Director: David Mackenzie
Writers: Bathsheba Doran, David Mackenzie
Stars: Chris Pine, Stephen Dillane, Rebecca Robin

Synopsis: A true David v Goliath story of how the great 14th Century Scottish ‘Outlaw King’ Robert The Bruce used cunning and bravery to defeat and repel the much larger and better equipped occupying English army.

[/info]

“They may take our lives, but they’ll never take our freedom.”

That line from director Mel Gibson’s Best Picture winning film Braveheart is one of the most memorable, iconic lines in film history. But what many people don’t know about that film is that it is one of the most historically inaccurate films of all time. Braveheart is a film that takes so many liberties that once you know about them, it’s very hard to watch that movie and take its story seriously upon rewatch. The history of the Scottish Rebellion has been tarnished by the ghost of a bad Mel Gibson accent and his yells for “FREEDOM”. But that is all about to change with David Mackenzie’s new film Outlaw King, a film that takes the story that we are familiar with and makes its surprisingly fresh and heartbreaking and truthful to the actual historical events.

The film follows Robert the Bruce (Chris Pine), a leader within the country of Scotland who, after the death of his father, decides to break off their promise to England and fight for the independence of Scotland from English rule. But while Robert has a right to the throne of Scotland, many don’t trust him for actions shown in the movies, and thus can’t support him to lead them past the English. So with a small band of Scottish rebels and freedom fighters, led by James Douglas (Aaron Taylor Johnson), Robert commanded one of the most important rebellions in all of history against an enemy no one thought they would beat. While this movie is about Robert’s Rebellion, it’s also a love story about Robert and his second wife Elizabeth (Florence Pugh) and how complicated their love is due to her connections to the English throne. There are mentions of William Wallace throughout the first thirty minutes of the film, but make no mistake, this is Roberts’s story, and thus we never see someone portray that infamous character and the focus is on Robert at all times.

The scope of this film is impressively massive but considering it is coming from Netflix, it’s highly impressive that they were able to allow Mackenzie to make a film like this knowing that it would never stand a chance of making it on the big screen. The set pieces of each action sequence seem to be detailed to the max, with camera shots focused just enough amongst the chaos so we don’t lose track of the characters that we are following from the beginning to the end of the film. The violence is gruesome and it’s no harsher than anything I’ve seen from films like this before, setting up some memorable moments on the battle field but the film, like stated before, isn’t just about the action sequences, it’s also about the loving tender moments between its two main leads. When Robert and Elizabeth meet, it is understandable that the two of them aren’t going to get along, nor want to be married because they are both from different world. But as the film continues, tender displays of respectful admiration shows each other that they can trust one another and it’s the performances of Pine and Pugh that carry these characters beyond two people stuck in an arranged marriage. They become loves of each other’s lives, and her allegiance to him isn’t because she is obligated by the bonds of marriage, it’s becomes of the love she has for him and these actors do a great job at making this relationship work. If this bond between Robert and Elizabeth doesn’t work on screen, the film would become just another action film lost in the mud but their scenes of quiet passion and love carry out to the end of the film, even the final shot.

Like stated before, Pine is fantastic in this film, making Robert the Bruce a quiet, understanding yet charming leader that you feel for throughout the film. In this film and Mackenzie’s last film Hell or High Water, Pine has given the two best performances in his career and has rightfully earn his spot of my favorite “Chris” in Hollywood right now, showing that he can do so much range just within one single performance and do it on such a consistent basis. Pugh is the other MVP of this film and I didn’t even know she was going to be in this film. Following her breakthrough performance in Lady Macbeth, she takes a role that can be very generic and simple and give it so much life and grace that every time she is on scene by herself or with Pine, she can’t take your eyes off of her. Aaron Taylor Johnson is good as Robert’s sort of right hand man, in a performance that was originally for Ben Foster but he dropped out of the role before shooting, which wasn’t a bad thing because Johnson is right for the role. I’ve never been a big fan of his but even I must admit that this might be my favorite role I’ve seen him in since his turn as John Lennon in Nowhere Boy. The rest of the cast are very serviceable, with Stephen Dillane and Billy Howle playing the King of England and the Prince of Wales, roles that are usually thankless but are done with just enough villainy to not be over the top and to be taken seriously.

