. It's a shame, then, that the second half falls into conventional, simplistic trappings and develops an aimless attitude for its final half hour. But the film is always marked by its charm and affable nature, using food as a means of culture and identity alongside terrifically defined lead characters. Helen Mirren is shown as the star of the film yet, while terrific, she is not the takeaway. Newcomers Manish Dayal and Charlotte Le Bon are delightful and fall into their roles with ease, with the ever-talented Om Puri providing a dynamic and funny supporting turn. As the story opens, Papa (Om Puri) leads the Kadam family away from their previously disrupted life and moves them from India to France in hopes of starting anew. A fire destroyed their restaurant and killed their mother, so they aim to find happiness in starting again on the French countryside.

Their car breaks down and they are passed by a young French woman named Marguerite (Charlotte Le Bon). She offers to help them and bonds with Hassan (Manish Dayal), to whom she offers cooking books and other guides to help him learn about French cuisine. With their love of food propelling their decisions, Hassan and his father decide to buy an abandoned restaurant against the will of the rest of the family. The place needs a lot of upkeep and will certainly need to advertise plenty to get the attention of French eaters. After all, an Indian restaurant in the middle of the French landscape won't exactly scream "appealing" to farmers and fine diners. To make matters worse, just one hundred feet across the road is a French restaurant with a Michelin Star, run with an iron fist by Madame Mallory (Helen Mirren). She ensures that everything goes her way and has one of the most certifiably telling palates in the country.

The story eventually moves toward the Kadam family's success and follows Hassan's journey to becoming a chef in Madame Mallory's kitchen. He's one of the most talented cooks she's seen, even if she refuses to admit it, and he knows how to win her over. Marguerite tells Hassan of how Madame tests cooks in only one way before deciding if they have the potential to be great: they must cook her an omelet and she will try one bite. In that bite, she can see their future as a chef. The narrative develops through these quirks and identifiers of character. Mirren makes Mallory a stone-faced enigma, borderline unreadable for the first half of the film, and it works perfectly for the narrative. As the story doles out more information on the inherent sadness behind her character, the story becomes stronger due to her character's actions having more gravitas. Her pursuit of love in the film's closing moments, however, fall flat in terms of impact because it takes an easier path for the character. Her pain drives her passion.

What shines through the film's late contrivances is its thematic consistency. These characters love food and aim to find a way to rekindle old feelings and tastes through their cooking; Hassan's pursuit leads to a stark realization that that idea may not be as it seems. Director Lasse Hallström, who has had enjoyably light efforts like Salmon Fishing in the Yemen over the past few years, shows a marked improvement in how to visually tell a story. The first half is marked by sweeping cinematography and fully realized scenes; the camera moves dynamically across the frame and showcases depth-of-field and mise-en-scene remarkably. And his actors, Manish Dayal and Charlotte Le Bon, are both strongly represented as equals in the food world that begin to fall in love over common interests. Yet the film meanders in the last half of its 122 minutes, taking easy paths and failing to challenge social stereotypes like it promises. Despite those inconsistencies, it still remains a pleasant, moving watch that excels due to its clear respect for the characters and their passions.