Keanu - Movie Review by Kaely Monahan

You don’t have to be a crazy cat lady to enjoy Keanu By Kaely Monahan

Action-comedy films have been missing one crucial ingredient for years: kittens. Clearly comedians Keegan-Michael Key and Jordan Peele knew this off the bat when they embarked on the absurd yet utterly delightful Keanu.

Key and Peele are well known for playing with stereotypes and stretching comedy in bold and unexpected ways. This, their first, feature film together shows them in their top form as comedians, but they are, surprisingly, good storytellers and the film actually holds up.

Let’s make one thing clear: the true star of the film is the little kitten, affectionately named Keanu. Without him the entire film would fall apart. The little tabby is first introduced as the gang pet of an L.A. drug dealer. The film opens with a bloody action sequence that delights in dramatic music and slow-motion sequences. Bullets fly, blood sprays, and the little kitten epically dodges the many panicked feet. He escapes the bloodbath only to be confronted with the big bad world of Los Angeles. (Do you feel your heart strings pulled yet?)

Meanwhile, Rell (Jordan Peele) is reeling from a bad breakup with his girlfriend. He sees no purpose to life and he weeps while he smokes his bong and generally laments life. His cousin Clarence (Keegan-Michael Key), is a happily married, type-A motivational speaker whose goal in life is to make others happy.  He’s also the whitest black man you’ll ever see. His wife (Nia Long) encourages him to do something that makes him happy for once while she and their daughter take a weekend out of town. Clarence assures her he'll do just that if it will make her happy. (Old habits die hard.)

Ever the cheerleader, Clarence starts his weekend of “me time” with the intention of consoling Rell. Unbeknownst to them both, fate or rather a “purr-pose” comes scratching at Clarence’s door. The lost little tabby is instantly adopted by Clarence who names the stray Keanu. With hours he turns into the black man version of a crazy cat lady. (But who can blame him? Keanu truly is adorable.)

After a night out at the movies, the boys return to find Rell’s house broken into and Keanu missing. Distraught beyond reason, Clarence attempts to life Rell’s spirits by searching for the lost cat. They discover from Rell’s neighbor and pot dealer, a cornrowed Will Forte, that the 17th Street Blips are the cat-burglars.

Determined to rescue Keanu, Rell along with a reluctant Clarence mascarade as the deadliest killers in the L.A. underground—the Allentown brothers. Together they infiltrate the Blips’ HQ, the hilariously named HPV strip club (that’s the Hot Party Vixens). It’s a rocky start as they are the anything but "hardcore gangstas," but somehow they manage to convince the Blips that they are the real deal. However, in order to get Keanu back they have to prove themselves to the Blips’ leader, Cheddar (Method Man). He has them take his crew out on a drug drop, which inevitably turns into a side-splitting disaster.

The plot is ridiculous. In fact, the entire premise is weak, but the laughs keep coming as Key and Peele successfully transform their sketch comedy skills into a feature length film with enough plot and heart to keep it going.

One of the highlights of the entire film is Key’s Clarence educating the hardened gang members on the brilliance that is George Michael. You’ll be hard pressed to not sing along. Peele’s character gets a chance to rebound with the tough and very impressive Hi-C, performed by a delightfully thuggish Tiffany Haddish.

Toss in a good amount of guns, blood, money and car chases and this film turns into a regular action-adventure that should make you purr with delight.

At the film's heart, however, is the love a man for his cat. It must be said the chemistry between Peele and Keanu is utterly convincing. When they share the screen, you actually believe they have a thing for each other. Will we be seeing them in the tabloids? It’s too soon to tell, but one thing is for sure. They make an adorable couple.

On the surface, Keanu is just silly, but it holds up and is actually better than expected. It will keep humor-hounds, Key and Peele fans, and crazy cat ladies thoroughly amused. This film could be the next sleeper hit. At any rate, it’s a hit in my book.

• Kaely Monahan is a journalist, graduate of City University London and the creator of Popcorn Fan Film Reviews. Follow her @PopcornFans and @KaelyMonahan.

Green Room - Movie Review by Monte Yazzie

Green Room  

Dir: Jeremy Saulnier

Starring: Anton Yelchin, Imogen Potts, Alia Shawkat, Joe Cole, Callum Turner, Macon Blair, and Patrick Stewart

We’ve all heard the saying “I was in the wrong place at the wrong time”.  Many have probably fallen into this situation at least once in their life. I once walked into a surprise birthday party mere seconds before the birthday person walked in, completely ruining the surprise. These encounters are most often innocent enough and are probably shared as bits of small talk or chitchat to engage a conversation. In Jeremy Saulnier’s film “Green Room” this sentiment takes a cruel turn into nightmarish territory when a punk rock music group called the Ain’t Rights encounter a community of White supremacists. Mr. Saulnier exceptionally turns a simple story into an unflinching and tension-filled demonstration of survival horror.

A struggling punk rock band touring on the road is down to their last few stops, scrounging for shows and siphoning gas to make it from town to town. Not ones to turn down a paying gig the Ain’t Rights jump at the opportunity to perform. However, the concert is on the outskirts of town, in a community controlled by White supremacists. The group performs to a hostile crowd that spits and throws beer cans in their direction. Eager to leave the Ain’t Rights quickly gather their gear and are nearly out the back door. A final return to the green room for a forgotten phone interrupts a murder, as witnesses the band is taken captive by the owner (Patrick Stewart) of the club and into a fight for survival.

Jeremy Saulnier is good at taking characters and placing them in the middle of terrible situations that they have no control over. The process for the characters becomes forced action, most often action that requires the character to commit horrifying acts in order to survive. But what makes this simple narrative approach so effective is the skill of Mr. Saulnier, who understands how to manipulate the viewer in inventive ways and make the viewer feel every emotional moment of the situation the characters are in. In “Green Room” Mr. Saulnier combines all the successful elements from his previous films and builds a film that breathes tension and anxiety. Whether the calm manipulation of a club owner coxing a group of young people into submission through a locked door or the frantic, pulse-pounding cat and mouse chase, there are moments that will make you squirm and moments that will push you to the edge of your seat.

The film works best when gleefully indulging in these moments, however where Mr. Saulnier stumbled in the past with aspects of character composition or narrative cohesiveness here the director successfully compliments these features nicely. There are even small moments of comedic levity as the band discuss their “stranded-on-a-desert-island” band, a moment that had a big applause at the screening that I attended after the choice was made from one of the characters. Things lead to a finale that is less exciting and somewhat predictable yet still satisfying because of the characters finally surrender to the situation and embrace their punk rock attitudes.

The film has the help from the very dependable talents of Anton Yelchin and Alia Shawkat but also some fine moments from Joe Cole and Callum Turner, these four actors comprise the Ain’t Rights. In a wonderful casting choice Patrick Stewart plays the villain as club owner Darcy, Mr. Stewart is calmly menacing and effectively evil throughout the entire film.

“Green Room” is very much the definition of punk. A film that understands the rules but decides to play by its own tune, a fast, aggressive, and stripped down tune. While the story concerns a group of young people who are in the wrong place at the wrong time, the film may be an opposing version of this. It is essentially the right film at the right time amidst the stale and overused versions of this sort of film; “Green Room” is a brutally refreshing interpretation.

Monte’s Rating

4.25 out of 5.00

Elvis & Nixon - Movie Review by Jeff Mitchell

“Shannon and Spacey deliver a fun history lesson in ‘Elvis & Nixon’”  

Directed by: Liza Johnson

Starring: Michael Shannon, Kevin Spacey, Alex Pettyfer, Johnny Knoxville, Colin Hanks, and Evan Peters

“Elvis & Nixon” - “Do something worth remembering.” - Elvis Presley

“My concern today is not with the length of a person’s hair but with his conduct.” - Richard M. Nixon

With the unofficial title of “Leader of the Free World”, the President of the United States regularly accepts visits from various heads of states.   On December 21, 1970, President Richard M. Nixon received an impromptu visit from royalty, musical royalty, that is.  In fact, this person was (and still is) considered “The King”, and his name was Elvis Presley.  Based upon an actual event from almost 46 years ago, director Liza Johnson guides two heavyweight actors - Michael Shannon and Kevin Spacey - on this odd, but highly notable meeting between two of the most famous men of the 20th Century.

Admittedly, this two-person, Oval Office assembly certainly does not rise to the importance of the Treaty of Versailles or anything, and Johnson’s nifty comedy astutely recognizes this fact by offering a cinematic runtime of just 85 minutes.  On the other hand, she simultaneously treats the material with great care and allows Shannon and Spacey plenty of room for two rich, highly amusing and - at times - hypnotic performances.

When we first see Elvis (Shannon), he feels anything but hypnotized by the four television sets in his Graceland living room and instead, feels disgust.   Although he makes his living on rock ‘n roll, Elvis holds conservative values and is none too pleased with the drug culture and its byproducts, namely youthful rebellion and protests blaring on the TV news.  Elvis wants to help his country in some way.  His proposal (which I will leave out of this review) sounds fairly preposterous to his friend Jerry Schilling (Alex Pettyfer), but The King wrote a letter to President Nixon (Spacey) and wants to hand it to him at The White House, and well, The King usually gets his way.  Through a series of smartly-placed sequences - like airport security allowing Elvis to carry handguns on a commercial aircraft - the audience quickly learns that yes, Mr. Presley usually gets his way, so why not meet the president on a random Monday?

Johnson throws some real obstacles in Elvis’ path, and mostly in the form of Nixon’s reluctance, but yes, the meeting does eventually occur, otherwise we would not have a movie.  The real suspense and anxiety of the film revolves around how this personal summit will go, because everything about Shannon and Spacey’s performances - leading up to their initial face-to-face talk - foreshadows a brutal car crash.

Now, Shannon’s angular facial features do not resemble Elvis at all, but he sports a black wig, a black suit with wide lapels, two fistfuls of dollar-sized rings, and a cool-cat speaking delivery and accompanying manner which completely convinced this critic that Elvis Presley is actually walking and talking on the big screen.   Shannon’s pulse never seems to rise above 35, as Elvis navigates through various hurdles with an “oh shucks” persona and southern charm, while White House security, airline ticket agents and secretaries respond with amazement and swoon.  He is hilarious and mesmerizing, and Spacey matches Shannon - scene for scene - with his portrayal of Nixon.