Mackenzie’s direction is really impressive in this film, following his quieter films like High Water and Starred Up, it’s amazing to see that this is that same director. He put all of his chips on the table and directs the hell out of this film, while still nailing those tender character moments in the same style and grace that he did before with those previous films stated above. His script is the weak link in his work here and there are some pacing issues in the middle but the performances and the direction lift the film beyond some of its little problematic parts. The editing during the battle sequences are fantastic but for the rest of the film, the film could have felt a little crisper. Overall, the films isn’t trying to reinvent the wheel, it’s just trying to tell a fairly accurate story with good performances and decent production design and camera work. But the film lifts itself and has great technical and production design, great lead performances, and a story that while familiar, is a much better representation of the same story we have gotten before.

Overall Grade: B+

[divider]

Director: Jonah Hill
Writers: Jonah Hill
Stars: Sunny Suljic, Katherine Waterston, Lucas Hedges

Synopsis: Follows Stevie, a thirteen-year-old in 1990s-era Los Angeles who spends his summer navigating between his troubled home life and a group of new friends that he meets at a Motor Avenue skate shop.

[/info]

Jonah Hill’s directorial debut, Mid90s, acts as both an homage to the 90s skate culture of Southern California as well as a coming-of-age story. Often at odds with regards to point of view, Mid90s does have some redeemable qualities that forecast Hill’s career as a possibly successful director. The film follows Stevie (Sunny Suljic), a thirteen-year-old boy who becomes ingratiated with a group of skateboarders as he avoids his home life. Struggling to find his place in the world, Stevie is stuck between his family, which includes a bully brother (Lucas Hedges) and a working mother (Katherine Waterston), and his newfound love of skateboarding, which by proxy includes a cast of stereotypical characters. Ray (Na-kel Smith) is the leader of the gang, Fuckshit (Olan Prenatt) is the partying wild card, Fourth Grade is the artist, and Ruben (Gio Galicia) is the previous “new kid.” Each character represents a part of Stevie’s burgeoning personality that wrestles for recognition and acknowledgement. He learns from and commiserates with each of them throughout the course of the film. As they bond, we begin to understand the consequences and perils that come with Stevie’s quest for self-acceptance.

Mid90s does an adequate job painting a picture of Stevie’s ordinary world. The use of vivid realism, sound editing, and music create a world that is rich and exciting for the audience. Once this world is constructed, the characters seem to meander through it with no purpose. This is the point. Most characters are losers from broken homes that become united in their love for skateboarding. Stevie’s path with his newfound friends is vague, often frustratingly so. We are never offered a concrete point of view in the film. Perhaps the film is meant to be a collage of memories that are slowly deteriorating in the mind of an aging Stevie, or on the contrary, maybe the jumble of events is meant to represent the chaos of teenage years. Often confusing and always new, experiences of our youth meld together in a broad spectrum of incidents and encounters which never really sort themselves out in an ever-changing cognizance. Whatever the point of these snippets, they reinforce a typical coming-of-age story, but somehow get lost in the greater landscape of this movie.

If one attempts to decipher the point of Mid90s, it will become easy to be lost in a fog of memory. However, if one holds on to the theory that this film is one story of many regarding a child growing into his own, then this film succeeds in allowing the audience to go along for the ride. Despite the exhausting stereotypes and recycled imagery, Mid90s finds a heart and soul in its realism and depictions of life at the time. Hill feels at home in this location and timeframe, as it is lovingly recreated and exploited with a deft consciousness. Overall, Mid90s struggles with an identity, but manages to be entertaining and exotic. The cloud of memories remind all of us of our youth and the life-or-death struggles we went through in order to be the adult at the end of that journey.

