The Sundance Film Festival, virtual again this year, runs Thursday, January 20 through Sunday, January 30, and Chuck and I have you covered! We’ll have capsule reviews and interviews to share for dozens of films. And if you want to watch some of these festival films, you can! Just go to Sundance Film Festival.
Check in every day as we update this page!
DAY FIVE: AFTER YANG, DUAL, CALL JANE, LUCY AND DESI, EMILY THE CRIMINAL
AFTER YANG
Chuck says:
The parents, Jake and Kyra, are quite detached from their daughter Mika (Malea Emma Tjandrawidjaja) and from one another. While their daughter sees Yang as more human, mom and dad seem quite reserved about his apparent demise. Jake, however, is consumed, secretly so, by the memories within Yang. The real story lies in what technology has become and the detachment that occurs from all things, authentic and artificial. With the “core” of Yang extracted and memories revealed, it also becomes a mystery of what Yang was privy to and what he actually experienced, perhaps making him more human than both Jake and Kyra.
I really enjoyed the blurred lines of what it means to be alive and to “live,” to be human. There’s a standout scene in the beginning that not only resonates with me personally, which endeared me to the film. It was the one in which Mika and Yang had an in-depth conversation about adoption and belonging using an analogy that anyone who is adopted can grab ahold of and lean upon is thoughtful and precious. And then as Yang longs to have the human qualities of adjectives about self and experience, unable to feel or do more than recite facts as they discuss tea and its origins. Is it slow? Yes, but I think deliberately and beautifully so.
Chuck says:
I understand what you are saying concerning the film and there’s no question that it is made with a great deal of skill. You need to be in a very meditative mood to appreciate this. I have a feeling I’ll get more out of it when I watch it again.
Pam says:
I hope you get another chance see it!
DAY FOUR: YOU WON’T BE ALONE, AFTER YANG, BRIAN AND CHARLES, A LOVE SONG
A still from Brian and Charles by Jim Archer, an official selection of the World Cinema: Dramatic Competition at the 2022 Sundance Film Festival. Courtesy of Sundance Institute.
BRIAN AND CHARLES: Pam says: A lovable, eccentric inventor, Brian (David Earl), garbage picks his way into building his very own robot as a “documentary filmmaker” films the events. The new being comes to life, all “caught” on camera, and the robot now known as Charles, and Brian develop a sweet father-son relationship, ending Brian’s solitary existence.
This is a fun, funny, light-hearted and sweet film about loneliness, bullies, and how the underdog can prevail. We watch Charles grow from an intellectual toddler to a emotionally rebellious teen, making us laugh along the way. Charles, in his own unique way, grows up and helps Brian do the same all while Brian has a blossoming love story begin to unfold with Hazel. “Brian and Charles” is entertainingly funny film filled with heart from start to finish.
Dale Dickey appears in A Love Song by Max Walker-Silverman, an official selection of the NEXT section at the 2022 Sundance Film Festival. Courtesy of Sundance Institute | photo by Alfonso Herrera Salcedo.
A LOVE SONG: Pam says: Life and love continue long past the typical youthful ages of teens, twenties, and thirties. Life is an adventure and Faye (Dale Dickey), a widow, attempts to reconnect with her teenage crush Lito (Wes Studi) decades later. Far removed from all that interferes with interpersonal connection, Faye awaits this man at a remote campsite, #7, on a lake with the mountains as a backdrop. The hope in her eyes say more than any words and their connection, a bittersweet one, is at once heartbreakingly beautiful and inspiring.
Writer and director Max Walker-Silverman paints this artful picture set amidst the quiet stillness of Colorado that accentuates the beauty of a never-forgotten bond. It’s a subtle yet thoughtful film that will at once connect you with what’s important in your life. Outstanding performances from this ensemble cast make it a film that will long resonate with me and perhaps also motivate me to get that pop up camper and hit the road this summer.
