Director: Ash Mayfair
Writer: Ash Mayfair
Stars: Hong Chuong Nguyen, Long Le Vu, Nu Yên-Khê Tran

Synopsis: In 19th century rural Vietnam, fourteen-year-old May is ready to become the third wife of a wealthy landowner. Little does she know that her hidden desires will take her by surprise and force her to make a choice between living in safety and being free.

[/info]

When I read the plot synopsis of The Third Wife, Ash Mayfair’s feature film debut, it sounded an awful lot like Zhang Yimou’s masterwork Raise the Red Lantern. That film, Oscar-nominated for Best Foreign Language Film, is about a young woman who becomes the fourth wife to a wealthy lord in 1920s China. Every day each woman strategizes how to sabotage the rest and lure their master to her respective bed, thus winning his nightly affection and hours of pampering from the servants. Eventually, the power plays get ugly and tragedy strikes…

This is not quite that. The women of The Third Wife are far less cruel toward one another, but the film is no less unsettling for it. Set in 19th century Vietnam, the film follows 14-year-old May (Nguyen Phuong Tra My) as she’s wed into the family of an affluent landowner. She’s the titular third wife of the patriarch’s son, added to his line of spouses because the first two have mostly birthed a series of female offspring in a world that favors male descendants.

The Film Independent Spirit Awards have recognized Mayfair with a Someone to Watch Award nomination, and it’s clear why. As a director, she handles the troubling issues of arranged marriage and subservient wifehood marvelously. Along with cinematographer Chananun Chotrungroj, Mayfair casts an ironically serene and gentle glow over this realm of patriarchal dominance—painting a fascinating visual contradiction between the film’s style and its subject matter.

Mayfair and Chotrungroj employ plenty of nature imagery to soften the story’s edge, to an enigmatic effect. Wide shots of tranquil rivers and close-ups of budding flora that could easily wind up in a calendar featuring a new view of Vietnamese wilderness each month. Perhaps some would say these shots are a bit too abundant, but I’d remind them of what one of the final nature cutaways shows—a devastating reveal in an otherwise gorgeous landscape. Turns out, Mother Earth is not always so pretty. For these moments, as well as for her delicate lighting and poetic compositions, Chotrungroj has also been recognized with Film Independent, for Best Cinematography—and rightfully so.

In front of the camera, though, Nguyen carries this deceptively heavy film from beginning to end. Although (by our social norms) she’s only a child, Nguyen crafts a beautifully puissant character with May, an adolescent who stopped being seen as a kid the moment she began menstruating. It’s a largely quiet and curious, while ultimately heartbreaking, performance that pulls the audience in immediately then leads us onward. Nguyen is such a keen actor. She and Mayfair wisely illustrate May’s station very matter-of-factly. Like having May—who feels the low-simmering enviousness of her fellow wives when she gets pregnant with a potential male— sagely gather how her own fate will be irrevocably determined by her unborn child’s genitalia.

Because there’s a dual nature to May’s existence. In certain regards, she lives a prim and comfortable life. She converses and lunches with her fellow wives outdoors, exchanging stories and advice, and for the most part they enjoy one another’s company. Yet… she’s trapped in an impossible position. At the end of the day, her role is to gratify her husband and bear his masculine progeny, an outcome she cannot control whatsoever. Thus May fears slipping down a rung, knowing she will if the baby in her belly comes out with a vagina—and she’s hardly allowed indulgences and the sexual pleasure she herself craves in turn as it is. I hope Nguyen has a bright future, because she deserves it. Her May is wonderfully realized…

Look, no period film is truly about the time in which its set—but rather the time in which its made. So although The Third Wife is reportedly inspired by the lives of the director’s great-grandparents, it’s also about the women of today. It should go without saying that women around the globe are forced to endure persecution daily. The specific details of May’s story may not be entirely universal, but patriarchal attacks on women’s rights unfortunately are. And Mayfair’s first film is one well-constructed and daring examination of such injustices, and it’s absolutely worth checking out.

As a final note, it’s completely baffling that The Third Wife did not make the cut for the Spirit Award’s Best International Film category. There must be a technical reason, because it seems like a major snub, all things considered.