Spacey’s hairline resembles the former president, but he also captures his mannerisms, all-business attitude and cynicism.  Of course, this titanic meeting between the two offers the very best moments of the film, but Spacey is also very funny when handling his presidential handlers, Egil Krogh (Colin Hanks) and Dwight Chapin (Evan Peters).   Krogh and Chapin desperately want the president to visit with Elvis, but he cleverly shoots down their early attempts as only Nixon could, with casual dismissiveness and sarcasm.

Like Krogh and Chapin, Schilling and his pal Sonny (Johnny Knoxville) try to manage their boss Elvis as well but with little success.  Elvis simply does what Elvis wants to do, and Schilling cannot really reason with him, but he owns a special knack for opening the right figurative doors for The King.   The movie does spend some unneeded time on Schilling’s domestic challenges, as he attempts to be a dutiful boyfriend to his Los Angeles girlfriend and also a confident for his world-famous friend.

Elvis and Nixon obviously are the stars of “Elvis & Nixon”, and through this stylish time warp - which truly looks and feels like 1970 - the audience receives a quirky history lesson wrapped in acting brilliance.   Just before the closing credits, the film also brilliantly commemorates the actual occasion in a surprising way, and we learn that Elvis did yet another something worth remembering and discover whether or not Nixon appreciates a person’s conduct, regardless of the length of one’s hair.  If only all history lessons were this fun!  (3/4 stars) 

Behind the Scenes with Everybody Wants Some!! - By Kaely Monahan

Richard Linklater’s newest film Everybody Wants Some!! has been advertised as a “spiritual sequel” to his 1993 film Dazed and Confused. However, it was clear that revisiting the 1970s high school and graduation is not what this film is about.  

“We’re making our own movie. It’s just tonally very similar,” said Glen Powell, who plays the smooth-talking Finnegan. “If you liked Dazed and Confused you’re going to like this movie.”

Powell, along with Wyatt Russell, Quinton Johnson and Forrest Vickery sat down for a panel interview and shared what it was like working with Linklater and bringing 1980 to life.

The film follows the antics of Southeast Texas State college baseball players in the days leading up to the first day of class. Experienced mainly through the eyes of Jake (Blake Jenner), the frat-mosphere of the team house is filled jock characters that fit the stereotype of dumb-college boys obsessed with drinking, sex and having fun. The ground beneath their feet is almost sacred as sports players rule the schoolyard.

On the surface, the film comes across as another “dumb bro flick.” But in true Linklater fashion the story shows more depth than meets the eye. Everybody Wants Some!! is story about entering into full manhood during a time of political, economical and social change. Set precisely in September of 1980, three days before classes begin, the film straddles the end of the disco-era with one foot firmly in “the future.” Tastes in fashion and music was changing. But the genius behind setting is Linklater’s precision. He was careful to make sure nothing from the later years showed up. That precision, coupled with a sense of fun and an appreciation for the human side of storytelling, was what the cast admired.

“Rick is like a time machine. He took us back there,” Johnson said. “He was like, ‘Oh this song is coming out around this time in April; it was playing on the radio three times a week. We wore only these materials. Those materials didn’t come in until ’81.’ He was just so smart about everything that was the time period.”

Powell added that the cast affectionately named Linklater “Rick-i-pedia.” His knowledge about the era, and 1980 specifically was mind-blowing.

One of the most entertaining moments of the entire film was when the boys were driving to campus with the windows rolled down singing Rapper’s Delight.

“Rick talked about that song has now become a joke. He’s like, ‘That’s an awesome song…That was the coolest song of the time.’” Powell said.

Moments like that shake off the campiness that the 1980s have garnered and give it some dignity, all while still being a hoot to watch. For those who were college aged during that time, the film is certain to resurrect some nostalgic feeling; and for those who were still drooling in their diapers at the time, the film offers a glimpse behind the curtain.

“It was a really, really fun, exciting period. I think that’s why Rick wants to revisit it. I think that’s why there’s so much nostalgia for the era. It was truly great” Powell said.

The film is hits very close to home for Linklater. Not only did he attend college during the ’80s, he played baseball as well. Jake is arguably a foil for Linklater himself.

“It’s pretty autobiographical,” he said in the film’s press release. “Looking back, I realize it was a fun time to be in college, not only personally, but it was an interesting cultural moment.”

Everybody Wants Some!! marries together Linklater’s nostalgia of his youth and love of sports with his artistic sensibilities, into a film that will strike a cord in many moviegoers.

“Rick truly is an intellectual but he’s jock, and you forget about that because he’s made so many of these thinky movies over time. And then you talk to him about sports and you’re like, ‘Oh shoot! He’s Rick-i-pedia with sports as well!’ He truly understands the game and he understands competition and the idea of at a certain point in sports you’re going to have to leave that dream behind,” Powell said.

Although focused on college baseball, a good portion of the film is out on the dance floor rather than the diamond. There’s are various scenes that show how the music scene was changing—and along with that, dancing styles. In the ’70s and ’80s dancing was as much a part of the college sports scene as playing. Back then everybody danced. Powell said that nowadays, there’s a feeling that people are “too cool to dance,” but in 1980 it was just a fun time.

Everyone got into the scene.

“We would go in every morning and we’d do two hours of baseball and two hours of dance rehearsals,” said Vickery, who was also making his film debut. “We’d have to do the Cotton-Eyed Joe—which I never picked up; two-stepping, which I say I was ok at; and then the Saturday Night Fever dance is something we had to learn.”

The boys show off their moves starting at a disco club and ending up at an underground punk-rock concert.

“[Linklater] said athletes when you went out you took over, you danced, and you ran the dance floor,” Powell said.

You don’t see that much today and, according to Russell, here’s a feeling that sports players have a brand to protect; athletes can’t be too outspoken or too political now. Turn on any game or ESPEN and you’ll see carefully phrased answers to questions and most athletes and coaches dodging heady questions that stray outside of their sport. But back in the ’80s there was almost a license to be candid.

The heart of the film was the relationships between the young men. The older classmen take the younger under their wing and impart their “wisdom.” Whether it be on how to pick up chicks, managed classes or realizing that they’re on a whole new playing field, the interactions are authentic, heartwarming, and humorous.

Perhaps none are as enlightened, or perhaps high, as Willoughby. Played by Russell, the cannabis-mellowed Californian injected some perspective into the young teammates. He said the odds of them actually making it to the majors are slim and that there is more to life beyond baseball.

Russell felt a true kinship with his character as he had similar aspirations of becoming a professional hockey player that were later dashed. His personal experience lent itself to the character of Willoughby.

“If you’re any good and you got a shot at becoming something—you have to put these horse blinders on at like 15, 16, 17, because that’s when things get real. If you aren’t able to at some point get those horse blinders off then you’re missing the point, in my opinion,” he said.

“So, when we were talking about that scene, that came up for me. I thought it would be fun thing to impart some of the stuff I learned in hockey and my life in sports on Jake… he [Willoughby] looks back on it and goes, ‘Let me just let you in on something, because this is what life’s about because you’re probably not going to go play.’”

That realness is a trademark Linklater style. In his films, there’s a sensation of “I know some one just like that,” and in Everybody Wants Some!! it’s no different. To foster the genuine companionship and frat-like comradery, Linklater brought the cast to his ranch out in Texas prior to shooting.

“He was like a camp counselor in a way,” Russell said. “He’d be like, ‘Alright, now you gotta go swimming. You gotta go play ping-pong, you gotta go do this.’”

By giving the cast room to be creative and have fun allowed them to build true relationships with each other, which translated really well on screen. As Russell put it, Linklater is interested in casting people, not actors.

“It was the best master class I could have taken,” said Johnson, who was still a student at University of Texas when he auditioned for the role of Dale. “I was getting ready to take a film course that fall semester and I’m glad I did this film instead of taking that film course.”

Everybody Wants Some!! is a charming, at times ridiculous, foray into the recent past. Linklater reveals a truth about that time—like taking a polaroid he captured the zeitgeist of the moment that’s been lost in the barrage of big hair, shoulder pads, and spandex. As Powell said, Linklater “sees the truth in life.” And that’s what we go to his films to see—to experience a moment in time.

• Kaely Monahan is a graduate of City University London and the creator of Popcorn Fan Film Reviews. Follow her @PopcornFans and @KaelyMonahan.

Midnight Special - Movie Review by Monte Yazzie

Midnight Special  

Director: Jeff Nichols

Starring: Michael Shannon, Joel Edgerton, Kristen Dunst, Adam Driver, and Jaeden Lieberher

111 Minutes

Warner Bros.

I assure you this is not the new “Credence Clearwater Revival” biopic. Nope, this is a story about a kid who has extraordinary powers. “Midnight Special” is an unusual film by director Jeff Nichols, however along with the strange aspects it also comes with a significant amount of heart and sincerity that makes it completely affective. Mr. Nichols has done this before, he is the director of “Mud” and the exceptional “Take Shelter”, so it’s no surprise that the material here is elevated because of the director’s unique skill and touch with storytelling.

The film begins with two men, Roy (Michael Shannon) and Lucus (Joel Edgerton), watching a report on the news about a kidnapping, a crime that has Roy’s face plastered on the screen as the dangerous suspect. Also with the two men is Alton (Jaeden Lieberher), a young boy who loves reading comic books using a flashlight and is most always wearing swimming goggles. On the run through Texas, the two men and Alton are trying to reach a special location, a journey that is impeded at every opportunity. Alton has a special gift, an ability that people want to either exploit, research, or, in the case of Roy and Lucas, protect.

