An Interview with director Dan Fogelman

by Michael Clawson

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

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

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

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

PFF: How did the letter get lost?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

PFF: How was it directing your first film?

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

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

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

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

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

The Longest Ride - Movie Review by Eric Forthun

The Longest Ride  

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

Directed by George Tillman Jr.

Rated PG-13

Run Time: 128 minutes

Genre: Romance

Opens April 10th

By Eric Forthun of Cinematic Shadows

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

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

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

Insurgent - Movie Review by Michael Clawson

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

Director: Neil Burger, Robert Schwentke

by Michael Clawson of Terminal Volume

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

'71 - Movie Review by Eric Forthun

'71  

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

Directed by Yann Demange

Rated R

Run Time: 99 minutes

Genre: War Drama

Opens March 13th

By Eric Forthun of Cinematic Shadows

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

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

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

Cinderella - Movie Review by Eric Forthun

Cinderella  

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

Directed by Kenneth Branagh

Rated PG

Run Time: 112 minutes

Genre: Family/Adventure

Opens March 13th

By Eric Forthun of Cinematic Shadows

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

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

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

The Salvation - Movie Review by Eric Forthun

The Salvation  

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

Directed by Kristian Levring

Rated R

Run Time: 92 minutes

Genre: Western

Opens March 13th

By Eric Forthun of Cinematic Shadows

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

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

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

Champs - Movie Review by Michael Clawson

Champs

Opening at FilmBar

by Michael Clawson of Terminal Volume

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Second Best Exotic Marigold Hotel  

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

Directed by John Madden

Rated PG

Run Time: 122 minutes

Genre: Comedy/Drama

Opens March 6th

By Eric Forthun of Cinematic Shadows

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

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

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

Chappie - Movie Review by Eric Forthun

Chappie  

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

Directed by Neil Blomkamp

Rated R

Run Time: 120 minutes

Genre: Action/Sci-Fi

Opens March 6th

By Eric Forthun of Cinematic Shadows

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

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

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

My Favorite Movies: Film Noir by Michael Clawson

My Favorite Movies: Film Noir

by Michael Clawson of Terminal Volume

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Your Favorite Movies - Alex Drummond

What are Your Favorite Films?

For the 2015 Phoenix Film Festival we encourage you to Find Your New Favorite Movie! As we approach the festival we’ve started a new series on our site where we ask some Phoenix Film Festival filmmaker alumni about some of their favorite movies.

Alex Drummond is the director/writer/producer of PFF 2014 Horror Feature The Shower, a film about a group of friends who get trapped at a baby shower when a mysterious outbreak starts turning people into homicidal maniacs. However, this is not only a horror film, but a film that is “well-acted, and laugh-out-loud funny,” according to a PFF attendee review.

Michael Parsons of DC Film Dom says:

The Shower is a... crossover in the vein of Shaun of the Dead, and hopefully just the beginning... for Drummond, who understands the importance of creating likable, identifiable characters...

This week, Alex shares some of his favorite films with us. (OK, unless you’re binge-watching, your list must be getting really long!)

What is your …

• Favorite Comedy

Annie Hall is the movie that has influenced me the most. I'd put Shaun of the Dead in second place.

• Favorite Drama

Is Die Hard a drama? Pulp Fiction? (Along with Annie Hall, those are my top three.) If I had to pick one, I'd give a slight edge to Die Hard. If I had to pick a straight drama: The Godfather.

• Favorite Documentary Scorsese's The Last Waltz.

• Favorite film you saw on the circuit

I saw a bunch of great movies, but my favorite is one I saw at PFF: Chris Ethridge's The Morningside Monster. (Now called Attack of the Morningside Monster.)

• Favorite film that you think most people have never seen, but should?

My first thought is Quick Change, with Bill Murray … but, maybe a lot of people have seen it. Just in case, I'll throw in Ed Wood.

• Do you have a favorite film poster? I'm partial to the poster for Rocky. It's hanging above my TV.

Alex tells us that PFF came early in The Shower’s festival run, and they had a fun year traveling with the movie. Although, he says, no other festival he attended has a PARTY PAVILION!

He added that, “The filmmakers we met in Phoenix have been a great resource and support. Paul Osborne, Scott Storm, Gary King and Zak Forsman have been a huge help. Paul is like Yoda, but taller. Zak made our DCPs for The Shower, which are amazing.”