Overall Grade: A

[divider]

Director: Céline Sciamma
Writer: Céline Sciamma
Stars: Noémie Merlant, Adèle Haenel, Luàna Bajrami

Synopsis: On an isolated island in Brittany at the end of the eighteenth century, a female painter is obliged to paint a wedding portrait of a young woman.

[/info]

Céline Sciamma’s latest film is an absolute beauty to behold, and it’s not often that I proclaim a film a “masterpiece” but Portrait of a Lady on Fire (Portrait de la jeune fille en feu) is the definition of “masterpiece” in every sense of the word. Sadly, the film wasn’t submitted by the French Minister of Culture as their entry for this year’s Oscars, ultimately the film Les Misérables was submitted. It’s a shame that Sciamma, and the film’s two leads (Noémie Merlant and Adèle Haenel) along with the film’s cinematographer Claire Mathon have been virtually ignored by the Academy. However, so many of cinema’s classic and most treasured films have gone unnoticed by the Academy of Motion Pictures Art and Science since the inception of the Oscars. So, Portrait of a Lady on Fire is in good company.

The film is a tragic love story and we begin long after the romance has ended. We opens in a classroom where young women are painting their teacher Marianne (Merlant). She stares at her students and directly at us unblinking and unafraid. This is who she is and we must choose to accept her for who she is: fiercely, and unapologetically independent. One of her students notices one of Marianne’s paintings, and inquires about it. The painting’s name? ‘A Portrait of a Lady of Fire’.

We flashback to several years earlier, to see Marianne arriving at an isolated island in Brittany. Whilst in the rowing boat, her art supplies get knocked overboard, and without a single moment of hesitation she jumps in the water after them. We quickly find that Marianne has been commissioned by a countess (Valeria Golino) to paint a portrait of her daughter named Héloïse (Haenel) who is to be married off to a Milanese nobleman. Héloïse has previously refused to pose for portraits as she does not want to be married. In order to hide the reason for Marianne’s visit to the Island, Héloïse is informed that Marianne has been hired to be a walking companion.

Marianne must study Héloïse’s features and must paint the portrait in secret. Slowly the two women get closer, and Héloïse opens up to Marianne about the loss of her sister (Héloïse is now engaged to marry her sister’s suitor). A portrait is revealed, along with the truth about Marianne’s reason for being on the island. However, after Héloïse’s criticism of Marianne’s work, Marianne destroys her painting. Much to Marianne’s and the countess’ surprise, Héloïse states that she will sit for the portrait. And, when Héloïse’s mother leaves the Island, the two women grow closer.

The film’s central performances from Noémie Merlant and Adèle Haenel are wonderful and their chemistry is electrifying. Merlant’s Marianne is a woman who comes across as being in control of her emotions and her life, however Haenel’s Héloïse sends her into a tailspin of sorts. We get the impression that Marianne has fought to get where she is and as a result she likes to be in control. However Héloïse invades Marianne’s mind, both when she’s conscious and when she’s asleep. There’s a recurring image of a ‘ghost’ Héloïse who appears dressed in a white wedding dress, a haunting reminder that these two women can never truly be together. And, while this sounds depressing, Portrait is far from being a depressing affair. It is a film made up of humorous moments, tender heartfelt scenes and compelling insights into the lives of women in the Eighteenth century.

Sciamma has created a beautiful timeless love story where the individuals aren’t driven by lust but rather by compassion and empathy for each other. Indeed, Marianne and Héloïse are attracted to each other in a physical sense, but their relationship is far deeper than just a mutual sexual attraction towards each other. These are two people who love each other and respect one and other for their talent, intellect, humor and personality. There have been many films such as Blue is the Warmest Color, Disobedience, The Handmaiden that have focused on lesbian relationships, but these films have often been filmed through a male gaze and have been explicitly erotic in their sexual content. While there is sexual content in Sciamma’s film, it never feels exploitative and is clearly shot with a female gaze, with the female body and nudity is presented in a naturalistic manner that is rarely seen in cinema.

Claire Mathon’s stunning cinematography is achingly beautiful to gaze upon. Each frame is worthy of being hung in an art gallery, and each shot conveys so much meaning. This is a film rich with colour, deep blues, bold reds and luscious greens, Héloïse is defined by the color of blue to represent her mood, and Marrianne is defined by red. As the film and their relationship develops, we see Héloïse becoming associated with green, the color of rebirth. In fact, the film’s color palette reminded me of another tragic romantic film that came out this year called Beanpole (which coincidentally tells the story and bond between two women), which would make a wonderful companion piece.

