Skip to Content, Navigation, or Footer.
Now playing:
On Air
Listen Live
Blaze

Blaze Radio

Search Results

Use the fields below to perform an advanced search of Blaze Radio's archives. This will return articles, images, and multimedia relevant to your query.

1000 items found for your search. If no results were found please broaden your search.

OPINION: Late Fame is Pretty Lame, Despite Defoe’s Best Efforts | Phoenix Film Festival

(04/16/26 8:39pm)

Every once in a while, there comes a film that seems to have all the potential in the world: an all-star leading man and supporting actress, an interesting concept exploring lost opportunities and new chances based on a book from a celebrated author, a deep look at the state of art in our current society, and an analysis of those who find themselves within it. This is what “Late Fame” has, all the factors are right there, smack dab in the middle of the screen. Yet when I walked out of the theater, all I felt was emptiness, like I had almost just watched nothing for the last hour and a half. The only feeling I can really describe feeling was cringe. Deep, unadulterated cringe. “Late Fame” is a film based on the unpublished Arthur Schnitzler novella of the same name from 1895, which was just recently rediscovered and released to the public. The film is directed by Kent Jones and adapted and written by Samy Burch (writer of “May December”). The film follows Ed Saxberger (Willem Dafoe), a post office worker whose decades-old poetry becomes rediscovered by a group of young literati, including Gloria (Greta Lee), an actress who is more than eager to gain Saxberger’s attention. With so many wonderful creatives working on this film, being adapted from the work of an acclaimed author, you would think “Late Fame” has a lot going for it. Yet every single factor that could make the film good, substantial, meaningful, or even just interesting is stripped away by terribly overconfident writing, boring direction and cinematography, and a cast that is more interested in playing caricatures than characters. I’ll start with the positives: I thought Dafoe was great as always, and did his best with the script he was given. Unfortunately, he wasn’t given much, so there was never a chance at a deeply emotional or profound performance. He plays Saxberger as a man who has never been recognized or appreciated for the art he made, and the bewilderment that comes from receiving that recognition so much later in his life, along with the eventual ego that comes with it. I also really liked the concept of the film (though most of that credit goes to Schintzler rather than any of the filmmakers). I think someone receiving love and recognition for the first time so late in their life, and seeing how they handle it, is a fascinating concept that could have been executed very well by a different writer/director duo. Yet Jones and Burch failed to take that concept and turn it into anything worth noting, though to their credit, there was at least an attempt. A lot of my issues with the film come from how pompous and unlikable the characters are. The group of young men who obsess over Saxberger is like characters you would see in an SNL skit about 20-somethings who write screenplays, poetry and film critiques (I take personal offense to the latter). They are all-knowing, overly confident and look down upon every person outside of the group. They think they are the future of literary art and act like it, which I suppose is the point. But the point becomes lost when these characters are barely fleshed out at all. I don’t even remember any of their names, I can barely remember their faces, and half the time I was confusing one character for another. They are simply caricatures of what a middle-aged man thinks young creatives are like, and they are written that way so that they can feel the sting of reality by the end of the film when they are told their work is no good. That is why they don’t feel like characters; they feel like vehicles for the story's moral. There is no substance beyond their egotism, and that really bogs the film down. Another issue I had with the film is how contained Saxberger’s personal journey turns out to be. His supposed “fame” is literally the admiration of this group of like 10 people, yet he seems to struggle so severely with handling even that little amount of success. In my mind, that makes little sense. If the story were expanded more, if Saxberger actually received genuine acclaim and recognition for his past work, the themes of the story would have so much more meaning and purpose. His reaction to the fame and the hardships he experiences trying to create new work would be far more impactful if it actually felt like there was genuine pressure on Saxberger. The fame he experiences is so minuscule compared to the reaction he has towards it, which makes the film feel unrealistic and leaves it with little impact. There’s also this sideplot where Saxberger’s sister keeps calling because his brother is dying. It’s barely a sideplot, and the whole thing is forced and contrived; it just feels like something that was forced in at the last minute for some sort of emotional impact.What hurts most about the film is the potential it had. It talks about these themes of missed opportunities, of the need for young people to exclusively reference the past instead of creating something completely new, of admiration and the pitfalls that come with it, and of how volatile and uncaring fame can be. These ideas are absolutely present in the film; they literally smack the audience in the face with these themes. Yet they are never truly explored; no commentary is actually put forward, no moral is really expressed. When you are just being told the themes rather than seeing them in action, it really makes the film a drag. I didn’t care about the so-called “characters,” I didn’t care about Saxberger’s struggle with his rediscovery, and I really didn’t care about the reading that they try to build up as important from the beginning. Despite only being an hour and a half, this movie feels like it just goes on forever, and repeats the same points over and over again, sometimes as an attempt at laughs, and other times as an attempt at biting satire. Yet it turns out to be neither, and I can’t help but feel cringed out by all these weak attempts to create an impactful story. I never like to talk poorly about work that the creators obviously cared about and put effort into, but I just cannot praise a movie that is so far off on everything it says and does. Magnolia Pictures bought this movie a few months ago and plans to release it sometime in 2026, so don’t just take my word for it; go see “Late Fame” and form your own opinion.