Noomi Rapace stars as “Bosilka” in director Goran Stolevski’s YOU WON’T BE ALONE, a Focus Features release. Credit: Branko Starcevic / Focus Features
YOU WON’T BE ALONE:
“You Won’t Be Alone” is a poetic horror film that both visually and intellectually captivates you as we watch this young girl discover living and loving and perhaps even find happiness. I was shocked by how touched I was by the girl’s actions and reactions, her innocence and her treatment in this patriarchal environment. I also loved the cinematography which almost felt surreal at times against that beautifully ethereal backdrop of life here in all its many forms. I found it to be an amalgam of genres of films, not just horror, but drama as it explores human nature and our explicit desires. So, Chuck, if this is tame horror for you, did you see it more as a drama or did you even like it?
Colin Farrell appears in After Yang by Kogonada, an official selection of the Spotlight section at the 2022 Sundance Film Festival. Courtesy of Sundance Institute | photo by Benjamin Loeb / A24.
AFTER YANG
DAY THREE: WE NEED TO TALK ABOUT COSBY, FRESH, GOOD LUCK TO YOU LEO GRANDE, and DUAL
GOOD LUCK TO YOU, LEO GRANDE: Pam says: Another unexpected “pleasure” in viewing a story about a middle-aged woman whose repressed life is finally awakened and revived. We’ve never seen a role like this in such a bold and daring way! Bravo to Emma Thompson for literally and figuratively revealing what it’s like to be a woman in the world as a mother and a wife in looking back with regrets and the future as well.
Watching Nancy (Thompson) from the uneasy and awkward feeling in the beginning to the refreshing end is like watching a cocoon emerge as a beautiful butterfly. Nancy transforms; it’s a metamorphosis. While Leo (Daryl McCormack) also grows, it’s more of an explosive version, but still one that is gratifying to watch
Chuck says:
FRESH: Chuck says:
Chuck says:
Mimi Cave’s “Fresh” is not the sort of film I expect to see at Sundance, unless it is in a Midnight Movies section. Promoted as a look at the world of modern dating, the film morphs into something radically different after its first half hour, pulling the rug out from under the audience to become something disturbing and, depending on your point of view, provocative or disturbing.
So, here’s the set up: Noa (Daisy Edgar-Jones) is a twentysomething eager to make an emotional – and if truth be told – and physical connection with any sort of eligible member of the opposite sex. We see her on a date early on with a passive aggressive cad that underscores how rough it is out there, apparently. However, things seem to take a turn for the better when she meets Steve (Sebastian Stan) in the produce section of her local grocery. It’s a meet cute right out of the movies and despite some initial misgivings, Noa gives herself over to this guy after a couple of dates. Her best friend Mollie (Jojo Gibbs) warns her that her new beau must be too good to be true – he’s handsome, charming, a surgeon and all around nice guy – but Noa throws caution to the wind, agreeing to go on a weekend trip with Steve when…something happens. I’ll let my esteemed colleague Pam decide whether more should be said about the plot. Frankly Pam, I’m wondering if you will get through the entire movie…
Pam says:
Oh, Chuck. Ye of little faith. Yes, I sat through the entire film…disgusted and counting down the minutes until the bloody end. Literally the bloody end. To say this isn’t my cup of tea is an understatement. And you’re right (there’s a first time for everything), the rug is pulled out from under the viewer as the first 30 minutes are a sweet romantic comedy that is adorable and engaging. I guess that is what Ms. Cave was going for and it worked. What doesn’t work is the fact that now, after Steve’s truth is revealed, it becomes nothing more than your typical gory horror film complete with capturing the meek and trusting girl, torture beyond words, and death. To go this far is just plain disturbing with no entertainment value, frankly.
I will admit that had I not had to review the film, I would have turned it off. I will also admit that I averted my eyes many times as I did not want those images burned into my memory. Additionally, Cave found a stellar cast to portray these characters and anyone less than Stan and Edgar-Jones may have created a movie that felt more like a backyard project. I don’t want to give the surprise plot away — Chuck, I’ll leave that for you to do if you want — but a premise like this that makes movies like “Boxing Helena” or the storyline of the serial killer in “Silence of the Lambs” look like child’s play, is not what I consider a film that needs to be made let alone watched. But perhaps in my saying all of this, it’s exactly what Cave was going for. Chuck?