Every aspect of this film is just so perfect, from the score by Jean-Baptiste de Laubier and Arthur Simonini, to the production design by Thomas Grézaud and costumes by Dorothée Guiraud.II could write several more paragraphs on how much I adore this film and why it’s so impressive on so many technical levels but this review is already a tad too long.I’ll end on a request, please do go seek out Portrait of a Lady on Fire, I promise you that you will not be disappointed.

Overall Grade: A

[divider]

Hear our podcast review on Extra Film:

[divider]

Director: Adil El Arbi, Bilall Fallah
Writer: Chris Bremner, Peter Craig, Joe Carnahan
Stars: Will Smith, Martin Lawrence, Joe Pantoliano, Paola Nuñez

Synopsis: The Bad Boys Mike Lowrey and Marcus Burnett are back together for one last ride in the highly anticipated Bad Boys for Life.

[/info]

The Bad Boys films aren’t necessarily the best films in the world (although I’d argue Bad Boys 1 is quite good), but they’re quintessentially popcorn fun thanks to the chemistry of Will Smith and Martin Lawrence, the over-the-top action staged by Michael Bay, and the exciting thrills along the way. Well, Bad Boys For Life, even without Michael Bay (technically speaking), continues to be all those things while upping the ante emotionally. This is everything we love about the previous two Bad Boys films, but there’s something a little extra this time around.

Bad Boys for Life picks up 16 years after the last one with Marcus Burnett (Martin Lawrence) and Mike Lowrey (Will Smith) experiencing the challenges of getting older while still trying to keep their edge and cool. At least for Mike. He still wants to be a cop. He still likes to shoot and intimidate. He still has his suave. Marcus on the other hand is now a grandfather (the revelation of that is one of the best comedic gags in the entire film). He’s flirted with retirement before, but now with the birth of his grandson, he is serious about handing in his badge. However, after things take a drastic turn with Mike, Marcus is forced to go on one last ride with Mike to oppose a new, and very imposing, threat.

Bad Boys for Life, like its predecessors, starts with Martin Lawrence and Will Smith. Its their chemistry and banter that makes those films endlessly enjoyable. And it’s no different here. In fact, it’s captured immediately in the first scene of the film where we see Marcus and Mike in a “car chase” on the streets of Miami. However, and not to give anything away, but the crystallization of that sequence is very clever and fun. The banter, the constant bickering, the yin and yang of these two characters is back and it’s as good as it’s ever been.

There is one key difference though. For as hilarious and energized as Bad Boys for Life gets at times, it’s equally reflective and poignant. There’s a key scene early on that dramatically leaves Mike and Marcus in serious peril. And as they cope with what’s happening to them, we see Marcus praying to God, emotionally coming undone in a way we haven’t seen yet, and it’s surprisingly very affecting. Similarly, as the film progresses, there are more than a few scenes where Mike reflects on his life and the choices he’s made along the way. It’s not often in films this bombastic where things slow down to focus on character and emotion in this way. Even if it doesn’t all work, and I think it mostly does, you have to give credit to Chris Bremner, Peter Craig and Joe Carnahan’s screenplay for attempting to humanize these characters, something we didn’t see much in the previous two installments.

Speaking of the script, it’s also worth noting that there are several major twists to Bad Boys for Life. I’m obviously not going to reveal any details, but each of them add further emotional heft that adds to the surprising nature of this film. The turn near the third act may be a bit contrived and manufactured, yet it also works because of how it comes together in execution. Either way, the screenplay does a captivating job of building stakes and raising uncertainty. At the mid-way point of the film, you start to question the possibility that one of our major characters may not make it out alive.

Bad Boys for Life also features a new supporting cast that is excellent. While I enjoyed the likes of Detective Reyes (Yul Vazquez) and Detective Vargas (Jason Manuel Olazabal) in the previous films, it makes sense that changes were needed. The players around Mike and Marcus include a younger team, a new police unit called AMMO, with new technology and tactics. This, of course, takes some getting used to as M & M are stuck in their old ways, but it makes for great hilarity along the way as the everyone comes together as the stakes amplify. Credit to Paola Nuñez, Vanessa Hudgens, Alexander Ludwig and Charles Melton for their performances and bringing solidarity to all of that.