Overall Grade: B+

[divider]

Hear our podcast review on Episode 297:

[divider]

Director: Sara Colangelo
Writers: Sara Colangelo, Nadav Lapid (based on the screenplay by)
Stars: Maggie Gyllenhaal, Gael García Bernal, Ato Blankson-Wood

Synopsis: A kindergarten teacher in New York becomes obsessed with one of her students whom she believes is a child prodigy.

[/info]

We wonder at poets. I think it’s because we know that they see the world differently than most of us do. They see it, and the best ones find some incomprehensible way to transfer that seeing through words. For a split second their words allow us to see things the way they do. And it is beautiful.

In Sara Colangelo’s 2018 film The Kindergarten Teacher (currently streaming on Netflix), Maggie Gyllenhaal plays the character of Lisa Spinelli, a New York kindergarten teacher who dreams of being a poet. She attends a local poetry class, and she yearns for the acceptance of her peers. Early on, we get the sense that it isn’t so much that she wants to see in that beautiful way, but she wants to be seen.

Later, in her day job as a teacher, Lisa notices one of her students pacing and muttering to himself. As she gets closer, she cannot believe her ears. He is creating poetry from what he sees. His name is Jimmy, and one cannot say anything other than the truth about him. He has a gift.

Observation is a key part of the story that Colangelo weaves here. Even down to the technical components of the film, it is clear that we are meant to watch and observe what happens. The camera is mostly still throughout the film. Watching. Observing.

I mention that specifically because I sometimes have a hard time simply observing a film. My analytical brain usually goes into overdrive, and it did so here too. There is an early scene where Lisa shares one of her poems in front of her peers in the continuing education class. It is mostly disregarded by everyone. After the film’s main plot began to take shape, I found myself going back to that early scene and wondering if the film wants to try to make us sympathize with Lisa before anything else happens. As the film continued, I realized that I was getting ahead of myself. Don’t analyze. Just observe.

This becomes much more difficult – maybe even impossible – once Lisa begins to exploit the incredible talents of her young student.

I think back to the teachers I had as a young boy. I’ve had many incredible ones. I think the main trait that is present in every single one of the teachers who stand out most in my memory is that they routinely offered encouragement. It would take different forms with different teachers. Some teachers didn’t offer it through a kind word, but rather through pushing me. Not physically, of course, but urging me to give more effort in some area where they noticed an aptitude.

Here, Lisa’s words may sound like encouragement, but I don’t think they are one and the same. She begins to write down Jimmy’s poems and use them in her class to impress her peers and her teacher. They begin to see her as a promising poet. But the words are Jimmy’s.

She tries to wedge her way into Jimmy’s life in more ways. She does so in the service of protecting his talent, but her motives are clearly selfish.

I again found myself getting off into an analytical tangent as I thought about another famous teacher from recent film history – Terence Fletcher. He is, of course, the vulgar jazz instructor played by J.K. Simmons in Damien Chazelle’s 2014 film Whiplash. The role won Simmons an Oscar.

In that film, we see Fletcher as this emotionally abusive teacher who is clearly too hard on his students. His rationale was that great musicians like Charlie Parker would never have become who they were had they not been pushed…hard. Debate the morals of the argument if you like, at least Fletcher’s goal was not a selfish one. He didn’t want to deprive the world of great talents because those talents had never been pushed. Here, it seems that Lisa simply doesn’t want to deprive herself of being close to great talent.

Throughout the film, Gyllenhaal’s performance is ferocious. She somehow finds ways to inhabit this detestable character with moments of, if not tenderness, true sadness. I think this is clearly one of the best performances I’ve seen from an actress this year, and I hope the Netflix logo does not keep her from awards consideration.

Though I don’t want to give away too many plot details, I do think it is important to note the film’s concurrent plot line. Lisa has a husband and two kids, and she sees them as projections of her own longings. It’s the time-honored story of a parent trying to live through their kids, but Colangelo and Gyllenhaal bring a new perspective on the idea here. It’s an obsessive trait in Lisa. She didn’t succeed in the ways she wanted to so she needs the other people in her life to achieve what she didn’t. And she will go to great lengths to see that it’s done.