https://www.blazeradioonline.com/article/2026/04/opinion-late-fame-is-pretty-lame-despite-defoe-s-best-efforts-phoenix-film-festival

OPINION: Friday the 69th is a B-Movie Cult Classic in the Making | Phoenix Film Festival

(04/16/26 8:37pm)

Spoiler and Mature Content Warning“Friday the 69th” is a mature parody of classic slashers directed by Alex Montilla. The cast and crew consisted of Montilla’s friends and family, and the entire film was shot on an iPhone with a budget of $15,000.The movie follows famous pornography director Ivan Moorehead (Eric Anderson), who’s broke because all of his porn is really mediocre. He hatches a scheme with producer Michael Caime (Alex Montilla) to get rich by making a “Friday the 13th/Texas Chainsaw Massacre” style slasher. They put together a cast of the best pornography actors available that day and secured funding from Fierce Whiskers Whiskey in order to make Friday the 69th.All the characters in this movie have sex-pun names such as Rod Woodcock (Bud Galloway), Rock Hardigan (Robert Zoppo) and Poppy St. Cherry (Anna Bess). The one exception is Penelope Flaversham (Amy Letcher) who is the sole trained actor on the cast. Naturally, she plays the main character Judy in the in-universe film. The in-universe movie follows a group of teens who are visiting a campsite with a shady past over the summer while a mysterious killer starts picking people off one-by-one. Eventually,it is revealed that the campsite was built over an American-Nazi hideout during World War II, and every 69th Friday of each decade a series of murders break out. Of course, this turns out to be a coincidence as the real murderer is Judy’s evil twin sister who kills to protect Judy (and also for fun).In order for the in-universe movie to be shown to mainstream theaters, they couldn’t have any real sex scenes. Moorehead assures everyone that there isn’t any sex in the movie, but Caime snuck a scene in that takes place in a hot tub. Ironically, the actors in that scene, David Arnold Rubin and Amber Kellehan, were exes who had recently broken up in real life making the two nine-hour long shoots of the scene very awkward. The film has a joke-a-minute format. If you don’t like one joke, that’s okay, there’s five more right after.One running gag comes from the in-universe film’s sponsor, Fierce Whiskers Whiskey. They’re required to put product placement throughout the movie, so the characters will just spontaneously do an ad-read mid-conversation.The film spoofs the early era of slasher flicks when everyone had no budget but still managed to make enduring classics of varying quality. Movies like “New Year’s Evil” and “Silent Night, Deadly Night” come to mind. The film does a great job replicating this era by using similar effects, adding a film grain filter and by making a bunch of shots out of focus.Friday the 69th may not win any Oscars, but it's still a great time. The film is planned to get a streaming release later this year.

https://www.blazeradioonline.com/article/2026/04/friday-the-69th-is-a-b-movie-cult-classic-in-the-making-phoenix-film-festival

Phoenix Film Festival’s “Caturday” Event Celebrated Cats on the Big Screen

(04/15/26 10:36pm)