The story here will be nothing new to film fans, the basic structure of the story and style of the film is one that has been reflected in science fiction films of 80’s. Think “Firestarter” or “Starman” without all the extravagance. Instead, “Midnight Special” meticulous and patiently develops the story, building the relationships between the characters and letting young Alton slowly become cognizant of his gifts and why it is guiding him. The mood is also an important quality here; it is artfully accomplished in a way that keeps the viewer consistently guessing about their presumptions. Mr. Nichols is subtle about the implications of Alton’s gift, purposefully leaving explanations vague up to a specific point in the film. Unfortunately it’s at this moment that the film feels a little too big for the concept it has quietly and delicately hinted at. The change doesn’t hurt the film but instead makes the decision feel too deliberate, so much that it feels somewhat forced. Still this is small criticism, it would not surprise me if some viewers welcomed the change because of the film's measured pacing. Some may describe “Midnight Special” as a “slow burn” kind of film; rest assured this is a sentiment meant in the best possible way.

Part of the attraction here comes because of the exceptional performances. I have said it before, Michael Shannon is the best thing in about every thing that he does. Mr. Shannon has been in every film that Mr. Nichols has made and the results of this consistency can be seen in the performance. Mr. Shannon has an intensity throughout the film that is kept restrained, a mixture of confusion, frustration, disappointment, and love that is never completely unleashed but is still seen on the actor’s face. Joel Edgerton plays a state trooper helping his best friend; regardless of whether or not he understands what is going on he still believes. Mr. Edgerton is good throughout offering a different kind of emotional connection with Alton. Adam Driver, interesting to watch here, also makes an appearance as an NSA advisor; he develops a unique relationship with Alton that provides the most information about the gifts possessed by the young boy.

Everything and everyone revolves around Alton, Mr. Nichols understands this and consistently utilizes Alton to craft surprising narrative moments especially when it comes to the characters that interact with him. Everyone has a different motivation that is reflected when they interact with the young boy. It’s an exceptional quality that helps “Midnight Special” tell an intriguing and calculated science fiction character drama.

Monte’s Rating

4.00 out of 5.00

Krisha - Movie Review by Jeff Mitchell

‘Krisha’ is a memorable Thanksgiving movie for nontraditional reasons  

Directed and written by:  Trey Edward Shults

Starring:  Krisha Fairchild, Trey Edward Shults

“Krisha” (2016) – A few years ago, I wanted to write a “Top 10 Thanksgiving Movies” article but never published one because – quite frankly – I could only think of two such films:  “Planes, Trains & Automobiles” (1987) and “A Charlie Brown Thanksgiving” (1973).   The former is a universally well-known comedy, but it resonates as more of a buddy picture than a Thanksgiving movie, and the latter was actually a made-for-TV special and not even a theatrical release.   I would not exactly say that Hollywood does not release Thanksgiving films anymore, because they never really made them in the first place.

Consequently, I have not seen a memorable Thanksgiving movie in years until 2016’s “Krisha”.  Although Thanksgiving prides itself as a communal holiday of food, football and fun, be warned that director/writer Trey Edward Shults’ picture is no laughing matter.  Set in an affluent Texas subdivision full of beautiful, brick homes, Krisha (Krisha Fairchild) pulls up in her pickup truck - with her dress sticking out of the driver’s side door - to join her family for Thanksgiving dinner.   Agitated and disheveled, this 60-something woman - with long gray hair and deep wrinkles etched into her face after decades of probable stress - walks up to the wrong house, steps in a puddle, repeatedly curses, and then marches to the proper abode which sits right next door.

Most of her family delivers kind pleasantries in welcoming her for the feast, and then she settles into a comfortable room upstairs.   On the surface, the film effectively presents a venue and players that seem like any ordinary family.  Young men arm wrestle and argue about football, while the ladies congregate in the kitchen to prepare the meal and chat about recent events.   The atmosphere appears light as Krisha’s brother-in-law Doyle (Bill Wise) even jokes that his brand new grandchild could fetch one hundred thousand dollars on the black market.

With turkey dinner only a few hours away, not all is well during this supposed happy occasion, and it centers on Krisha.  Shults takes specific measures to show Krisha bathe in self-depreciation and isolate from the group by starring at them from a distance and repeatedly disappearing into her bathroom to reach for her pillbox labeled “KEEP OUT” with an upside-down peace sign sticker.   Krisha is a deeply troubled and tortured soul, and we see that her self-loathing does not garner much sympathy from her family members.   As the movie progresses – during its 1 hour 23 minute runtime - the script reveals snippets of her historic dysfunction and hence, the reasons for her kin’s disapproval.   Shults volleys between cordial, loving and playful family conversations and the negative energy that Krisha inherently creates, and the end results are remarkable.

Cinematically, this family drama gives off a sick, horror show-vibe with a brooding score that is counting down towards some unknown horrible ending, while Krisha – symbolically wearing black and then red – unwittingly disrupts happy events by actually looking for love and understanding while still deplorably tormented by a destructive past.   Krisha’s specific issues are not unique, but Fairchild’s unforgettable performance and Shults’ direction offer a most distinctive and exceptional look at the emotional carnage that is tragically suffered in millions of homes.   Although “Krisha” is a difficult film to process, it is a most memorable holiday movie for very nontraditional reasons.  (3.5/4 stars)        

Batman v. Superman - Movie Review by Monte Yazzie

Batman v. Superman: Dawn of Justice  

Director: Zack Snyder

Starring: Ben Affleck, Henry Cavill, Amy Adams, Jesse Eisenberg, Gal Gadot, Jeremy Irons, Laurence Fishburne, Diane Lane, and Holly Hunter

Ladies and gentlemen, it’s fight night! Ali verse Frazier. Tyson verse Holyfield. Mayweather verse Pacquiao. And now, to the delight of superhero movie fans everywhere, we have the biggest and most anticipated comic book character fight of the year so far, Batman verse Superman. Ring the bell!!! These two icons of pop culture meet face to face in director Zack Snyder’s film “Batman v Superman: Dawn of the Justice”, and the results are epic, chaotic, and confusing. Many times sloppy but sometimes spectacular, it is a combination of everything you would expect from three films worth of material shoved into one.

“Man of Steel” established that Superman (Henry Cavill) wanted to protect humanity, even though he struggled with how to utilize his power and the extent of his purpose. This culminated with an epic battle that destroyed most of Metropolis, including a building owned by Bruce Wayne (Ben Affleck).  Three years have passed and Superman is worshipped and hated by humanity, seen by some as a god and others as a threat. One of the people who believe Superman’s existence can only lead to disaster is Bruce Wayne. After spending a lifetime fighting crime Bruce has changed and Superman has threatened the ideologies that guide Batman.

The introduction to the film is exceptionally well established. Having to answer for the devastation at the end of “Man of Steel”, the situation is handled through the political system, with the primary question being “Is Superman needed and what should his accountability be?”. It’s a great question to ask, one that doesn’t often get asked in superhero movies. This becomes even more intriguing when Batman steps in to add his two cents. The film takes the time to explain Bruce Wayne’s origins, moving back and forth in the timeline throughout the beginning of the film. It’s a nice touch that allows the viewer time to understand the version of Batman that we are getting in this movie, a darker more disgruntled super vigilante.

This narrative aspect doesn’t continue because, as the title of the film suggests, there are more pressing matters to get to. The climax of the film is everything you’d imagine, a fight that is filled with every superhero action scene trick and special effect that we’ve come to expect. While it is overindulgent and unnecessarily frenzied, is it fair to fault a film for indulging in methods every other version like it has done already? Not necessarily. However, the fault here comes because other versions have done this action better already and with more impactful purpose. “Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice” is leading to this tumultuous encounter, and for a small moment everything goes in a spectacular direction with both characters until it changes and becomes a disorganized mess of computer generated effects that at times look terrible.

There are some great moments and some very good actors given room to do something with their characters. Ben Affleck makes a great Batman; he just fits the look and channels the downtrodden, world-weary aspects of an older Bruce Wayne. Jesse Eisenberg plays Lex Luthor with little restraint; sometimes it works while other times it’s completely overdone. Mr. Eisenberg has always done egotistical very believably; adding the characteristics of a man on the verge of lunacy the actor is given all the fun villainous lines, delivered with good and bad results. With so many moving parts many characters are left in the dark. Henry Cavill and Amy Adams have already been established in “Man of Steel”, so here they are forced into the trappings of a love story. Gal Gadot, playing Wonder Woman, is shuffled into scenes with characters for no real purpose other than preparing the viewer for her scene stealing reveal and establishing that this won’t be the last time we see her.

Much of what we see in “Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice” are familiar elements already introduced by the Marvel franchise, while some of the moments are actually quite intriguing and exciting there are also questionable moments that feel forced and confused, an issue of too many hands on the keyboard or the need to quickly catch this franchise up with every other superhero property. While I was hoping for a main event battle of exceptional proportions, this film felt more like an undercard, an event with a lot of buildup and little payoff.

Monte’s Rating

3.00 out of 5.00

Remember - Movie Review by Jeff Mitchell

Plummer’s performance makes ‘Remember’ a thriller that you won’t forget  

Director:  Atom Egoyan

Writer:  Benjamin August

Starring: Christopher Plummer, Martin Landau, Dean Norris

“Remember” (2016) - “If you lose a big fight, it will worry you all of your life.  It will plague you – until you get your revenge.” – Muhammad Ali

The atrocities committed at Auschwitz during WWII cannot remotely be compared to a simple fight, but I imagine those horrific events can plague the survivors for the rest of their lives.   For two concentration camp survivors - Zev (Christopher Plummer) and Max (Martin Landau) who live in a New York nursing home – they have contemplated vengeance for over 70 years.   “Remember” is a revenge picture, and an intricately crafted one which becomes more complicated by the lead protagonist’s condition.

Zev – which means “Wolf” in Hebrew - morns the recent death of his wife, but he also suffers from dementia.    A terribly debilitating illness, Zev finds himself calling out for his now deceased partner Ruth, because he keeps forgetting that she just passed.   Most unfortunately, when his friend Max reminds Zev that she is gone, he relives the emotional pain of her death all over again.  Zev is nearly 90 years-old and in no condition to carry out difficult tasks, but Max explains that they concocted a plan to murder the man directly responsible for killing their families, an SS officer living in North America.