Alex reports that The Shower is in final stages of setting up distribution, and he hopes to have The Shower available on VOD and DVD later this year.

http://www.theshowerthemovie.com/

– Laurie Smith

Focus - Movie Review by Monte Yazzie

Focus Director: Glenn Ficarra and John Requa

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

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

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

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

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

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

Monte’s Rating

2.75 out of 5.00

Mommy - Movie Review by Eric Forthun

Mommy  

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

Directed by Xavier Dolan

Rated R

Run Time: 138 minutes

Genre: Drama

Opens February 27th

By Eric Forthun of Cinematic Shadows

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

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

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

The Lazarus Effect - Movie Review by Eric Forthun

The Lazarus Effect  

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

Directed by David Gelb

Rated PG-13

Run Time: 83 minutes

Genre: Horror

Opens February 27th

By Eric Forthun of Cinematic Shadows

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

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

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

My Favorite Modern Westerns by Michael Clawson

Great modern westerns by Michael Clawson of Terminal Volume

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Forgotten Classics from Major Directors by Michael Clawson

by Michael Clawson of Terminal Volume

The great directors became great not by sitting around plucking the occasional movie from each decade, but by relentlessly pursuing projects at every opportunity. They worked so hard and so fast that today the libraries of their films are vast with forgotten corners and dusty shelves. Here is a small selection of my favorite forgotten works by major directors working today.

Empire of the Sun, Steven Spielberg

Sandwiched between The Color Purple and Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade is Spielberg’s beautifully terrifying war journal Empire of the Sun, featuring a young Christian Bale as a British boy caught up in the events of World War II in Japanese-occupied China. The film, treasured in certain circles and frowned upon in others, is widely forgotten today, even as a stepping stone for the young Bale, who would go on to become a superstar. I was reminded of this film last year during Angelina Jolie’s similar, but altogether hollow, Unbroken, about another figure caught in the madness of war. Spielberg, of course, has produced some masterful and timeless images for the screen, but look at any highlight reel of his work and it’s all Jaws, Saving Private Ryan, E.T. and Jurassic Park. Yet, here in Empire — which is based on a book by one of the great writers of the 20th century, J.G. Ballard — he continuously one-ups himself with marvelously poetic imagery: a boy riding his bike in a country house, playtime in a derelict fighter plane, showers of sparks on a runway, fields of stolen antiques … it has a continuously magical series of shots. And yet, it’s forgotten, right alongside another Spielberg misfire worth revisiting, 1941. Both films are Spielberg B-sides, but they’re terrific.

After Hours, Martin Scorsese

Martin Scorsese has a fascination with men adrift in secret worlds that are invisible to the naked eye: gangsters in Goodfellas and Casino, paramedics in Bringing Out the Dead, bankers in Wolf of Wall Street. In his After Hours, his 1985 surrealist comedy, the lights go out in New York City and it becomes an absurd fantasy, where keys, art and angry mobs (but never actual money) are the currency of the film’s hapless protagonist, played by Griffin Dunne. The film bounces from one awful misadventure to the next, until you realize it has ended exactly where begun. Scorsese is frequently cited for his violence and scoundrel leading men, but it should also be noted he has a wicked sense of humor.

Rumble Fish, Francis Ford Coppola

Years after making the first two Godfather films, Apocalypse Now and the The Conversation, Francis Ford Coppola made two movies based on S.E. Hinton books. The first, The Outsiders, was widely seen and appreciated, but the second, Rumble Fish, filmed the same year as The Outsiders, slipped into the cracks of Coppola’s long career. Some of this might have to do with the experimental nature of the film: its odd pace and composition, the jazzy bohemian soundtrack, or its high-contrast black and white presentation. But the unique style of Rumble Fish, coupled with the impressive performances of Matt Dillon and Mickey Rourke — playing characters named Rusty James and Motorcycle Boy — stands as a hallmark to Coppola’s power as a director.

A Perfect World, Clint Eastwood

Coming on the heels of Unforgiven, A Perfect World did not make the splash that it was probably intended to make. The movie, about an escaped convict who kidnaps a young boy in 1960s Texas, was a moderate moneymaker and was warmly received by critics, but would be quietly forgotten when presented next to Eastwood’s later works, especially during his directing spree starting in 1997 and barely slowing down since then. The film is notable for its delicately written script (by Disney hired gun John Lee Hancock), the combination of Kevin Costner’s convict and T.J. Lowther’s malleable young boy, and the careful way in which Eastwood filmed their joint escapades across Texas. It’s still, to this day, one of his finest films.