The 26th Phoenix Film Festival is underway and “Caturday,” on April 11 was an absolute treat for cat lovers.The day featured a number of “purrfect” shorts, films, and two feature-length documentaries from director Mye Hoang.Members of the audience – many wearing plastic cat ears and feline-themed T-shirts – cheered as the films played and the animals graced the screen.Hoang’s documentaries “25 Cats From Qatar” and “Cat Daddies” were the highlight of the event, combining the simple joy of watching cats do just about anything with heartfelt messages, poignant themes and exceptional cinematography.“25 Cats From Qatar” follows Katy McHugh, a Milwaukee cat cafe owner who travels to Doha, Qatar, to meet with a network of underground animal rescuers and attempt to bring 25 cats back to the United States, where they will have a better chance at being adopted. What makes this documentary so compelling isn’t necessarily the cats – it’s the people. McHugh’s drive to bring as many cats back to the United States is remarkable enough, but the compassion shown by the locals in Doha who foster the cats elevates the story to another level and offers a glimpse of humanity at its best.The film also explores religious and political themes. Unlike many other companion animals, cats are highly respected in Islam, the official religion of Qatar. However, 89% of the nation's population is made up of foreign workers, most of whom do not take their pets with them when they return home – a reality that has contributed to a surge in the stray cat population.Hoang’s other documentary “Cat Daddies” takes a lighter, more playful approach. The documentary tells the story of nine men, each with a distinct bond with their cats, and challenges the stereotype that men who love cats are somehow less masculine, reframing that narrative with humor, honesty and heart.Both documentaries are visually impressive and leave viewers feeling inspired to go out into the world and make a difference.Hoang has been interested in cat rescue for years, but she said she wasn’t sure how to get involved at first.“I didn’t think I could do anything to help,” Hoang said. “I’m not a rescue person, I’m not an advocate, I’m not going to pass legislation – it’s not me.”Now, through her filmmaking, Hoang has had the opportunity to touch countless lives – human and feline – and the impact of that cannot be overstated.“I feel like I have found a way to kind of help with my filmmaking,” Hoang said. “It’s something small that I can do.”The Phoenix Film Festival ends April 19, and while “Caturday” may be over, there are still plenty of films to pounce on. Passes can be purchased online.

https://www.blazeradioonline.com/article/2026/04/phoenix-film-festival-s-caturday-event-celebrated-cats-on-the-big-screen

OPINION: Crystal Cross is Indie Filmmaking at its Finest | Phoenix Film Festival Day 2

(04/14/26 8:34pm)

WARNING: This article contains spoilers and references to suicide. Reader discretion is advised.“Crystal Cross” is the directorial debut of Richie James Follin, and tells the story of James (Richie James Follin) and Dottie (Rubyrose Hill) who go on a sudden road trip to California. James is suicidal after accidentally killing his daughter in a drunk driving accident and is going to California to hopefully have doctor-asissted suicide. Dottie is an aspiring christian musician who breaks into his car to escape her ex-boyfriend (Lukas Haas). She chose James because she thinks he looks like Jesus and takes it as a sign from God.The film shows the two of them getting closer together throughout this road trip as they visit different places across America. The film was initially four hours long and several scenes had to be cut down into a montage to achieve the 88 minute runtime.The best part of the movie by far is the chemistry between the two main characters. They’re very believable as friends eventually turned lovers despite several opposing beliefs about the nature of the world and God. The original actress for Dottie dropped out of the film two weeks before shooting began. Follin happened to meet Hill while he was getting ice cream with his daughter at a place she was working at. It’s incredible that they managed to develop such great chemistry over the course of the shoots given the circumstances.The film is quite funny as well. It has a more casual style of comedy where there isn’t a joke every five minutes but when there is one it comes up naturally like something out of a real conversation. There’s a scene where Dottie and James are lying in some grass and Dottie mentions that her sister was bit by a snake in grass like this and died. James asks if it was because of the snake bite, and Dottie in a very deadpan way says “no she died from cancer,” which got a laugh out of the entire theater.Many of the things Dottie says throughout the movie about Christianity are things Follin heard when he was a child going to different Christian and Catholic schools. Follin said that he wrote Dottie to be a good representation of Christians as she’s a good person at heart and tries to help James whenever she can.The movie was shot on a $60,000 budget, with most of that going toward renting equipment and the car used in the movie. During the Q&A, Follin said that he would shoot around 50 takes of every scene because he knew they would likely not be coming back for reshoots. Some of the movie did have to be reshot though, as a few hard drives full of footage got corrupted.Before directing, Follin made music which ended up being used in “Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind” and “The Science of Sleep.” Likewise, he also made the music for this movie.The songs sound great, with the highlight being the film’s namesake “Crystal Cross,” Dottie writes it near the end of the movie as a reflection on her love for James. Follin said he is hoping to make some of the film’s budget back in record sales and streaming revenue when the soundtrack releases. “Crystal Cross” is a testament to the tenacity of indie filmmaking and is worth checking out. The movie doesn’t have an official release date yet, but Follin said he’s planning on doing an arthouse release in the near future.

https://www.blazeradioonline.com/article/2026/04/opinion-crystal-cross-is-indie-filmmaking-at-its-finest-phoenix-film-festival-day-2