Chuck says:
What’s curious is that this film is trending at 80% positive on Rotten Tomatoes based on 44 reviews being submitted. Those who like it say it is a subversive satire – of what, I’m not sure – or a pointed commentary on the way women are commodified and consumed in the media. My question is – would the response have been the same had a man directed this? I’m curious as to what you think about this….
Pam says:
Trending positively! I’m shocked! Subversive satire? I guess I need to look up the definitions of both words as this just doesn’t make sense. Chuck, that’s a very good question about male versus female director/writer. I hate to think that it matters that it’s a woman versus a man, but I think it does. Personally, after watching the movie, I think it places women in the typical position of trusting victim. Women are trafficked and sexualized and “Fresh” exemplifies this. If a man did this, I think he would be ridiculed. What do you think?
Also, not to give anything away at the end, but there’s a big loose end that never got tied up. Did you catch that as well? And anyone who is thinking about becoming a vegetarian, this will push you into doing so!
Chuck says:
I think that in the age we live in, you have to be very careful about what you say and I think some critics are afraid to call this movie out for what it is for fear of being labeled sexist or not “woke.” Maybe I’m an old man and I just don’t get it, but I have a feeling if a man had made this, he’d be called a misogynist and accused of objectifying women. I think there’s a double standard at play here. You know I like smart horror films, particularly those that serve as a metaphor for social issues. For me, “Fresh” just ain’t it. (I deserve points for not referring to this as “stale”…)
Pam says:
Point to Chuck! Agreed. And this isn’t smart, it’s just gory and slips right into the typical horror/gore tropes we have seen time and time again. There have been in the past lots of double standards and the pendulum is swinging in the other direction.
The film overall just made me angry. Angry at the conclusion, angry that I had spent my time watching it, angry at the core. I woke up in the middle of the night angry. And the next morning I was angry. To be disturbed to the point of anger isn’t what I think the goal of a film should be. How did you feel at the end?
Chuck says:
I think it’s ok for a filmmaker to anger an audience if the subject is worthwhile and the intent is a call to action. That is not the case here. I wasn’t angry – I was just resigned to the fact that I wasted more time on a movie that wasn’t worth it.
OK, I think we’ve spent more than enough time on this one. Time to bring this to a close and post this review to Rotten Tomatoes to bring down that positive score. Unless you have anything to add…
Pam says: I’m done…well done! LOL!
DAY TWO: EMERGENCY, LIVING, and MASTER
EMERGENCY: Pam says: This certainly was an unexpected film! What appeared to be a silly college movie quickly became a socially relevant and poignant one filled with topical situations and, surprisingly, comedy and heart! Sean, played by RJ Cyler who you’ll remember from the heartfelt film “Me, Earl, and they Dying Girl,” and Kumle portrayed expertly by Donald Elise Watkins, plan an “epic” tour of parties just before graduation, but when a passed out girl lands on their living room floor, the night turns into a true emergency as the pair along with roommate Carlos (Sebastian Chacon) weigh out the options of calling 911. It’s a hefty film that keeps these tough situations light when needed while it creates palpable tension as you stay on the edge of your seat. I was blown away by the performances, the well-balanced script, and the relevancy of the message.
LIVING: Pam says: If a movie has Bill Nighy in it, I’m in! That rule didn’t fail me this time as Nighy plays Mr. Williams, a man during the 1940’s whose life is nothing more than a drudgery of day to day repetitiveness in the bureaucratic, paper pushing world of the Public Works Dept. But his world changes the day he gets a terminal diagnosis and, from his point of view, tosses caution to the wind and thanks to the vivacious attitude of a former employee, Miss Harris (Aimee Lou Wood), he learns to live life and not just be a “zombie.”