“You must do what you said you would,” Max says to Zev.

Zev - without all of his faculties but armed with a Glock (which he carries in his toiletry kit) - embarks on his mission in the dimming twilight of his life.   Director Atom Egoyan delivers a stressful and intriguing thriller and deliberately moves the main plot thread at a senior citizen-like pace, while Zev leads the one-man manhunt.  Now, when Zev falters - at times - due to his current mental and physical limitations, the movie places high anxiety on the audience.   He demonstrates some moments of clarity, but the threat of another bout with dementia-induced amnesia always seems present.  For instance, after waking up from a brief nap in a nondescript hotel, he calls for his wife, looks around the room and does not recognize where he is, or – more importantly – why he is staying in an unexceptional lodging in another part of the country.

Thankfully, Max wrote down precise instructions about (and reasons for) his assignment, as well as the passing of Ruth.  Not unlike Leonard (Guy Pearce) in Christopher Nolan’s masterpiece “Memento” (2000), Zev has to reread written notes on his hand or Max’s letter, and his short-term memory only seems fine until his next nap or night of sleep.  With more terribly-forgetful moments just over the horizon, the audience realizes that the overall narrative could turn south in a hurry, because a sometimes-confused, elderly man with a loaded Glock – on a murderous assignment - carries the potential for accidental, fatal mistakes.

Egoyan does not make the mistake of overlooking the need for intriguing supporting players in this character-driven movie.  For example, during Zev’s journey, he connects in a grandfatherly way with a smart 10 year-old boy on a train but also confronts some shocking anti-Semitism from another character who – at first – one would least suspect it.  This assignment is a brand new experience for Zev, and we, the audience, undergo some surprises along the way too, and Plummer is terrific in a complex role.  He successfully balances the makeup of a man who carries apprehension, stout determination, sorrow, and unsettled confusion, and my eyeballs were glued to every subtle movement that Plummer’s Zev made.

Max – who is only a phone call away - makes himself available and armed Zev with strategically-placed transportation, lodging and cash to help carry out their plan.  As long as the explanatory letter is within Zev’s grasp, they have a chance to right an inhuman wrong committed seven decades earlier.   “Remember” presents a sobering reminder that time – even 70 years - does not heal all wounds and forgetting only temporarily helps.  (3/4 stars)

The Divergent Series: Allegiant – Part 1 - Movie Review by Monte Yazzie

The Divergent Series: Allegiant – Part 1  

Director: Robert Schwentke

Starring: Shailene Woodley, Theo James, Miles Teller, Zoë Kravitz, Ansel Elgort, Naomi Watts, Octavia Spencer, and Jeff Daniels

Lionsgate

121 Minutes

“The Divergent Series” has been moving along since its lackluster introduction two years ago. Based on the successful young adult novels, told through three books, by author Veronica Roth, the “The Divergent Series: Allegiant – Part 1” has taken the route of other final installment films, like “The Hunger Games: Mockingjay” and “Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows”, by splitting their finale into two films. The results of this method have been somewhat hit or miss, an attempt to build-up towards an ending that will leave you eager for the final installment that you are asked to wait for;  “Allegiant – Part 1” unfortunately doesn’t leave you wanting more and instead feels like a film franchise that has lost its way.

The recap to this point is that the world has been destroyed and the population still living in a dilapidated, imprisoned Chicago have been divided into factions based on virtues. Tris (Shailene Woodley) doesn’t fit into any individual faction but instead holds significant power within each; she is categorized as Divergent. Along with her boyfriend Four (Theo James) the two lead a rebellion that overthrows the government system that is trying to eradicate all unwanted Divergents.

This new film finds Tris and Four, along with her brother Caleb (Ansel Elgort), backstabbing Peter (Miles Teller), and loyal friend Christina (Zoë Kravitz), trying to escape new leadership who seem determined on repeating the sins of the past. Escape means venturing into the unknown, beyond the confines of the wall that hold them captive. Tris, looking for hope and freedom, encounters another group of people on the other side of the wall who have been watching her entire journey from the time she was a baby.

So what’s wrong with the film? For one it’s filled with a bunch of needless, overlong scenes. And at two hours in length every repeated step is felt. The group walks through a raining nuclear wasteland, the best set piece of the film series so far, and directly into a camouflaged army working for The Bureau of Genetic Welfare. From here the familiarity takes over, the group is divided into work groups again, the community is being protected from unwanted people living outside the confines, and authority is controlled by the forceful soldiers blindly doing the bidding of their master. Sound familiar? Still, brave Tris, the strong female character established in the first two films, should maintain focus right? Unfortunately the usually keen and intuitive Tris is completely blindsided and willing to trust an obviously suspicious leader named David (Jeff Daniels). Tris, in this movie, is a difficult character to invest in, let alone cheer for when the time for action comes.

There are some good parts. Shailene Woodley continues to bring something interesting into the composition of her heroine, regardless of how hard the narrative tries to undermine her. It could be discerned that even the best heroes have moments of weakness because of their inherent pursuit for peace and hope, if so, Ms. Woodley is doing her best to display this sentiment to her character and it shines in small moments. Miles Teller is still around and still provided with welcome opportunities to let his comedic side shine, even when he is throwing a temper-tantrum about the world being against him.

“The Divergent Series: Allegiant – Part 1” is trying to extend its life, however splitting its finale into two parts may not have been the best plan. Instead of building anticipation for the final chapter of the series, the film feels unfortunately lost in its own unnecessary designs.

Monte’s Rating

2.00 out of 5.00

Eye in the Sky - Movie Review by Jeff Mitchell

'Eye in the Sky' reveals that the cost of war never changes  

Director: Gavin Hood

Writer: Guy Hibbert

Starring: Helen Mirren, Aaron Paul, Alan Rickman, Barkhad Abdi, and Phoebe Fox

“Eye in the Sky” (2016) - Director Gavin Hood created a film about modern warfare, and while watching his picture, I could not help but think of a very different movie, Stanley Kubrick’s “Paths of Glory” (1957).   “Paths of Glory” takes place in No Man’s Land during WWI where the hostilities between France and Germany became a sick and twisted mess.   The armies from both sides hunker down in trenches carved 12 feet or so into the soft earth, but inevitably, the apprehensive French soldiers rise from their own manmade ditch and scamper across the mud and crawl around barbed wire - while under a constant stream of whistling bombs - to somehow reach the Germans.  A nuclear blast could be the closest comparison to hell on Earth, but WWI trench warfare probably fits as a close second.

The setting of “Eye in the Sky” is not nearly as bombastic but still demonstrates the cost of war in a very effective way.   In 2016, a joint British/U.S. mission attempts to coordinate a drone attack in Nairobi to kill the numbers 2, 4 and 5 persons on a terrorist watch list.  From at least three different locations - including Creech Air Force Base in Nevada and the Permanent Joint Headquarters in London - military personal converge on a conference call to manage the 21^st century assault.

The armed drone - cruising thousands of feet above Nairobi’s surface - is piloted by Airmen Steve Watts (Aaron Paul) and Carrie Gershon (Phoebe Fox) just outside of Las Vegas while about 20 high-ranking personnel drink coffee and watch the events play out on computer screens and an undercover agent (Barkhad Abdi) captures events from the ground.  British Col. Katherine Powell (Helen Mirren) - also known as “Mom” - is running and singularly focusing on the coordinated operation while others - like her colleague Lt. Gen. Frank Benson (Alan Rickman) - help advise.

Screenwriter Guy Hibbert’s screenplay feels like a scaled-down, three-act play, as important strategic and emotional conversations, in both darkly lit and brightly lit rooms, routinely shift between London, Nevada, the events on the ground in Kenya, and (occasionally) Singapore and China as well.   The well-written script introduces the main players in benign, non-military-like ways, but they quickly “sober up” when the film places them in the deadly-serious circumstances of their jobs. Relying on intelligence, the piloted drone needs to first locate the terrorists and then kill them with minimal collateral damage.

Collateral damage, of course, refers to the death of innocent civilians, and although zero fatalities certainly are ideal and righteous, we start to believe the word “minimal” routinely factors into the equation.  The movie unquestionably conveys that this particular workday routine is not unlike any other day, as the culmination of weeks, months or years of dropping bombs from 30,000 feet and witnessing the collateral damage takes its toll in many forms.  Some internalize the emotional damage while others learn to dismiss it, and Hood and Hibbert offer different points of view from the collection of celluloid participants.

When officers and soldiers fight under the most brutal conditions in 1915 or use “surgical elimination” of one’s enemies in 2016, “Eye in the Sky” reminds us that - even with evolutionary leaps in technology - war has not evolved. (3.5/4 stars) 

The Bronze - Movie Review by Jeff Mitchell

‘The Bronze’ earns its dark comedy R-rating and a silver medal  

Director:  Bryan Buckley

Writers: Melissa and Winston Rauch

Starring: Melissa Rauch, Haley Lu Richardson, Gary Cole, and Thomas Middleditch

“The Bronze” (2016) - “Too many times women try to be competitive with each other.  We should help support each other, rather than try to be better than each other.”  - Katarina Witt, Olympic medal winner, 1984 and 1988 Winter Olympics

“My dad’s probably one of the kindest people in the world.  When I was younger that’s not how I was.  I was a little spoiled brat.”  - Leonardo DiCaprio

Named the Sandstone Center of the World, Amherst, Ohio sits 35 minutes west of Cleveland along the southern border of Lake Erie.  In “The Bronze”, Amherst – with a population of about 12,000 - is also home to Olympic bronze medal winner, Hope Ann Greggory (Melissa Rauch).   Hope won her medal in individual gymnastics at the 2004 Summer Games, and even though she placed third, she is still #1 in Amherst’s heart in 2016.