I mentioned earlier that Michael Bay is technically not a part of this film, at least as a director, but his thumbprint is all over Bad Boys for Life. Directors Adil El Arbi and Bilall Fallah channel their inner Bay as the camera swoons and pans in Bay-like fashion throughout the film. The action in staged similarly as well, sometimes mimicing Bay a little too closely, but overall Arbi and Fallah create a familiar aesthetic that maintains the same sense of rhythm and style that we love about this franchise. A key difference though, is the editing of Bad Boys for Life. It’s not quite as frenetic and incoherent as Bay’s films tend to me. This is more smooth and fluid in its editing.

It’s early in 2020, but Bad Boys for Life could end up going down as the biggest surprise of the year. It’s everything we love about pure popcorn cinema. It’s bitingly funny, it’s tender and poignant, its action is thrilling, it narratively features unexpected twists and turns, it looks beautiful with its cinematography. Hell, it even features a blisteringly great score from Lorne Balfe. Bad Boys for Life has it all. It does have a few issues here and there, it’s not perfect, but it’s as enjoyable as anything I’ll see this year from mainstream cinema.

Overall Grade: B+

[divider]

Director: Miguel Arteta
Writer: Sam Pitman (screenplay by), Adam Cole-Kelly (screenplay by), Danielle Sanchez-Witzel (story by)
Stars: Salma Hayek, Rose Byrne, Tiffany Haddish, Billy Porter

Synopsis: Two friends with very different ideals start a beauty company together. One is more practical while the other wants to earn her fortune and live a lavish lifestyle.

[/info]

A cast alone does not make a good film. There are so many moving parts, that it is sometimes silly how much stock we put in actors, or even directors. Even Scorsese made New York, New York. But we all have that one actor or actress for whom we will watch terrible movies just for a glimpse of them. Some of us have more than one, and that can lead us to some dark places. But every great once in a while, despite all early indications, a movie will surprise you. You know, it looked genuinely awful in trailers and early reviews were abysmal.  And yet, you enjoy it! Personally, I can think of at least one movie every year that fits this description. Like A Boss starring my personal favorite Rose Byrne and Tiffany Haddish is absolutely not a surprise.

When talking to people about this movie in the lead up, terms like “boring,”  “unoriginal,” and “not funny” were hurled in my direction. No joy is taken in the fact that these descriptors are completely correct. Just like there are no perfect movies, Like A Boss is not devoid of charm, at least not completely. There are probably about 20 good minutes buried in the runtime. All of those minutes are either at the very beginning at the very end. Unfortunately, that leaves a good hour in the middle that is missing an engaging story, interesting visual choices, and most damning of all, comedy.

To say that the script could have used another edit is insulting to films that get close to being good. In any buddy comedy in which there is a “breakup”, a certain suspension of disbelief is needed. But we can only go so far. It is hard to imagine a world in which an audience member has bought in to this supposed argument between our two leads. There is a nice message about female friendship and that connection, but again, the script is so subpar that it must hammer this point home, repeatedly.

The cast is game for anything, which is why some of the bits work. When best friends Mel (Byrne) and Mia (Haddish) are hanging out together, either in their house or with their friends at a baby shower, Like A Boss is genuinely fun. But of course, this is before the plot kicks into gear. The movie screeches to a halt when our villainess Claire Luna (Salma Hayek) enters the scene. Cartoonish evil is fine, especially in a comedy, but this performance is wildly out of tone with everything else on the screen. Audience members may find themselves staring at this caricature as an oddity, but certainly not an entertaining one. The supporting characters, especially Barrett (Billy Porter) are a welcome distraction to the aforementioned plot, but that is all they are. And later on, Barrett and Sydney (Jennifer Coolidge) are ground under the gears of that plot in ways that lack any form of human sense.

It is a real shame to see this much wasted talent on display for 90 minutes. As thoughts return to the baby shower sequence, which is genuinely funny, it makes one wonder what a film focused on all these women could have been. Sure, we’ve seen similar things in movies like Bridesmaids, but we can always use a buddy comedy that is female focused, even now.

Maybe too much to expect from a January release, but would it have killed Like A Boss to be funny? With this group of women in a different movie with a funny script, it is easy to imagine a surprise runaway hit. But not this year, not with this movie.