Overall, I was impressed by the film’s willingness to observe these characters and what they do, then allow us to come to conclusions. In the end, I just didn’t really enjoy what I found. There must be merit in observing deplorable characters and trying to understand why they do what they do, but some things are too hard to observe. The way Lisa preys on Jimmy’s intellectual gift is appalling and detestable. I must give credit to the film’s creators and performers for inhabiting the story in the way they did, but I couldn’t ultimately bring myself to see this as a story worth inhabiting.

Overall Grade: C

[divider]

Director: Gareth Evans
Writers: Gareth Evans
Stars: Dan Stevens, Michael Sheen, Mark Lewis Jones, Lucy Boynton

Synopsis: A former missionary travels to a remote island in search of his sister who has been kidnapped by a mysterious cult.

[/info]

The streaming services have been slowly getting more competitive in their efforts to put out quality content. Bigger names are agreeing to projects and they are winning contracts over conventional studios. One of Netflix’s latest films is Apostle – brought to you by known horror writer/director Gareth Evans. The cast ranges from big names to Netflix regulars. It’s definitely not a film for everyone, the gore alone would scare many away, but overall it’s an OK movie.

Apostle is driven by the character of Thomas Richardson (Dan Stevens), a former missionary who sneaks on a cult-controlled island to find his sister. I like Stevens in this, I’ve enjoyed his progression from chick-flick male lead (Downton Abbey, Beauty and the Beast) to these darker, more intense roles. The major flaw for me was the backstory of his character. He edgy and bitter, has crazy eyes, but they don’t delve into his past or why he would be that way. You learn a little about him later in the film, but not enough for me.

The cult leader Malcolm is played by Michael Sheen. I was disappointed by Sheen, I’m not sure it was entirely his fault, but his character was not as developed as I was expecting. Usually Sheen is a reliable “good” bad guy, but he was kind of flat and predictable in this. Mark Lewis Jones on the other hand was a bit better in the villain category. His character Quinn, Malcolm’s sidekick of sorts, was much more interesting and dynamic. Lucy Boynton (Sing Street) makes an appearance as Andrea, the daughter of Malcolm and one of the female leads.

My biggest complaint about the movie is how it dragged, and the story was hard to follow. It’s just over two hours long but felt much longer when I watched it. It could do with some editing. The plot had potential, but I kept finding myself confused as to what was happening. Why wasn’t the plot advancing? I was annoyed that this movie was mostly a very un-stealthy Dan Stevens aimlessly sneaking around for two hours. I also didn’t understand the cult very well. They didn’t do a great job explaining the beliefs and weirdness going on, so it was hard to understand why I was supposed to scared. It gets a bit better towards the end, but it felt rushed and still left me with questions. This movie is a weird mix of too long versus not providing enough information.

The movie isn’t all bad, the cinematography and locations were a highlight for me. They helped set the tone and the constant uneasy feeling of the film. It’s tense and foreboding like any good horror flick. The majority of the movie is pretty tame, but then hits you with a ton of gore out of nowhere and it becomes even more unsettling and hard to watch- but that is kind of expected if you’re familiar with Gareth Evans.
It’s hard to describe this movie without giving the plot away. If you enjoyed movies like The Wicker Man (2006), Silent Hill (2006), or Mandy (2018) you might like this one. I really got a Wicker Man (minus the awesomeness of Nick Cage) vibe from this movie. I will probably rewatch Apostle to see if my opinion changes, I’m still deciding if I liked it or not.

Overall Grade: C

[divider]

Hear our podcast review here:

[divider]

Director: Felix van Groeningen
Writers: Luke Davies, Felix van Groeningen
Stars: Steve Carell, Timothée Chalamet, Maura Tierney

Synopsis: Based on the best-selling pair of memoirs from father and son David and Nic Sheff, Beautiful Boy chronicles the heartbreaking and inspiring experience of survival, relapse, and recovery in a family coping with addiction over many years.