On the other hand, anyone actually liking Hope seems a bit of a mystery.   With a stature not quite five feet high, a Tonya Hardingesque blonde hairstyle and sporting a stars and stripes Olympic jumpsuit, Hope carries a permanent scowl while stomping around town looking for freebies at the local mall or soda shack.   Entitled and spoiled are good descriptors for Hope, as she lives sans employment and resides at her childhood home with her dad (Gary Cole), while he reads books in his spare time like, “Saying No – The Art to Raising a Responsible Adult”.   Hope petulantly and figuratively walks, jumps and springs all over him while constantly spewing the “seven words you cannot say on television” with the vitriol of a miserable reality TV show star.

Hope’s self-promotion rules the day as director Bryan Buckley serves up a deliciously devilish and mean-spirited black comedy written by Rauch and her husband Winston.  They successfully play up a heavy Americana-vibe from Hope’s diet of readily available pizza, Big Gulps and milkshakes to her birthday falling on the 4^th of July.   Buckley also introduces another tradition which has existed as long as humans have roamed the planet:  a younger protégé arrives on the scene who threatens the prideful shine of the current star.

Maggie Townsend (Haley Lu Richardson) is a teenage gymnast – also living in Amherst – who bursts with oodles of talent and virginal naivety.   She owns a squeaky-clean persona that would perfectly fit on a Disney Channel sitcom and loves God, her mom and gymnastics, and due to specific circumstances, Hope becomes her coach.   This odd couple pairing mixes an explosive potion of jealousy and sarcasm.  Maggie obediently listens to Hope’s deliberately bad advice (and even worse manners), as the coach bares certain and targeted ill-will.

Will Hope have a change of heart?   Buckley presents the plot devices and the antagonist/protagonist lines in familiar and unspectacular means, but the writing and presence of colorful characters are especially effective.  Rauch offers a highly entertaining performance as the colorfully-crass, fading superstar who discharges mean-spirited jabs that would make Andrew Dice Clay blush.

Hope can perfectly stick a vault landing but also give tactless motivational sayings like, “Early bird gets the sperm.”

Although the film revolves around women’s gymnastics, this is not a viewable flick for kids at all.   The language and the most comically-athletic sex scene in recent movie history absolutely earns an R-rating, so parents, leave your kids at home.  No matter how many years of gymnastics training they may have, nothing will prepare them for the tyrannical energy of Hope Ann Greggory.  I have been around the R-rated movie block for decades, but Hope caused more than a few “Oh my G*d, that’s horrible” mumbles underneath my breath.

Yes, the movie’s writing and lead performances are its main strengths, but Buckley also pulls off a beautifully-crafted shot during Maggie’s floor exercise which captures the essence of coach and student in a surprisingly magical way.   In a movie filled with purposeful bile, “The Bronze” also tenders a little bit of heart and earns a silver medal…and a free a slice a pizza.    (3/4 stars)

10 Cloverfield Lane - Movie Review by Monte Yazzie

10 Cloverfield Lane  

Director: Dan Trachtenberg

Starring: John Goodman, Mary Elizabeth Winstead, and John Gallagher Jr.

Paramount Pictures

103 Minutes

It’s hard to keep a secret these days. Somehow “10 Cloverfield Lane”, the follow-up to J.J. Abrams’ science fiction blockbuster “Cloverfield”, stayed relatively dormant and well off the radars of film fans until a few months ago. In today’s anticipation heavy movie industry, where films are planned out and detailed years in advance, it would seem a difficult task to maintain the secrecy of a film as big as this one. The lack of information and equally vague trailer was an interesting move for this mysterious offering, a move that after watching the film proves to have been a successful and calculated one. “Cloverfield” utilized the first-person perspective to give the film a frantic, for some stomach turning, experience, “10 Cloverfield Lane” relies on more traditional methods in building a tension filled mystery that watches two people waiting out the end of the world in a bunker dictated by a crazed doomsday survivalist.

Michelle (Mary Elizabeth Winstead) is frustrated with her relationship and in the process of leaving the city. While driving through the countryside, listening to her boyfriend apologize, her car is violently hit and thrown off the road. Michelle wakes up in a small room with a locked door, she is chained up to the wall. Howard (John Goodman) is the person who rescued her; not only from the car crash but the world disaster that he claims has poisoned the air. Howard has brought Michelle to his underground disaster bunker with another survivor named Emmett (John Gallagher Jr.), a bunker controlled menacingly by Howard.

For a film that runs 105 minutes long, it sure does make the most out of a simple premise. Here, the story is basically woman gets trapped then woman must escape. But director Dan Trachtenberg utilizes much of the waiting game to establish some clever moments of tension while slowly closing in the narrative walls to make the claustrophobic atmosphere even more unnerving. It works exceptionally well in the beginning, especially when the narrative and conventions play with the expectations of the audience, like in an early scene around the dinner table where the viewer is coaxed into guessing how everything will play out. While it does go on a bit too long in the end, the successful moments of tension and the threatening cat-and-mouse aspects help in holding attention throughout.

The unnerving aspects can be attributed to the meticulous pacing in the script, however its successful execution should be largely credited to the capable abilities of John Goodman who is menacing, intimidating, cracked, and any other word one would use to describe the quality of fear evoked by his character. Whether with an offhanded smirk, the emphasis of how he expresses certain sentences, or with purposeful and subtle mannerisms and gestures, Mr. Goodman nails every scene. Mary Elizabeth Winstead is also good, portraying a resilient and tough young woman, she stands toe-to-toe with Mr. Goodman in the quiet scenes and the violent ones.

Maintaining secrecy during production ultimately helped preserve the mystery found in “10 Cloverfield Lane”. There is nothing overly exceptional going on here, just simple techniques accommodating a simple story with satisfying results. While it may have taken a little too much time moving into its final act, the payoff during and in the end is worth the wait. For those looking for a big monster movie with action and explosions, you won’t find much of that here. For those looking for a calculated thriller with great performances, prepare to be entertained.

Monte’s Rating

3.75 out of 5.00

10 Cloverfield Lane - Movie Review by Jeff Mitchell

“10 Cloverfield Lane” is a spookier and quieter cousin of the 2008 original  

Director:  Dan Trachtenberg

Starring:  Mary Elizabeth Winstead, John Goodman and John Gallagher Jr.

“10 Cloverfield Lane” (2016) – If 1999’s “The Blair Witch Project” is the granddaddy of the found footage horror movie genre, then 2008’s “Cloverfield” is its badder and scarier grandson.   Instead of a remote, rural setting in which the snap of twigs - outside a tent in the middle of the night - gives the audience the chilling creeps, “Cloverfield” terrorizes with a monster attack – on a Godzilla-like scale - in the concrete jungle of New York City.   Hand-held cameras catch glimpses – and sometimes direct shots - of the creature and its demented spawn, while a group of 20-somethings scamper and dart around rubble and run over demolished streets.

J.J. Abrams’ 2008 picture truly is a stunner and arguably the best of the found footage films (although one could make a good case for 2007’s zombie picture, “[REC]”).   Well, for me, the title belongs to “Cloverfield”.   Needless to say, I was quite enthusiastic for a follow-up film, and after my 1 hour 43 minute movie theatre experience with “10 Cloverfield Lane”, I was happy and very satisfied, but this film is not exactly a sequel.   It also works on a much smaller scale in terms of geography and scope, as director Dan Trachtenberg’s movie is set in a small, Louisiana town.

The picture opens in New Orleans as Michelle (Mary Elizabeth Winstead) gazes out her apartment window and contemplates her immediate future.   She decides to leave her husband (or perhaps, fiancé), packs a bag, sets her diamond ring and house key on a table, and hops in her car towards anywhere but here.   Very soon, however, Michelle discovers that her life has become enormously more complicated – on a macro and micro level - at her destination of Anywhere.

In order to avoid giving away the main narrative, I’ll refrain from providing the details of her new and unexpected destination but will reveal that Michelle meets two men:  an older conspiracy theorist named Howard (John Goodman) and seemingly docile guy - about her age - named Emmett (John Gallagher Jr.).   Outside circumstances bring the three together, and these very different human beings make due, but Howard’s odd and demanding behavior creates tension for Emmett and Michelle, but especially for her.   Since Michelle is the only female in a group of three, the screenplay adds an unspoken and defensive anxiety to an already stressful situation for her.

Gallagher Jr. does a nice job, but Goodman and Winstead are the movie’s main players and deliver excellent performances which keep us off-balance and offer hope, respectively.

Goodman’s character volleys between good intentions and kooky weirdness, and the latter appears with an occasional, threatening utterance like, “My generosity only goes so far.”

Meanwhile, Winstead’s Michelle harvests an everlasting reservoir of ingenuity and strength.  She may have run from her partner without a face-to-face confrontation, but Michelle is no fool or coward.  She possesses an ideal mix of beauty, depth and creativity but coupled with an emotions-on-her-sleeve vulnerability, Michelle is instantly and magnetically likeable.  This strong protagonist is much needed and welcomed, and especially when the movie provides heavy doses of a psychological thriller and twisting expectations.

Again, do not expect “10 Cloverfield Lane” to reveal itself as a linear sequel to the 2008 film, and in fact, do not anticipate a found footage experience or even a horror film in the purest sense.  We do not hear breaking twigs or see massive metropolitan destruction to turn our blood cold.  Instead, expect a disturbing and highly interesting celluloid page-turner - led by two outstanding lead performances - which send us towards a surprising realization:  “10 Cloverfield Lane” is a spookier and quieter cousin of the 2008 original, and you know what they say about the quiet ones.  (3/4 stars)

Zootopia - Movie Review by Jeff Mitchell

‘Zootopia’ instinctively balances a detective story with joyous animation  

Directed by:  Byron Howard, Rich Moore and Jared Bush

Starring: Ginnifer Goodwin, Jason Bateman, J.K. Simmons, Idris Elba, Jenny Slate, Tommy Chong, Octavia Spencer

“Zootopia” (2016) – “One of the greatest regrets in life is being what others would want you to be, rather than being yourself.”  - Shannon L. Alder

“I don’t know when to quit.” – Judy Hopps

In the small town of Bunnyburrow, little Judy Hopps (Ginnifer Goodwin) does not aspire to work with her 275 brothers and sisters on her folks’ carrot farm.   She, instead, dreams of moving to the big city of Zootopia to become a police officer.   The problem is – in this alternative universe in which animals have evolved and walk, talk, work, and live like humans – no bunny has ever been a police officer.  It is simply unheard of, and Judy’s parents try to dissuade her by expressing that pursuing one’s dreams is a mistake, and there is no shame in settling.