Matchstick Men, Ridley Scott

Ridley Scott is one of the hardest working directors in Hollywood, not because he makes more films, but because he makes more big films — his projects are almost always labor intensive, besieged by extras and special effects, and have long runtimes. James Cameron makes big movies, too, but not at Scott’s pace. It was surprising then to see Matchstick Men, a low-key long con movie about a father and a daughter. First of all, I love long con movies, and this one is just spectacular. Nicholas Cage is an OCD grifter, Sam Rockwell plays a sleazy partner, Bruce McGill plays the gullible mark, and Allison Lohman is the long-lost daughter there to gum up the works. The film’s beauty is that after the con drops, the mark — the true mark — actually got what he wanted, which is something I wasn’t expecting.

The Limey, Steven Soderbergh

Between Out of Sight and Erin Brockovich, Steven Soderbergh made The Limey, a crime thriller in the vein of an Elmore Leonard story. The movie is a revenge tale involving a very snappy Brit flying to the Unites States to find out about his dead daughter. He runs into characters played by Peter Fonda, Luis Guzman and Bill Duke, and is generally a cool customer as he murders his way through a criminal empire. The film works because of its star, Terence Stamp, who is simply electric as the fast-talking father with a grudge. It also works because it’s simple. Soderbergh doesn’t drown his material in style and substance. He just tells a story, as quickly and effectively as he knows how.

Salvador, Oliver Stone

Before Oliver Stone would go on to fame with Platoon, Wall Street and Born on the Fourth of July, he made Salvador in 1986, the same year he also made Platoon. The film follows a war photographer, whose desire for blood and carnage takes a turn on him during political unrest in Salvador. The frantic imagery, violence, the characters’ use of language … these are all trademarks that we will see in later Stone pictures. it also helped that James Woods, playing the photographer character, was at his most James Woodsian, bouncing off the walls in all his glory.

eXistenZ, David Cronenberg

This gritty science fiction fantasy likely suffered from stiff competition at theaters in the weeks surrounding its release, namely with a little film called The Matrix. But I maintain here that Cronenberg’s eXistenz is, in many ways, a better film about “jacking in” or “booting up” into a false reality. The film is punctuated with noir-inspired flourishes of mystery, some of them involving skin-draped joysticks that are clearly modeled after the sex organs of some interplanetary species. Also interesting are the almost robotic performances of Jennifer Jason Leigh and Jude Law. The film ends on an Inception-like top twirl that calls into question everything we’ve already seen, a trait of almost all of Cronenberg’s films.

Strange Days, Kathryn Bigelow

Here’s another film that was upstaged by The Matrix, but is largely forgotten: Kathryn Bigelow’s terrific Strange Days, about a black market dealer in SQUID clips, a sensory recording made by jacking right into the human brain. Ralph Fiennes is the dealer, and he’s joined later by Angela Bassett, Tim Sizemore and a very naked Juliette Lewis (singing her own songs). The action thriller works because Bigelow takes the world she creates as seriously as the characters do. The science fiction is out there and weird, but within the scope of plausibility, and the characters react to in ways that are believable. The film also uses these crazy first-person perspectives, which would be an overindulgence in another movie, but here they make complete sense.

Last Action Hero, John McTiernan

Bear with me on this one. Last Action Hero was a disaster when it was released in 1993, but I think the film was way ahead of its time for action movies and director John McTiernan, the director of action royalty Die Hard. It takes place in a world where Arnold Schwarzenegger, the real Arnold, plays a character named Jack Slater in a series of action thrillers. These films are watched by a young fanboy, who is eventually transported into the films, where film logic applies to everything from bullet physics and police station lobbies to car chases and the movie cliche of the Talking Villain. Later, the film escapes from the screen and enters Arnold’s real world. Charles Dance is in there with a false eye, Tom Noonan is an axe-murderer, Ian McKellen plays Death from The Seventh Seal. It’s all rather bonkers, but the movie was meta, before meta was really even a pop concept. It acknowledges the action cliches and tropes in a way that has never been done before or since. The movie has its flaws (eek — that kid!), but it spoke to entire generation of action films and it was laughed out of the room for it. By the way, McTiernan, who has been largely absent from filmmaking due to some legal troubles, needs to stage a comeback.