[/info]

There have been many films that have tackled the ideas of addiction and what it does to the people around them, the people they love. Whether it be drugs, sex, alcohol or anything in between, we have seen stories, both real and fictional, that take us on the journey of addiction and tackle it in such respectful, heartbreaking, and interesting ways that we become compelled to help those in need as we are watching events unfold on the screen. Films like Trainspotting, Shame, Requiem for a Dream, Boogie Nights, The Lost Weekend, Bad Lieutenant, The Man with the Golden Arm, Ray, Walk the Line and many, many more have transformed cinema in the way a story about addiction can be told and how that make us interested in having a conversation about the issues at hand, the issues that many face around the world. I say all of this because I don’t believe that Felix Van Groeningen’s new film Beautiful Boy will come close to living up to those other films and moving the conversation about drug addiction. Instead I believe that this film will be known as a forgettable slog that never figures out what it wants to say about its characters and the heartbreaking choices they are having to deal with.

Beautiful Boy follows the lives of David and Nicholas (Nic) Sheff (Steve Carell and Timothee Chalamet), based on the memoirs that both of them wrote both the true events in the films. David is a freelance writer for Rolling Stone magazine that lives with Nic, his wife Karen (Maura Tierney) and Nic’s two step siblings on the outskirts of San Francisco. Nicholas is shown in flash backs to be a very smart, bright young man that has the world in the palm of his hand. But what he isn’t showing his father is that he is slowly starting to lose himself to drugs, especially crystal meth. Upon finding this out, David, Karen, and Nicholas’s biological mother Vicki (Amy Ryan) do everything in their power to get Nic back on to who was before he turned to drugs.

The rest of the film plays out like a two-hour montage of Nic taking drugs, telling his family he is going to change, relapsing and repeating the process over and over and over again and never really learning anything along the way. We also see the deterioration of his family, especially David, who was the closest to Nic and is struggling to understand what has happened to his son. By the end of the film, we still don’t fully understand why Nic reached to drugs fully and we don’t really get to see the real life characters on screen reconcile in a way that seems right to getthe story to the conclusion that is known. Overall, the film is a mess in how it tells this story, which is baffling considering the Groeningen and his writing partner had not one but two different source materials and still couldn’t make a script that was halfway compelling.

Groeningen’s direction is fine, he makes the film look more interesting than the film really is but another real problem with this film is the editing. We cut back in time periods of these character’s lives, going back and forth, and at times, we don’t even know when events on screen are taking place, and whether Nic is on drugs or it is flashbacks to when he was clean. As someone that never gets lost with films, I can tell you I was confused a lot watching sections of this film. It made me question what I was watching and if I was seeing a first cut of the film or the final cut.

The performances in Beautiful Boy are uneven at best, leaving to chemistry issues throughout the entire film. Carell is good as David, doing everything he can to make this character compelling. While some of his tone in his voice does go all over the place in the more emotional scenes, I really think he nails the quite moments and you can totally see the pain in everything he is doing for Nic throughout the film. Ryan and Tierney give serviceable performances, though they aren’t given very much to do, leaving the film to be a two man show for Carell and Chalamet. And speaking of Chalamet, I think of all the performances in the film, I thought his performance was the worst, and one that did nothing for me. Almost every time he was on the screen, I felt the film started to lose any of its momentum of trying to say something meaningful. His chemistry with Carell is minimal at best, with only one scene really working for me, leaving an entire film where two actors trying desperately to play father and son and you just can’t buy it, leaving you to not care what happens to them on screen. This is a damn shame because while Chalamet gave one of the best performances of 2017, I feel he has given one of the most overrated performances of the year in this film, a performance so annoying and damaging to the overall film, that I rather see his performance in Hot Summer Nights, a film I loathe but would gladly watch again than seeing this performance again.

Overall Beautiful Boy is an uneven, unfocused snooze fest that has all of the boxes for Oscar bait or a film to break into the film landscape for interesting conversations but instead can’t check any of them off in the right way. This movie is disappointment and one of those films you will look back on and wonder why it didn’t work with the talent that it had on screen. Maybe it was the talent behind the camera that brought it down, but we will never know if someone with a little more of a focused eye and pen could have done with the Sheff’s story.