Well, Judy might be small bunny, but she is very speedy, enterprising, intelligent, and determined, and about 15 minutes into the film, she arrives in Zootopia as the first bunny officer, amongst bigger and stronger elephant, rhino and hippo cops.  Directors Byron Howard, Rich Moore and Jared Bush navigate the audience through this very likeable rabbit’s sometimes-thorny journey but also showcase the eye-opening world of Zootopia from a physical environment and also melting pot perspectives.

Judy owns a wondrous image of Zootopia inside her head, and the animators do not disappoint in painting this picture.  From the thriving metropolis of Sahara Square to the nearby boroughs of snowy Tundratown and along the Cliffside forests, Zootopia provides a pleasing plethora of unique sights for the big screen, as 64 species of animals – big and small – dot the landscape as well.  In this world, gerbils – who sport business suits - walk in unison out of a banking center, slow-moving sloths work at the department of motor vehicles and polar bears are the muscle for one particular mob boss.  Like any city, Zootopia owns its share of problems, but the animals – prey and predators - live in general harmony.

The filmmakers do a very nice job of offering animated whimsy and laughs for the kids and adults alike.  The animals may be evolved, but they still hold their highly amusing, natural and individual traits, and Judy’s big blue eyes, expressive ears and occasional thumping foot raise her cuteness factor to 11.   Early in the story, she meets a sly fox named Nick Wilde (Jason Bateman), and Bateman is perfectly cast as a cynical street hustler, but for reasons which will not be mentioned in this review, they become partners to solve a mystery.   Fourteen mammals have gone missing!  Mayor Lionheart (J.K. Simmons) and Police Chief Bogo (Idris Elba) are baffled, but Judy and Nick try to crack the case as the narrative moves to an intriguing detective story.

At first, the police story seems a bit out of place for an animated picture.  Producer Clark Spencer mentions in a recent Phoenix Film Festival interview that Disney has not scribed an animated mystery since 1986’s “The Great Mouse Detective”.    My immediate concern was the film could miss opportunities to explore the visuals of this newly discovered world by instead focusing on small clues to satisfy the narrative.   On the other hand, Howard, Moore and Bush introduce some entertaining characters along Judy and Nick’s crime-solving ways, as the film successfully plays a delicate balance between genuine belly laughs, empathy, a real rooting interest for the protagonists, and some high drama within the cops/criminals story.   Plus, Judy is a police officer.  She is not a doctor, writer or business person, so the twisting tale of attempting to catch the lawbreakers fits.

At the heart of “Zootopia”, however, are the two leads, Judy and Nick, and the story works because of their good cop/misguided fast-talker relationship.   Ms. Hopps does not know when to quit, and here’s hoping that this bunny and fox team extend their cinematic stay in a future sequel.  (3.5/4 stars)

Interview with "Zootopia" producer Clark Spencer by Jeff Mitchell

Interview – “Zootopia” (2016) producer Clark Spencer  

“Zootopia” is a magical place in which 64 different species of animals live in a thriving, modern-day metropolis.  Judy Hopps (Ginnifer Goodwin) is an inspiring young bunny who becomes a police officer and befriends Nick Wilde (Jason Bateman), a street-wise fox, and together, they attempt to solve a mystery.  This is the premise of Disney’s new animated feature, and producer Clark Spencer kindly stopped by Phoenix to chat with the Phoenix Film Festival and three other critics/journalists (Brent Hankins, Nick Spake and Morgan Stradling) for a group interview.  Clark shared the studio’s huge efforts to make “Zootopia” a most unique place, the daunting technical challenges to include 9.2 million strands of fur on an animated giraffe and how the film contains shades of “Chinatown” (1974) and “The Maltese Falcon” (1941).   “Zootopia” opens on Friday, March 4.

PFF:  During the initial tour of “Zootopia”, the audience sees a forest, snow-covered mountains and a body of water, so the animated locale is geographically unique.  It is also a melting pot of animals as well.  What city or place does “Zootopia” best resemble? 

CS:  It is interesting, because we studied a lot of cities.  We actually went to New York City and (worked) with a historian.  (We wondered when immigrants) started to land on the island of Manhattan, and different ethnicities – Irish, Chinese, Italian, (etc.) – all came in, how did (their communities begin) to grow?  How do Chinatown and Little Italy sit next to each other?  How do the (communities) coexist? 

We looked at Paris.  Paris is a city where everything spirals out, (and in Zootopia,) we have a downtown area, and everything is going to come out from that.  We even looked at Disneyland and the Magic Kingdom down in Orlando, and there is a castle (with different) lands that go around it. 

We really started to think about that aspect, but the most important thing that we learned was: it all needs to start from a watering hole.  Even though we do not say it in the film, in the central part of town, there is a watering hole where the fountains are.   That is where all of the animals gather.  To us, that was the origin of Zootopia, and everything is built from there, which is how all cities start.  They usually start with a body of water.  That was our way of thinking about how the city (should be) built. 

Also, how could these different (physical) environments exist?  We met with a really important expert who talked about air-conditioning units, and there is a huge wall that divides Tundra Town, the cold area from Sahara Square.  You see the wall in the film, and the train goes through it.  It is an air-conditioning unit.  The expert said that if you have enough money and could build a big air-conditioning unit, that all units do the same thing:  blow out hot air on the outside and blow out cold air on the inside.  Cold air creates Tundra Town.  Hot air creates Sahara Square, and then the melt off from Tundra Town creates the Rain Forest District.  There is true logic to how these environments sit next to (one) other in a way that could “technically” – as the expert said, if there was enough money and wherewithal – create that kind of world.

PFF:   The best Disney films have managed to be perennial while also keeping up with modern times, and “Zootopia” is no exception.  How do you think that Disney manages to stay consistently timeless and timely? 

CS:  It’s hard.  It’s really, really hard, and I have to be honest, I feel very lucky.  Many of the films that I have worked on have taken place in the modern world.  I produced “Lilo & Stich” (2002), “Bolt” (2008), “Wreck-It Ralph” (2012), and now “Zootopia”, and they all take place in the (modern) world.  Even if it is an all-animal world, it still is a modern, evolved world.  I have not done a fairy tale.  As a result, I get the great luxury of having artists that think about how to create that world and have fun in it, where it is very timely, but also hopefully timeless.   The story, characters and theme have to be timeless in some ways. 

Some of the ideas can be timely.   We have ads in the film and have a carrot on the back of a phone instead of an apple.  I feel very fortunate, (because) I get to work with teams that are just having fun thinking about: what else can we do?  How do we put the animal-spin on something that allows it to be relevant and relatable for us?  Ultimately, it allows the audience also to have fun, especially for the adults.  We are trying to create movies for everyone.  We do not want it to be (only) for parents who have kids.  We really want it to be for teenagers, for the date crowd and for the people who do not have children to come and (experience) these kinds of entertaining stories.   This allows us to do that and have it play at two different levels for kids and adults. 

PFF:   This movie is for all ages, and I saw a lot of happy faces – young and old – leaving the theatre.  How do you balance the whimsy of an animated tale with a detective story which is more targeted to adults?   

CS:   It’s not easy, and I’ll talk about two things.   One, we are always trying to figure out how (to make a movie) for people of all ages. 

Ultimately, it is not science, meaning that you cannot sit there and say, “Well, we must have 50 percent of the jokes for parents and 50 percent for kids, and we know that this will play for a 14 year-old, and we know that will play for a 3 year-old.”  

You cannot do it.  There is no science for it, but at the end of the day, we have to look and say, “What makes us laugh?” 

(We also) hope that it makes the kids laugh, because it cannot be too esoteric.  It cannot be too deep.  So, when we look at a (moment) like the DMV scene (in which a naturally slow sloth works there), we know that it will play great for adults, because they probably had that experience.   Now, the kids haven’t yet, but they are going to think that the sloth looks and sounds funny, and because he talks slowly.   We hope that they can both enjoy that scene together. 

When it came to the police procedural and having a mystery, a really interesting thing came up early on in terms of the pitch.  The writer and directors (suggested to) put a mystery into this film.  We have not done a mystery in a long time.  “The Great Mouse Detective” (1986) was really the last one, but (the mystery in “Zootopia”) was really complex.  

I will tell you that there were times when we said, “Should we lose the mystery?” 

The mystery would get so complex that you would get lost in trying to figure it out and forget about the themes, stories or characters, because we really have many different themes weaved into this film.  I am so thankful that the directors never let that idea go. 

They really fought hard and said, “Well no, our job is to figure out how do we get the mystery to be interesting enough that we are caught up in it and simple enough where we can understand it.” 

We had to test the film many times.  Ultimately, we wanted to see – with an audience – are they tracking the mystery?   So, it was one of those things where we had deep conversations about it, but now, I am so proud (that) the mystery is in there, because I think it is one of the layers that is unexpected.   I think that people will come in and (expect to) see an all-talking animal film, and they have one expectation.   They think that they are going to laugh, and hopefully, they will have emotion, but they are not expecting a mystery to (be) layered in there.  They are not expecting a buddy-cop comedy. 

PFF:  You refer to the movie as a police procedural, and it certainly falls into that category.  “Zootopia” has a film noir-feel too.  It has shades of “Chinatown” (1974) and “The Maltese Falcon” (1941) as well, and it adds an additional layer for adults.  Were there specific movie influences that you drew from for this film? 

CS:  Absolutely.  We looked at those two (movies) in particular, and we looked at Frank Capraesque films for Judy’s character.   We looked at great films to give us inspiration.  When we talk about the police procedural, the artists said that they would love to have a film noir-feel to it.  It is a very interesting genre, and to your point, it gives another layer into the film.  It allows you to see those elements from (other) amazing movies.   