McFarland, USA - Movie Review by Monte Yazzie

McFarland USA  

Dir: Niki Caro

Starring: Kevin Costner, Carlos Pratts, Maria Bello, Ramiro Rodriguez, Johnny Ortiz, Rafael Martinez, Hector Duran, Sergio Avelar, Elsie Fisher, and Morgan Saylor

Rated PG

128 Minutes

How do you make a cross-country running film interesting? You hire an accomplished director and utilize Disney’s tried and true sports movie formula. Get a group of underdogs, add insurmountable odds, base it on true events and that’s the groundwork for this successful formula. “Glory Road”, “Miracle”, and “Remember the Titans” are just a few of the sports movies viewers still mention when listing their favorite sport themed films. It’s not a complicated form by any means but this structure works by combining heartfelt and uplifting sentiments. Director Niki Caro utilizes culture to assist in establishing the dynamic between the characters and the society that defines them.  Though more could have been done with this topic it doesn’t hinder “McFarland, USA” from being an enjoyably simplistic film.

Coach Jim White is moving his family to a small California community after an altercation with a player during a football game that lead to his dismissal. Desperate for teachers, McFarland High School hires White, or “Blanco” as his predominantly Hispanic students refer to him, for a staff position. White and his family are greeted with open arms in the community, though it is a bit of a culture shock for them. White notices that the students work hard, most of them assisting the family in the picking fields, and run everywhere they go. White proposes that the school start a cross county team, a first of its kind in 1987.

A mountain, an early adversary for these young runners, plays an obvious metaphor. Whether the conflict of being more than a field worker or understanding the conflicts of a broken home, nothing comes easy for these young men and Coach White recognizes this early on. Though the community of McFarland is poor they are also rich in heart, taking pride in important matters like family and community. Director Niki Caro understands these bonds and utilizes them within the primary physical attribute of the sport they are participating in, which is ultimately endurance. These young men understand this situation, some even becoming complaisant with the life being shaped without their input, but they endure for more than themselves. They endure for their family. And when they become a team, they endure for each other. Till finally, during the course of the race, the runners recognize they must endure for themselves. It’s a simple narrative device that Caro implements and for the most part it works effectively. However, there are other aspects to this story that are underutilized. Violence exists for a brief moment in only one scene and any approach to a realistic understanding of the world these kids grow up in is left in the background, but that’s another movie completely.

Kevin Costner has always been good as the surly sympathetic kind, here providing the brash speeches of tough love while quietly exhibiting the caring side of his personality. Costner is always good at making everyone better as well. Scenes with the young cast, especially Carlos Pratts who is the most dramatic character of the young actors, are assisted by Costner’s skill but each of the actors fit their specific roles with ease.

“McFarland USA” aims to present a series of uplifting moments with just enough surface level complications to make the journey meaningful. Any exploration of deeper correlations within the characters and the society and culture they are living in are relegated to supportive attributes. This film simply aims at being a purely entertaining sports movie, to which it succeeds.

Monte’s Rating

3.50 out of 5.00

McFarland, USA - Movie Review by Eric Forthun

McFarland, USA  

Starring Kevin Costner, Maria Bello, Carlos Pratts, Hector Duran, Chad Mountain, and Johnny Ortiz

Directed by Niki Caro

Rated PG

Run Time: 129 minutes

Genre: Drama

Opens February 20th

By Eric Forthun of Cinematic Shadows

McFarland, USA has more heart and care for its Hispanic lead characters than expected, even if the story is told through the lens of a white family man coming to terms with his new life. Like many Disney efforts of late (including last year's Million Dollar Arm), the film opts for safe notions of fish-out-of-water ideas rather than investing fully in the culture it's attempting to showcase. For every sincere moment that emerges in McFarland, a grating moment of stereotypical insensitivity dominates the next. There's no definitive storytelling balance between the Hispanic runners and the White family (yes, jokes are made about his name being White, including the worthy language substitute of "Blanco"), particularly as the cultural divide seems to swing rapidly without much build. The narrative is based on a true story, an all too familiar reminder of how calculated the emotional moments in the film are. Does that explain, though, the bouts of gang violence and entirely unnecessary conflict that is introduced in the film's final half hour? Despite this string of complaints, though, the film is affecting and nuanced in its depiction of actual Hispanic culture, and Kevin Costner is phenomenal as always.