Overall Grade: D-

[divider]

Director: Joseph Kahn
Writers: Joseph Kahn, Alex Larsen
Stars: Calum Worthy, Jackie Long, Dumbfoundead, Shoniqua Shandai, Dizaster, Walter Perez, Rory Uphold, Anthony Michael Hall

Synopsis: A progressive graduate student finds success and sparks outrage when his interest in battle rap as a thesis subject becomes a competitive obsession.

[/info]

No one in this Eminem-produced film utters “I know word-fu.” Being a film about battle rap, this seems like a missed opportunity: It’s a film reference in a universe where that is second language, for starters, and if we stand back a little we’ll spot a male lead who, due to a limited view of his field (poetry, or English lit, in this case), deserves an awakening.

But maybe there’s a reason for the omission. It’s fluff, being fancy when the vibe — 25/8 — is to be as unrefined and as direct as possible. In the cred flows when you go low. And so, Joseph Kahn’s follow-up to his daft 2011 satirical horror Detention is hyper-straightforward in every aspect, resulting in a beat that is frenzied and heady and beastly and lucid. Sounds about right after you get bodied for real, no?

Adam (Calum Worthy), despite much research about battle rapping — he’s working on a dissertation about, yep, how the n-word is used as a poetic device in this environment — definitely didn’t get the “no fanciness” memo in his first trial. Right then, though, he taps into his mental palace — in the form of floating folders that suggest he and Scott Pilgrim might be distant cousins — and conjure them sexist, racist, take-a-hike-PC verses that let one battle rapper one-up the other. Come on, they even floored Behn Grym (Jackie Long), a respected member of the community!

From most of his music videos — such as Britney Spears’ Toxic and Taylor Swift’s Look What You Made Me Do — and earlier films, there’s merit in the claim that Kahn will perish if he can’t make his work a breath away from being confrontational. But wise is he when for Bodied he lets the rhymes do that job instead of the visuals. The zaniness and zippiness are still there, though they are dialed down and still secondary to the (absolutely) fighting words.

Speaking of words, only those within the battles are effective. Beyond that, exchanges scribed by Kahn and Alex Larsen (rapper Kid Twist) function in four realms that often upsets the flow — being filler, a deliberate shortcut-taker, humorous enough they operate in a separate plane or — this is true for its taps into race relations — present with the demeanor of a manic boxer who minutes ago downed about a dozen Monster cans. That said, this is how this world works, so your complaints, however valid, will render you as one of those viral “speak to your manager” people or their ilk that are precisely what the film chastises. In that sense, Kahn and Larsen earn this “I can really not care, don’t you know?” card; the film they’re writing for has this Deadpool-like effect where flaws are part of the fabric. Think ripped jeans.

Kudos to the mainly POC cast, however, for finding the right pitch on this slightly overlong and built-from-chaos roller-coaster ride. Whether as a doofus in minute one and then Rap God in minute two, Worthy nails the emotions of the moment. There’s a wish that more time should be spent with Long’s Behn, whose swagger can delightfully chill you. Supporting players/fellow rappers like Prospek (Jonathan Park, or Dumbfoundead), Che Corleone (Walter Perez) and Devine Write (Shoniqua Shandai) all have their own shining moment, “their own” amplified tenfold. As an ensemble there is still a lot to be desired; the ties that bind the squad members are too insignificant to mention despite many attempts to have us pay attention to it via mentionings and inclusion of an antagonist, Megaton (Dizaster), a battle-rap royalty who’s also a bit too punchy.

And that “get to the top” routine is the only trace of tradition in Bodied, which one can bet it has to welcome with much chagrin. As for the rest? Imperfection is king and attempts to be otherwise is sin, here morals are lice and having them means you’re about to be iced. It’s best to not attempt to take the conn from Bodied at any point — unless the objective is to commit ha-rey-kee-ree (as heard in the film) and deprive yourself from entering the film’s mindset and vice versa (for the latter, the other Oakland-set film Sorry to Bother You also says hello).