Overall Grade: D+

[divider]

Director: William Eubank
Writer: Brian Duffield, Adam Cozad
Stars: Kristen Stewart, Jessica Henwick, T.J. Miller, Vincent Cassel, John Gallagher Jr.

Synopsis: A crew of aquatic researchers work to get to safety after an earthquake devastates their subterranean laboratory. But the crew has more than the ocean seabed to fear.

[/info]

There’s nothing better than seeing films with new or original ideas, especially horror or action-thrillers. Underwater is a mostly original thriller, with a few borrowed ideas, that makes for an interesting start for 2020. It tells the story of the crew of an underwater facility located in the Mariana Trench and their struggle to survive a catastrophic event seven miles below the surface.

The movie jumps right into the action – there is almost no story or character building before things go awry, save for a newspaper article style exposition dump in the opening credits. Generally, not having any story telling is an issue, but I think it works in this film and immediately sets the tone for what’s to come.  Kristen Stewart stars as Norah, a mechanical engineer, capable of keeping her cool and quick thinking while the station implodes around her. There is a small supporting cast of (mostly) interesting characters: Vincent Cassel is the fearless leader and man with the plan, Captain Lucien. Jessica Henwick is biologist Emily, engineer Liam Smith is played by John Gallagher Jr, and rounding out the team is comedic relief Paul, job unknown, who is unfortunately played by T.J. Miller. With the station quickly crumbling around them, the group must make an impossible trek across the sea floor in hopes to reaching the last remaining escape pods.

I went into this screening with relatively low expectations and ended up enjoying myself. Underwater is an extremely tense, isolationist, claustrophobic thriller. It was so nerve-wracking and suspenseful my body actually hurt after the movie from being tensed up for 90 minutes. It’s getting many comparisons to films like Alien (1979) or The Abyss (1989) which I can see- strong female lead, alone, underwater/in a hostile environment… There were a few scenes that even reminded me of Alien, but overall Underwater is its own movie. What it does best is manipulate its audience with the use or non-use of sound. The lack of music and any sound beside the actor talking or breathing really puts the audience down there, on the seafloor, alone, waiting for something to come get them. It’s a brilliant technique, that if done well, elevates the film. I’ve seen it done in many horror or space movies and It’s very effective. They managed to get some storytelling done without much time for characters to explain their backstories or have any real conversations. You get clues through out the movie by reading things on walls and screens, paying attention to the little things characters do or say, and I think it works for this type of movie. Long monologues wouldn’t make sense in an “against-the-clock” thriller. It’ definitely a film I want to see again, at home, when I can pause and rewind to see anything I missed in the theater. I also really liked Kristen Stewart, she looks awesome with the shaved head and I can’t wait to see her in another action flick.

My biggest complaint about Underwater is with its editing. It was hard to watch or keep track of what was going on at times, especially during scary or action-filled sequences. There are a few scenes where characters are dragged or move around quickly and it’s so blurry or choppy it’s easy to lose track of who went where and how it happened. It’s also fairly obvious that scenes were cut to keep a PG-13 rating. The positive side of that criticism is hopefully there’s an unrated director’s cut in our near future! The only other negatives I could come up with was the lack of character development for Smith (John Gallagher Jr). His character wasn’t particularly important to the overall story, but I’ve been in love with Gallagher since The Newsroom (2012-2014) and was excited to see him in something again (and with a beard!) His character is hinted at having some relevant backstory with other characters so I wish they would have given him a little bit more to work with. My other issue is with T.J. Miller. Yes, he has moments of comedic relief, but he’s a “problematic” casting choice as it’s difficult to separate is off camera problems with seeing him on screen. That being said, his character’s storyline isn’t all sunshine and rainbows (can’t get into more details without spoilers…) So, if his casting is the only thing preventing you from wanting to see Underwater, I recommend giving it a chance, he doesn’t ruin the movie.

To wrap up, Underwater is a welcomed addition to the sparse but cherished “aquatic thriller” genre. It borrows themes and ideas from its predecessors but makes its own way with a strong female lead, interesting supporting cast, and intense underwater sequences. I understand it may not be for everybody, it suffers from choppy editing and poor casting decisions. If you’re on the fence and thrillers are your thing, I highly suggest giving it a chance on the big screen. In the future I believe it may develop a following – especially if I’m correct about a possible unrated director’s cut!