The film opens in 1987, with Jim White (Kevin Costner) talking with a frustrated football team that has given up the most points in their high school's history. One of his captains, and the only senior on the team, makes a joke of the moment, causing Jim to react unfortunately and lead to his termination. Jim has to move his family from Boise to McFarland, California, one of the poorest cities in the nation. It's a town that looks like it belongs in southern Arizona or right past the border of Mexico; signage, food, and culture scream "Mexico!," a remark that Jim's daughter makes with the cultural acceptance of a hazelnut. Jim fears for his family's life upon seeing a group of car enthusiasts that are mistaken for "gangbangers," as the driver so aptly puts it. His experience at his new job is hostile and marked by unmotivated children, including an awful football team that cannot compete. Yet he notices that most of the kids are excellent runners; what if they start a cross-country team and begin to compete?

The first thirty minutes of the film are a rough set-up, with the Whites coming across as fearful racists that believe they cannot live within a Hispanic culture. Yet the story develops into a quite accepting look at how difficult it can be for Hispanic children to distinguish themselves in a world that already believes they fall into certain cultural stencils. The students who form the cross country team at the heart of the film are intelligent, remarkably hard-working, devoted, and passionate. That cannot be said about most teenagers depicted in film, let alone ones based on a true story. Moments when Jim eats a proper Mexican meal and Cheryl (Jim's wife, a mostly thankless role played respectably by Maria Bello) undergoes a makeover while her car is fixed shine an honorable light on a culture that is often mocked or generalized in film. Here, the story allows a development of a quinceañera to feel fitting in the story, along with the devotion to working within the family and preserving the tirelessly working spirit it takes to work in fields for entire days.

For every moment that the film spends developing that culture, it throws in unnecessary moments that only make the Whites seem out-of-touch. Jim White's desire to work in a field one day simply makes him look old rather than unable to work, and his inability to run with the students makes him seem like an inappropriate choice for coaching a cross-country team. Regardless, the film has merits in its presentation of teamwork and resilience, particularly as racial stigmas pervade a white-dominated sport like cross-country. Californian prep students can be real jerks, at least based on what the film suggests. Costner's good in his role, one that allows him to shine when the script doesn't steer toward pandering; he doesn't do well in tried, emotionally dead scenes after an act of gang violence drags the film to a halt. There are predictable beats, as with all Disney entries, never opting for surprise so much as inspiration with a nice cherry on top. That's fine and all, and the film has plenty to enjoy, but it makes McFarland, USA feel like another safe entry in Disney's catalog.

Hot Tub Time Machine 2 - Movie Review by Eric Forthun

Hot Tub Time Machine 2  

Starring Adam Scott, Rob Corddry, Craig Robinson, Clark Duke, and Gillian Jacobs

Directed by Steve Pink

Rated R

Run Time: 93 minutes

Genre: Comedy

Opens February 20th

By Eric Forthun of Cinematic Shadows

Hot Tub Time Machine 2 opens with a nipple joke and closes with a dick joke. It's quiet poetic, considering the asinine attempts on display of repeating the previous film's successes to lesser, more vulgar degrees. While the original HTTM had a sense of nostalgia and a lighter comedic tone, the characters on display here are mostly repugnant and unlikable. By having Lou (Rob Corddry) take over as the main character of the film, the story is asked to navigate around a modern-day Caligula who has no likable traits or moral decency. So when we're asked to view the film through his eyes and watch his character supposedly change, it's off-putting and mostly uncomfortable. Yet the film's biggest fault comes from its belief that every one of its jokes is amusing, including homophobic jokes and outdated references to scarcely watched shows like Fringe. The film just doesn't have a clue as to how to spruce up its thin premise, falling into the trap of repeating its predecessor in almost every way. It's unoriginal, mostly unfunny, and a huge misfire.