PFF:  So, for each animated film, there is one big technical hurdle that you have to overcome.   For “Tangled” (2010), it was hair.  For “Frozen” (2013), it was snow.  What was the technical hurdle in this film?

CS:  The big one for us – and it has multiple levels – was fur.  Fur was a huge one for us, because when we do characters with hair, everyone has the same hair.   In other words, once we create one strand of hair, you can put it on any character.  Give it a curl, give it a different color, make it straight, and you can create variety.  Animal fur is different for every different species of animal, and there are 64 different species of animals in this film.  So, we studied those 64 species of fur under a microscope to understand what is different about each one. 

A polar bear’s fur is actually clear.  It is not white, and the light that goes through it creates a reflection that makes the fur appear to be white.  A fox’s fur is dark at the root, and it gets light as it goes to the tip.  Sheep’s fur is so thick that it gets filled with dirt and twigs, so if you look at any sheep in the movie, they will have dirt and twigs.  An artic shrew’s fur is very soft, and an otter has a little bit of oil on its skin, so we had to create technology that would allow us to create each one of those different types of strands of fur.  

A giraffe has 9.2 million fur strands on it in our film.  Judy has 2.6 million strands on her, and 2 million are on Nick.  You start exponentially thinking about how you can go in and do all that, and then we have to create “shader”.  We needed to create a new shader technology that will allow the lighting system to understand how it is supposed to react to those different types of fur.  It is going to react differently to a sheep’s fur that’s very thick (as opposed) to the softness of a shrew.  It just kept layering on top of layering, and then we put clothes on the animals.  The clothes have to move in a way that feels realistic. 

We (need) an elephant to be as tall as a real elephant, and a mouse to be as small as a real mouse, so (the fur) is going to move differently on something very tiny and something very large.  It really is just exponentially built, but it all started with one key thing:  we wanted the fur to look realistic.  We did not want to use human hair, which is what we have always done.  If you watch the movie “Bolt” (2008), that is human hair made to look like – to the best of our abilities – animal fur.  In this case, we wanted it to truly be the actual strands of fur for those 64 species. 

PFF:   About a year ago, you made a shift to assign Judy as the main protagonist instead of Nick.  Can you talk about that shift and what the film was like before, with Nick as the protagonist? 

CS:  Sure, the original version had Nick as the main (protagonist), (but) he is a cynical character.  To us, there was something fun about going into the world with a cynical character, especially with Jason Bateman narrating him.  We started to realize, (however), that even though Nick is super funny, people were not rooting for him, because he is cynical.  It is very hard to get the audience to want to root for a cynical character.  We tell the audience – much later in the film – why he is cynical, but it is too late. 

It is very late in the film for you to suddenly say, “Now I am rooting for this person”, so we had a big screening where we talked deeply about (switching the lead characters).  

Two things came out.  One, it was easier to root for Judy.  She is a small rabbit wanting this dream, and it would be easier for the audience to want to root for her.   (Second), we are going to love the world of Zootopia more.  If we learn about Zootopia through the eyes of a cynical character, we start to think the world is already broken from the beginning of the film, from the first few lines. 

(The city has) Tundra Town and Sahara Square, and (this) is the most magical place in the world, and yet your main character is telling you, “It’s broken.” 

If you start from (Judy’s perspective), and we see what she is seeing, over the course of time, we will realize that the world is actually not that perfect.   There are chinks in the armor, and we are going to discover them through her eyes.  So we changed the movie in this big way, but we knew that we had to do it, and that was about a year ago. 

PFF:  This film seems to come out at a very prophetic time because of the subject matter and what we are seeing in our current political climate.  It feels like this movie could not be coming out at a better point to really have its message be impactful.  Obviously, the development cycle in a movie like this is a bit longer, but at one point did you realize that you have something that could hit harder than you anticipated?

CS: The project started five years ago by director Byron Howard, and at that time, he did not even have the theme.  He just said that we’ll have an all-mammal world, where animals have evolved and use technology.  In doing the research – when we went out to Africa - we learned this incredible statistic which is 90 percent of the animals in the natural world are prey animals and 10 percent are predators.   We never thought about that as an idea or even as a thought, but it makes sense: more prey animals than predators.  We thought about a really interesting dynamic where you have one really large group and one really small group, and they have to figure out how to coexist. 

Since they have evolved past eating each (one another), now the question is:  Do (the prey animals) actually believe that they are completely safe?  Will the prey animals worry deep down inside?   That is where the themes started to come in, about a year later.  To your question, it was not until the last nine months that this incredibly interesting idea – which started five years ago – is starting to feel like it is coming in a (timely) moment in time.   Now, we always knew - thematically - that this idea would be universal, because it is just a universal thing, but in terms of where we are at right now, it is incredibly profound.  We could have never timed it.   It is just a weird confluence of events that all lined up. 

Monte Yazzie's Oscar Predictions

Monte Yazzie’s Oscar Predictions  

Picking who will win an Oscar is always a problematic task for me. I find it very difficult to separate the picks made from the head and the ones made from the heart. Yet every year I still fill out my ballot and anxiously wait to see how many I get right. I absolutely loved “Mad Max” and “Ex Machina” but those films aren’t represented heavily in the big performance categories this year. However, in the acting categories I seem to be in favor of the majority consensus. Hopefully 2016 is the year that I get a perfect Oscar prediction score. Here is a list of the top categories and who I think will win, who should win, and who should have been nominated. Enjoy the Oscar’s.

Best Supporting Actress:

Who will win: Kate Winslet (“Steve Jobs”)

Who should win: Rooney Mara (“Carol”)

Who should have been nominated: Alicia Vikander (“Ex Machina”)

Best Supporting Actor:

Who will win: Sylvester Stallone (“Creed”)

Who should win: Sylvester Stallone (“Creed”)

Who should have been nominated: Jacob Tremblay (“Room”) and Michael Keaton (“Spotlight”)

Best Actress:

Who will win: Brie Larson (“Room”)

Who should win: Brie Larson (“Room”)

Who should have been nominated: Helen Mirren (“Woman in Gold”) and Charlize Theron (“Mad Max: Fury Road”)

Best Actor:

Who will win: Leonardo DiCaprio (“The Revenant”)

Who should win: Leonardo DiCaprio (“The Revenant”)

Who should have been nominated: Will Smith (“Concussion”) and Johnny Depp (“Black Mass”)

Best Director:

Who will win: Alejandro G. Inarritu (“The Revenant”)

Who should win: George Miller (“Mad Max: Fury Road”)

Who should have been nominated: Alex Garland (“Ex Machina”), Quentin Tarantino (“Hateful Eight”), and Spike Lee (“Chi-Raq”)

Best Picture:

What will win: “The Revenant”

What should win: “Mad Max: Fury Road”

What should have been nominated: “Ex Machina” and “Sicario”

Eddie the Eagle - Movie Review by Monte Yazzie

Eddie the Eagle  

Director: Dexter Fletcher

Starring: Taron Egerton, Hugh Jackman, Jo Hartley, Keith Allen, Iris Berben, Jim Broadbent, and Christopher Walken

105 Minutes

20^th Century Fox

The 1988 Winter Olympics in Calgary made a overnight superstar out of Michael “Eddie” Edwards, a British ski jumper well out of his league but undeterred in his efforts to become an Olympian. This underdog story is a familiar one, the odds are stacked high as usual and the obstacles come one right after another. However, unlike some other cinematic sports stories, Eddie’s success doesn’t come from his excellent athletic prowess but rather his determination to never giving up, in fact Eddie’s performance in the Winter Olympics was far from a display of excellence. That puts “Eddie the Eagle” in the category of sports films like “Rudy” or “Cool Runnings”, the later being another film inspired from real events at the 1988 Winter Games. The producing team behind last years pleasant surprise “Kingsman: The Secret Service” bring a satisfying charm peaked with feel-good moments to “Eddie the Eagle”.

Eddie (Taron Egerton) has always wanted to be an Olympian. From an early age, overcoming the obstacle of having leg braces, Eddie tried numerous sports looking for the one that would take him to the Olympics, his box of broken eyeglasses will tell you just how many times he tried and failed at a sport. Still, Eddie will not be swayed by anyone even his parents. Eddie’s father (Keith Allen) wants him to follow in the family business while his mother (Jo Hartley) is more understanding of his dream. Opportunity comes in the form of loophole, as Great Britain doesn’t have an Olympic ski jumper, making Eddie a default choice.

There are no surprises here, absolutely none. You’ve seen this kind of film many times, in many different forms. However, this doesn’t make the film any less charming. One of the main reasons for this quality is the choice of cast, specifically the two lead characters of Eddie and his coach Bronson Peary (Hugh Jackman). Taron Egerton gives a spot-on performance as Eddie partly because of the uncanny resemblance the actor has with the real character but also because Mr. Egerton embraces the defining motivation of Eddie, a mantra that proclaims that winning isn’t everything. Hugh Jackman composes the struggling Bronson Peary with variations of other tough yet sentimental characters he has played before; it fits and works quite well here. At first the mentoring character has a “Wolverine” type attitude, stiff drink and all. But slowly it turns into one of renewal, a second chance for a disgraced athlete to help someone reach the goal he never could. Mr. Jackman brings an enthusiastic and earnest quality to the character, while also building great chemistry with Mr. Egerton.

Things fall into place fairly quickly, familiarity taking over to an extent that the film doesn’t quite build towards the dramatic climax or maintain the suspense that it should. Throughout the film the lack of originality in telling this sports story stalls the film in a few moments. However, director Dexter Fletcher keeps pushing the easy-going attributes in a way that makes you wholly aware of what is coming but somehow keeps you engaged in the story if only to see if the writers decided to succumb to their structure and provide Eddie with the heroic Olympian ending. Again, nothing is new here.

“Eddie the Eagle” can be an uplifting film in moments, especially when Eddie is soaring through the air on course with either a bone shattering crash or landing with complete control.  Who would have thought that a film filled with clichés, about a character who finishes in last place, would evoke cheers from an audience? Well, at the screening that I went to this film did. It proves that a great character can go along way.