Overall Grade: B-

[divider]

Director: Josephine Decker
Writers: Josephine Decker
Stars: Helena Howard, Molly Parker, Miranda July

Synopsis: A theatre director’s latest project takes on a life of its own when her young star takes her performance too seriously.

[/info]

Josephine Decker’s Madeline’s Madeline is one of the more rapturous and disorienting experiences you’ll have in 2018. It’s an astounding work of art where Decker actively attempts to redefine the boundaries of storytelling in how she edits, stages and composes Madeline’s journey. It’s bold, invigorating and stimulating filmmaking. Sure, it’s also experimental, but Decker is somehow able to find an emotional root that still feels familiar and relatable.

Madeline’s Madeline tells the story of Madeline (Helena Howard), a young teenager who is struggling from some sort of mental ailment, but she finds comfort in the theater troupe that she participates in daily. Her home life has its up and downs, which makes her condition all the more volatile. Her single-mother, Regina (Miranda July), is caring and protective even if she doesn’t always understand Madeline. This leads to more volatility and resentment toward Regina. In an attempt to remedy the missing gaps of that relationship, Madeline looks to the theater troupe’s leader Evangeline (Molly Parker), who form a bond that eventually becomes exploitative in its own right.

Behind the bizarre and clever editing that makes Madeline’s Madeline a unique experience is something more concrete. If you peel apart the abstractness, you’ll find a steady dichotomy of the mother/daughter relationship that truly centers the film. Madeline and Regina are two women who are driven apart by an unspecified mental illness, but also they are fundamentally very different people. Madeline is able to express every thought and emotion with a deep vigor while Regina mightily lacks the ability to express herself at all. You could argue their race is a barrier as well. Regina is white, Madeline is biracial, and while the never speaks to it directly, Decker does highlight in her direction how this becomes another hurdle they have to jump over. Throughout the entire film, this dichotomy is always on the razor’s edge, tugging back and forth between empathy, love, impatience and disconnection.

Decker then smartly mirrors that duality with the evolution of Madeline’s relationship with Evangeline, another adult woman who doesn’t seem to comprehend the gravity of her choices. She wants to use Madeline’s life as a narrative vehicle for the theater troupe, but becomes blind in her ambitions.

What makes Madeline’s Madeline so striking, and almost unnerving, is how vulnerable Madeline is throughout the film. She’s very charming and endearing, but clearly struggling with something intimate. Yet, the *adults* around her lack empathy or understanding, and presumptuously have no self-awareness as to how their actions effect her. Regina is a mom that does love her daughter – there’s a great scene in a park is really heartwarming – but she’s often times impatient, forces control and lashes out at Madeline. Evangeline, in an equally disturbing way, exploits Madeline’s anxieties and fears for her own benefit. All of this leads to some fascinating questions around ethics and manipulation. Decker sets out to examine if it’s right to tell someone else’s story, something so personal and raw to the individual, when they clearly are not comfortable with it. It becomes even more gray and complicated as Madeline doesn’t fully voice her concerns either. In the end, Madeline’s Madeline becomes a powerful mechanism that taps into the importance of empathy and understanding. The presumptuousness by Regina and Evangline take their toll and it leads to one of the best endings of any film in 2018.

There’s a scene where Madeline acts out being her mom, as part of a theater troupe exercise, and it becomes extremely cathartic. It’s heartbreaking as both Madeline and Regina realize the truth of just how devastating the gap is in their relationship. The aftermath only gets more intense though. Decker focuses the camera on Evangeline, who is astonished by the “performance” that Madeline gave in depicting her mom. Yet again, not fully grasping what had just happened, she continues on as the bystanders around Madeline (other members of the troupe) are jaw-dropped. Everyone in this moment is stunned. The potency of Madeline’s truth is vivid and provocative, yet for Regina and Evangeline it was something else entirely for them. It’s a powerful moment that wonderfully demonstrates the ramifications of exploitation and how it can lead to isolation.