The film picks up after the events of the first film, with Lou (Rob Corddry) inventing his knock-off brand of Google and being considered one of the biggest tech geniuses in the world. He's a billionaire, and his son, Jacob (Clark Duke), is the classic slacker of a rich father who doesn't aim for all that much. Nick (Craig Robinson) is still churning out hit after hit ever since he introduced the world to "Let's Get It Started," the Black Eyed Peas song he passed off as his own. And Adam (John Cusack) is nowhere to be found, although they believe he may have time traveled for some unknown reason. Nonetheless, at a self-indulgent party that Lou throws, he gets fatally shot in a nether region and faces his mortality; what if the guys went back in time, though, and prevented Lou's manhood from being destroyed? Lo and behold, they get black-out drunk (just like in the first film), Chevy Chase's crazy hot tub operator makes them uncomfortable, and they land 10 years in the future.

What could strike as genius ends up falling flat in almost every way. The jokes don't necessarily revolve around the future so much as more futuristic dick jokes. It's woefully uninspired. The concept of sentient Smart Cars is genius and almost feels like it belongs in a smarter, more adept comedy than this one, since the gags used for it are pretty impressive. How Hot Tub Time Machine 2 attempts to make sense of itself might be the most frustrating part of it all: it throws around supposed logic of alternate universes but doesn't seem to care about appealing to the audience. Instead, it treats the time travel as something that doesn't really matter or shouldn't be understood, even when they put a lot of effort into presenting the rules of the world. Adam Scott and Gillian Jacobs are the two new additions to the crew, and those apt comedic players are reduced to lifeless roles. It's a bland film, not particularly offensive or awful. Just lazy and vapid.

The Last Five Years - Movie Review by Eric Forthun

The Last Five Years  

Starring Anna Kendrick, Jeremy Jordan, Natalie Knepp, Meg Hudson, and Nic Novicki

Directed by Richard LaGravenese

Rated PG-13

Run Time: 94 minutes

Genre: Musical/Romance

Opens February 20th

By Eric Forthun of Cinematic Shadows

It's rare to see a full-bodied independent musical released theatrically in today's cinematic landscape. Told almost entirely through song, The Last Five Years is an unevenly affecting romance told through the eyes of both of its lover protagonists. As each of their careers face the traditional ebb-and-flow associated with artists in New York, one's success leads to another's emotional downfall. Anna Kendrick and Jeremy Jordan both fill their roles compellingly, exuding palpable romantic chemistry and gamely singing the on-the-nose and lavishly obvious lyrics. That's one of the core problems associated with musical adaptations, particularly ones that reveal almost all of their character and story through song. It's frustratingly obvious, a flaw that I found with Into the Woods that originates primarily from Sondheim's influence on stage music. In its adaptation to film, The Last Five Years does explore compelling, open cinematography and a non-linear narrative that challenges the viewer, but it also leaves little past its surface and falls into repetition in its final half hour.

The film focuses on Cathy Hiatt (Anna Kendrick), a struggling actress, and Jamie Wellerstein (Jeremy Jordan), a fledgling novelist, who carry their romance to New York City in the hopes of pursuing their dreams. Cathy helms from Ohio and has failed to find herself in the vast acting world of New York. She's been called for many auditions but had little to no success, trying out for Broadway shows, routine acting gigs, and even settling on bartending in the downtime between those options. She waits five hours at some points in hopes of getting an acting opportunity, but either succumbs to pressure or doesn't know if she wants the role. Simply put, she cannot seem to find herself. Jamie, on the other hand, finds an agent that trusts and respects his work, leading to his success continuing to grow as his first novel finds publication. He often visits with other writers, publishers, and various industry people while Cathy stands on the sidelines as a discontent cheerleader. But she wants to be more than that, and doesn't appreciate Jamie's dismissal of her presence at times when she needs him most.

Writer-director Richard LaGravenese works from the play originally scribed by Jason Robert Brown. There's a semblance of a longer, more balanced narrative in the mix somewhere, as there are notions of familial scenes and stronger supporting characters in the background, but they never come to fruition. While the main characters aren't boring by any means, they are often one-note and repeat the same emotions, albeit in different songs. The music, however, is quite absorbing and always insightful, even if it is a bit too agreeable for narrative advancement. Kendrick is thoroughly phenomenal in a role that gives her plenty to work with, and Jordan often giggles through his happy songs and falls into the role of potentially manipulative man in the film's latter half. They're both great singers, which is a huge plus. The non-linear narrative surprisingly doesn't help or hurt the film, since it gives the audience a broad spectrum of emotions early on that these characters feel, only to narrow them over the course of the film. The Last Five Years finds sincerity in its occasionally derivative romance, and will undoubtedly please musical enthusiasts looking for well-sung, on-point lyrics.