Monte’s Rating

3.50 out of 5.00

Gods of Egypt - Movie Review by Jeff Mitchell

“Gods of Egypt” does not answer our movie prayers  

Directed by: Alex Proyas

Starring: Gerald Butler, Brenton Thwaites, Nikolaj Coster-Waldau, Bryan Brown, and Elodie Yung

“Gods of Egypt” (2016) – I am not a student of Egyptian mythology, but 10 minutes into “Gods of Egypt” - from a pure moviegoer’s perspective - two observations became clear.  One, the filmmakers cooked up oceans of CGI to recreate an ancient, North African desert setting.   Two, the movie incorporates a Shakespearean bent and lifts its central conflict from 1994’s “The Lion King”.  The latter truly makes the overall story arc predictable, so the movie needs to rely on its performances, action sequences and general entertainment value in order to work.

Unfortunately, the “Gods” do not answer our prayers.

Director Alex Proyas’ film - set thousands of years ago - opens with a brief, difficult-to-follow narration but leads to a beautiful, ceremonial public space with packed stadium seating and laced with gold statues.  Possibly 100,000 Egyptians eagerly anticipate the crowning of a new God-king, Horus (Nikolaj Coster-Waldau), the son of Osiris (Bryan Brown), when suddenly, Set (Gerard Butler) arrives fashionably late.   Set – Osiris’ brother - demonstrates a more than forceful claim to the throne (i.e. my previously-mentioned “The Lion King” comparison) which sends Horus away on a winding journey to find himself and fulfill his destiny.  Accompanied by a trusty young mortal named Bek (Brenton Thwaites), Horus and his young protégé travel over Egypt and through (seemingly) dozens and dozens of odd-looking, alchemistic locales this side of “Jupiter Ascending” (2015) meets “The Mummy” (1999).

Although ambitious visual and special effects teams probably poured “1,000 years of effort” into manufacturing incredibly detailed environments - including a brooding underworld, a gateway to the afterlife and a wildly-developed metropolis - it all feels synthetic.  Filmed in Australia, Proyas may have shot on location in the Australian desert, but it does not appear that way.  Instead, the entire picture seems be filmed in front of surrounding green screens at every turn with no escape hatch into anything palpable.  Sure, when one’s picture features gods who stand 10 feet high, transform into alter-egos of eagles or bulls and fight across mythical societies which existed 4,000 years ago, one certainly needs to rely on special effects.

On the other hand, director George Miller shot “Max Mad: Fury Road” (2015) in the Australian desert, and the chase and fight scenes that transpired on actual sand, dirt and rock dramatically added to the cinematic experience and authenticity of a futuristic, post-apocalyptic time.  I am not suggesting the “Gods of Egypt” filmmakers needed to build massive ancient sets in barren deserts, but its characters taking some tiptoes through actual sand in the great outdoors (or at least appearing to) could have gone a long way.

As distracting as the special effects are, the movie’s general narrative feels clunky and uninspired.  First of all, Horus is not a very likable character.  Even though he looks the hero-part, Horus is gruff, self-loathing and beaten down through most of the picture.  We do root for his eventual rise to regain his self-respect, but his progress moves very slowly, like a Friday evening traffic jam.  Thus, his sluggish transformation to “good guy” behavior frustrates the audience (or at least me).  Meanwhile he shares absolutely zero chemistry or affection with his supposed, lifelong love interest Hathor (Elodie Yung), and his comedic exchanges with Bek appear more mean-spirited than they should.

Chadwick Boseman and Geoffrey Rush offer some gravitas in their supporting roles, and Butler undoubtedly carries some good moments as a chief villain, but Thwaites’ naivety-act runs thin after about 60 seconds, and regrettably, his character spends much more time on-screen than one minute.

I’ll say this, the “Gods of Egypt” thankfully does not take itself too seriously and adds some surprising, but well-intended comedic moments along the way.  As I mentioned, I’m not a historian, but perhaps the Ancient Egyptian gods and mortals had great senses of humor.  Well, as I sat in my theatre seat for 2 hours and 7 minutes, I certainly needed it. (1.5/4 stars) 

Jeff Mitchell's Oscar Predictions

Jeff Mitchell’s Oscar Predictions  

Well, my crystal ball usually contains a cloudy haze, and my fortune teller skills cannot find – let alone read – a life line, but I do love movies and outstanding performances.   During this Oscar season, rather than only offer my picks for the 2016 Academy Awards’ top categories, I included who “should” win and who “should” have been nominated (in my humble opinion, of course).    Enjoy the Oscars!

Best Supporting Actress:

Who will win: Kate Winslet (“Steve Jobs”)

Who should win: Alicia Vikander (“The Danish Girl”)

Who should have been nominated: Alicia Vikander (“Ex Machina”)

Best Supporting Actor:

Who will win: Sylvester Stallone (“Creed”)

Who should win: Sylvester Stallone (“Creed”)

Who should have been nominated: Richard Jenkins (“Bone Tomahawk”)

Best Actress:

Who will win: Brie Larson (“Room”)

Who should win: Brie Larson (“Room”)

Who should have been nominated: Charlize Theron (“Mad Max: Fury Road”)

Best Actor:

Who will win: Leonardo DiCaprio (“The Revenant”)

Who should win: Michael Fassbender (“Steve Jobs”)

Who should have been nominated: Mark Ruffalo (“Infinitely Polar Bear”) and Ben Mendelsohn (“Mississippi Grind”)

Best Director:

Who will win: Alejandro G. Inarritu (“The Revenant”)

Who should win: George Miller (“Mad Max: Fury Road”)

Who should have been nominated: Alex Garland (“Ex Machina”) and David Robert Mitchell (“It Follows”)

Best Picture:

What will win: “The Revenant”

What should win: “Spotlight”

What should have been nominated: “Ex Machina”, “It Follows” and “Me and Earl and the Dying Girl”

The Witch - Movie Review by Monte Yazzie

The Witch  

Director: Robert Eggers

Starring: Anya Taylor-Joy, Ralph Ineson, Kate Dickie, Harvey Scrimshaw, Ellie Grainger, and Lucas Dawson

The horror genre has seen all variety of evil beings throughout its illustrious history. The living dead, vengeful spirits, stalking slashers, and giant monsters have all had their day to scare. But there is one monster that consistently holds a place in nightmares, the witch. There are more than a few people who were creeped out as kids by the cackling green wicked witch and the decrepit, cloaked witch offering an apple. While the mythology behind witches has become restrained by kid friendly renditions seen in the Harry Potter franchise, the reality is that the historical nature of the witch is far more dark and malicious. “The Witch” is an impressive directorial debut from Robert Eggers, it takes folklore and turns it into a mature examination of fear on numerous levels, fashioning one of the most stunning and unsettling horror films of the last decade.

It’s 1630, William (Ralph Ineson), Katherine (Kate Dickie) and their three children are forced to leave their New England community over religious indifferences. William leads his tight-knit family to a remote territory at the edge of the forest, hoping to sustain his family by living off the land and things slowly begin to go terribly wrong. Thomasin (Anya Taylor-Joy) is the eldest child; she has many responsibilities around their new home including helping her mom care for the newborn baby. Under Thomasin’s care the newborn is snatched away during a playful game of peek-a-boo. This is the beginning of the family’s dismantling by evil forces living in the forest.

There have been some exceptional horror films that have come out over the past years, “The Babadook”, “It Follows”, and “The Conjuring” are a few that come to mind. What separates good horror from mediocre horror, and this applies to most films, is an understanding of the genre and how the use of convention and the structure of story accommodate one another best and most effectively. It’s not only about jump scares and gore, it’s about building an atmosphere that pulls the viewer into the world and establishes an identity that can be manipulated by the characteristics familiar to the genre.

“The Witch” does all of this exceptionally well. The setup is a 1630’s Puritan foundation in the New World. The community is steeped in religious fundamentalism, controlled by a doctrine influenced by fear and motivated by judgment and repentance. Take these elements and inject evil doings like witchcraft and black magic and the story becomes a struggle of dark overtaking light. But director Robert Eggers understands that there is more to the composition than just these elements, from this starting point Mr. Eggers introduces the struggle of a family leaving the familiar and moving into the unknown, from the departure with their homeland in England and the banishment from their religious community in the New World, this family is experiencing immense change. They are quickly recognized as outsiders in a new society, forced to survive by any means necessary. And survival, as seen in many cinematic affairs, has a way of changing people, of making them see the world in different, threatening ways. These narrative elements help create interesting dynamics when applied to aspects of family, faith, and fear.

The minimalistic qualities within the film are exceptionally rendered. The photography, which is shot as if the clouds are slowly capturing the sky, composes imagery that is beautiful in both its subdued and terrifying moments. Most of the photography is shot within natural settings creating an environment on the verge of darkness many times, the score is often touched with silence saving big sound for the big payoffs of shock.

The family is a fascinating mix. A father whose biggest foe is his pride, a mother racked with guilt and sorrow, and two maturing children dealing with new emotions. Thomasin, played splendidly by Anya Taylor-Joy, matures consistently throughout the course of the film. Her timid demeanor transitions into one that is resolute and confident, all the while everything around her unravels in the worst possible way. Is her maturation a calling to the forces that lurk in the woods? Her progression is influenced by characters like Suzy Bannion from “Susperia” or even Carrie White from “Carrie”. Caleb, the intense yet delicate Harvey Scrimshaw, is also experiencing a rush of feelings. Whether the inherent role during this time of men embodying protector and provider characteristics or the sexual curiosity of a young man at the crossing line of puberty, Caleb is enticed in numerous ways. Mr. Eggers utilizes these characters in creative ways, allowing the dramatic elements to float slowly to the surface as the dread mounts.

Dread may not come close to describing the sensation the “The Witch” produces. It’s something more, something darker and more authentic than the term embodies. It’s a nightmare that you can’t wake up from, one that lures you into the world and then forces you to keep going when you want to turn back. “The Witch” is simply impressive filmmaking that crafts a relentlessly tormenting horror film.

Monte’s Rating

5.00 out of 5.00