Those notions are impressivley poignant because, Decker’s direction is incisively visceral, but also because the performances are fantastic. Howard in particular demonstrates a scintillating prowess that is extraordinary. The way she immerses herself into Madeline’s plights is dazzling in every way. For as vulnerable and volatile as Madeline is, she’s never untruthful. Madeline is always grounded and human in her emotions, and Howard does a great job of giving Madeline a strong empathetic quality. July is also great in emulating Regina’s frustrations and what drives her actions. Parker gives an alluring performance that gracefully weaves between ignorance and ambition, two elements that lead to murky actions for Evangeline.

Ashley Connor’s cinematography is noteworthy as well. She lingers on many close-ups, sometimes extreme close-ups, and it gives the film an intimacy that amplifies it thematically. There’s a hazy focus that wonderfully compliments the blurring of lines we see between Madeline, Regina and Evangeline. Additionally, the editing, sound design and score all help take Madeline’s Madeline to another level.

Understandably, Madeline’s Madeline will not be for everyone. Some will find it pompous. Others will see it as mundane and empty. I find it fearless. Decker’s ambition and inventiveness establishes her voice in ways that are stunning. Howard is a star in the making. For as biting as this film is at times, it’s equally as soft and emotional. That ending shot is as evocative as anything I’ve seen all year.

Overall Grade: A

[divider]

Hear our podcast review on Extra Film:

[divider]

Director: Richard Eyre
Writers: Ian McEwan (screenplay by)
Stars: Emma Thompson, Stanley Tucci, Ben Chaplin

Synopsis: As her marriage crumbles, a judge must decide a case involving a teenage boy who is refusing a blood transfusion on religious principle.

[/info]

Richard Eyre’s The Children Act dazzles with pristine performances but fizzles out before the film even picks up steam. Fiona Maye, portrayed effortlessly by Emma Thompson, is a judge in the High Court of London who oversees cases of family law which are both ethically sensitive and magnets for the media. She must exhibit compassion for the cases brought before her, even at the risk of angering one side of the issue or the other. The immense toll on her affects every aspect of Maye’s life, such as her damaged relationship with her husband, Jack (Stanley Tucci). Her constant awareness of the cases on which she works causes her to deprioritize her marriage, of which she has not been an active participant in years. When a case involving Adam (Fionn Whitehead), an extremely intelligent boy whose religious beliefs forbid him from accepting a blood transfusion, comes to her attention, Maye grapples with a decision that could change everything.

Based on Ian McEwan’s novel of the same name, The Children Act forces audiences to look deep within themselves with regards to the crucial choices Fiona Maye faces. The ethical questions brought forth are deeply engaging and thoughtful. However, the film lingers on these questions only slightly. The main interest of The Children Act seems to be how a woman who has never had children of her own, exists in a fractured marriage, and has little room in her life for love, presides over life-and-death decisions that have the potential to destroy families. How Maye deals with these consequences when they begin to affect her personal life is deeply underdeveloped. The questions that arise in the aftermath of her decision on Adam’s case are never fully explained or realized. The second half of the film loses the intensity of the first half and the interest of the viewer begins to wane. Unfortunately, this is due to the lack of exposition with regards to the main character, Fiona Maye. The audience can never quite get a peek behind her carefully crafted visage. Perhaps this is the filmmaker’s intention all along; to forbid the audience entrance into the brilliant mind of Fiona and witness the chess match she must play in order to reach her verdicts.

This hidden agenda complicates her relationship with Adam and it becomes difficult to understand her motivation as she steps out of character and commits questionable acts. All in all, The Children Act is a well-crafted, deeply moving film. The performance of Emma Thompson holds this film together as it constantly tries to fall apart. Enjoyable and thought-provoking, The Children Act toys with your emotions, but never enough to make you care too much about the main character. Perhaps this is the point; to keep the audience at a cold distance, mimicking the barrier of law that Fiona Maye uses to protect herself from her crucial decisions. This creates an interesting environment for the viewer; depending on which side of the argument with which your side, your feelings regarding Maye will develop differently. The opinions you form dictate your reactions to her actions, which makes The Children Act a slightly interesting film, or does it?

Overall Grade: B

[divider]