His diagnosis remained a well-kept secret from his employees and even his son, with Miss Harris the only one privy to it, but everyone witnessed his change in attitude particularly at work. His stuffy employees recount his actions particularly regarding a seemingly unimportant playground application and discover the real Mr. Williams. “Living” is a remarkable remake of Kurosawa’s “Ikiru,” skillfully and artfully directed by Oliver Hermanus, making us connect, laugh, and cry. It’s beautiful, simply beautiful. Chuck, tell me you loved this one as much as I!
MASTER: Pam says:
4 Stars
DAY ONE: WHEN YOU FINISH SAVING THE WORLD
Pam says: “When You Finish Saving the World” is Jesse Eisenberg’s writing and directorial debut and he manages to snag quite the ensemble cast with Julianne Moore and Finn Wolfhard. It’s a week in the life of a mother and teenaged son who don’t see eye to eye on anything, both disappointed in one another and longing for a different version of the other. Evelyn (Moore), a social service agent who runs a facility for battered women, and Ziggy (Wolfhard), a self-absorbed teen whose sole focus is performing indie songs on social media garnering 20,000 followers, butt heads at every intersection. Eisenberg starts and ends strong in this film, but the meat of the movie is nothing more than tasteless filling. With both characters becoming dislikable and even irascible, they also become disinteresting as the superficiality of the characters reveals there’s no complexity lying beneath the surface. What did you think Chuck?
Chuck says:
This is a strange miscalculation of a movie and the problem lies in the lack of passion with which it is executed. I don’t mean by the cast – I think Moore, Wolfhard and Billy Bryk as Kyle, the teen Evelyn uses as a surrogate for her own son – are all good. But there’s a lack of energy in the way Eisenberg goes about rendering the story, a lack of a distinctive tone, if that makes any sense. I mean, I know what he’s trying to say – when we are lacking something we desperately need, we seek it elsewhere – but the film is like reading a dry term paper that analizes this subject. What did you think of the ending? Earned or not?
Pam says:
I agree with the execution and the cast did what they could with the script. To me, I felt like each character, with the exception of Lila’s (Alisha Boe) performance, was a rendering of Eisenberg’s personality. The speech, frenetic and staccato-like with revisions and long-winded verbiage, made me feel like I was hearing Eisenberg with the faces of the actors…they never had their own personalities. Perhaps this is a glimpse inside Eisenberg’s mind, all of these characters representing his varied and sometimes countered positions as he indicated in the Q&A after the film. But the ending…I was truly touched by it! Earned? No. Perfect? Yes. Did you feel like both Mom and Ziggy were exactly what Dad (Jay O. Sanders) described them as, narcissistic? I felt like neither of them could pick up on a social cue to save their lives. Were you ever connected with the characters after the 10 minute mark?
Chuck says:
Oh, I completly related to dad. He was right on about both of them and perhaps that was a problem with the film – Evelyn and Ziggy are not very likable at times. I like what you say about Eisenberg’s voice coming through all the characters. It’s the same problem I had many years about with “Juno” and most Woody Allen movies. Again, I think this is his first film as a director and there are some improvements to be made both in his writing and the way he executes the story. It’s not a bad movie per se, just a dispassionate one. In the end, I’d give it 2.5 out of 4 stars.
Pam says:
Yes, I found humor and compassion with dad and his reactions to both Mom and Ziggy. Oh, to come home to a dinner of duck! How inconsiderate Mom was! I had no connection with her after the first 10 minutes. And Ziggy was an inconsiderate shit, even for a teen! If my kid EVER told me to “shut the fuck up,” gruel would be a welcomed sight in their lives! I’ve got to care about at least one main character to be engaged in the story and neither were relatable. I look forward to seeing Eisenberg’s sophomore film where he makes changes to refine his storytelling technique. I must say, I loved his visual perspective and camera angles! Chuck, you’re a little more generous with your stars than I and I’m going with 2 out of 4 stars.
Chuck says:
And you say I’m the one with no heart…