Overall Grade: C+

[divider]

Director: Karim Aïnouz
Writer: Murilo Hauser (screenplay), Martha Batalha (based on the book by: “A Vida Invisível de Eurídice Gusmão”)
Stars: Julia Stockler, Carol Duarte, Flávia Gusmão, António Fonseca

Synopsis: Two sisters born in Rio de Janeiro make their way through life, each mistakenly believing the other is living out her dreams half a world away.

[/info]

Men are, to put it mildly, the worst. More on that later.

Invisible Life opens with two sisters, Euridice and Guida (Carol Duarte and Julia Stockler respectively), becoming separated during a jaunt in the jungle. They call out for one another, only to hear their own voices echo back. A clever foreshadow for what’s to come…

At its heart, Karim Ainouz’s fabulous melodrama is about sisterhood and how that special bond can never be fully severed—no matter how hard the patriarchy may try. Although the story is melodramatic by design, the two lead performances keep it from veering into soapy territory.

Duarte and Stockler—who bear such a striking resemblance that I admit I mistook them more than once—deliver grounded, three-dimensional portrayals. The blood between Euridice and Guida is thick, and their energies are perfectly balanced. Their sisterly yin and yang is freakishly believable; there’s a real harmony even when they’re not on screen together. Duarte’s Euridice is studious and ambitious, as she painstakingly works to master the piano, while Stockler’s Guida is more free-spirited and impulsive, as she flexes her feminine wiles.

They also share a penchant for sailors. One night, Guida runs off with hers—all the way to Greece. Months later, she returns to Rio de Janeiro, single and pregnant. Turns out what’s-his-name didn’t love her after all. Go figure… Then, Guida is abandoned again when her stern yet humiliation-prone father Manuel (Antonio Fonseca), ashamed of his unwed and expectant daughter, disowns her—making sure to mention that Guida need not run to Euridice, who he says has left Brazil to study music in Europe. Stockler conveys Guida’s sense of loss so lucidly.

Meanwhile, Euridice is in fact still in Rio de Janeiro, having been married off to a man named Antenor (Gregorio Duvivier) and unable to live out her dream of being a world-renowned concert pianist when she also becomes unintentionally pregnant. Antenor is sexually pushy, even coercing intercourse in the middle of Euridice’s piano-playing. These scenes especially prove why it’s important to empower female cinematographers. Helene Louvart shoots these scenarios sans any male gaze and depicts them for what they are: abuse and marital rape. Duarte’s internal turmoil is so painfully palpable.

As the years go on, the sisters live parallel lives, mere miles away, in the same enormous city, unsure when or if they will ever see each other again.

Invisible Life may not be queer on its surface, but Ainouz is an openly gay filmmaker, so queer themes are gonna happen, whether consciously or not. With Guida’s story in particular, Ainouz explores the idea of a chosen family. Unable to give up her newborn child and continue a cycle of abandonment, Guida befriends a prostitute (Barbara Santos) and together they become a (same-sex) parental unit for Guida’s son. An unusual thing for 1950s Brazil to say the least.

And with Euridice, we have a character who weds someone she does not truly love in order to please her family and maintain appearances. She had no intention to start a family, but had little choice in the matter, because Euridice has little control over her life and body. In many ways, her life is not hers to live. A concept persecuted persons know all too well.

Because the villainy of the patriarchy is the main thesis of this film. It’s what drives the sisters apart and keeps them oppressed. It’s what renders so many women second-class citizens. Inferior. Uncared for. Invisible. Okay, fine. It’s not men who are evil. What’s really rotten is the system that props them up and pushes down the rest—a system that many men are uninterested in dismantling. Or even acknowledging the existence of. This is the story of two women—sisters—who’ve fallen victim to that system (by design), and how their undying love for one another, and need to reunite, drives them to fight on.

Sublime without becoming overly sentimental, Invisible Life plays out like Douglas Sirk by way of Todd Haynes with a dash of Claire Denis. And, yes, although the runtime exceeds two hours, the finale is worth it. Heart-wrenching and near-cathartic—thanks in large part to the unshowy devastation of Fernanda Montenegro, Brazilian acting legend and the rightful owner of Gwyneth Paltrow’s Oscar.

Overall Grade: A

[divider]