Category Archives: Period Drama

Babylon-2022

Babylon-2022

Director Damien Chazelle

Starring Margot Robbie, Brad Pitt

Scott’s Review #1,365

Reviewed June 4, 2023

Grade: A-

Babylon (2022) is a film that will largely divide audiences. Slightly late to the table, I viewed the film after the awards season hoopla had ended and the film came up empty-handed. Sure, a few nominations were received but much more was expected from the epic Hollywood-themed venture.

I’m a fan of director Damien Chazelle, most famous for the similarly set Los Angeles film La La Land (2016), which I adore.

His direction style reminds me a great deal of Baz Luhrmann’s with the incorporation of intense musical numbers during many scenes and a strong chaotic and frenetic nature.

I realize this style is not for everyone so I’m not surprised Babylon is somewhat revered and somewhat reviled. This isn’t always a bad thing as a good film debate can be fun.

I adore Babylon mostly for the powerful and potent silent-era Hollywood story and the terror stars of the 1920s faced with the realization that sound had entered their pictures and they were expected to keep with the times.

Sadly, many careers ended in devastating fashion sinking one-time big stars into depression and despair.

The acting is superb and major props go especially to Margot Robbie as debaucherous film star Nellie LaRoy and newcomer (to me) Diego Calva as handsome Mexican immigrant Manny Torres. Both actors elicit superb performances that should have landed them Oscar nominations.

The major overtones that Chazelle incorporates into Babylon are those of ambition and outrageous excess, but also belonging and acceptance. The rise and fall of multiple characters during an era of unbridled decadence and depravity in early Hollywood are explored.

As Hollywood makes the transition from silent films to talkies, ambitious up-and-coming actress Nellie and aging superstar Jack Conrad (Brad Pitt) each struggle to adapt to the new medium as well as a rapidly changing world.

And Manny just wants a seat at the table.

Another reason I love the film is the dedication and exposure given to pre-sound Hollywood movies which nobody remembers. I struggle to recall ever viewing a film from that era with my earliest film being the 1930 film All Quiet on the Western Front.

The hit film The Artist (2011) may have paid tribute but it’s not the same and Babylon goes for the jugular in showcasing an entire movement that is now largely forgotten.

Cinema fans will respect Babylon.

Besides the film’s characters, there is so much movie stuff to appreciate. A Hollywood movie set, repeated takes, scripts, dialogue, lighting equipment, and rehearsals, make for a feast of riches for any cinephile.

The weak point is the behemoth length of the film. At three hours and nine minutes, an epic length, the erratic structure is a challenge to get through. A piecemeal approach can sometimes affect the continuity and it did detract a bit in this case for me.

If one can sit still long enough the final thirty minutes is superb. A tidy wrap-up and truthful storytelling give several characters a proper sendoff. The film ends in 1952 so a great conclusion befits.

Before we get to this point though, a nailbiting sequence involving Manny and a fiendish Los Angeles gangster played by Toby MacGuire is second to none. Fake money, a rat-eating entertainer, and pornographic dwarfs make for an odd adventure that one can’t look away from.

A fascinating and bombastic experience, Babylon (2022) loudly delves into the silent film world and gives a proper head nod to a long-forgotten period.

The film successfully makes me appreciate Hollywood and its history more than I already do.

Oscar Nominations: Best Musical Score, Best Production Design, Best Costume Design

The Phantom of the Opera-2004

The Phantom of the Opera-2004

Director Joel Schumacher

Starring Gerard Butler, Emmy Rossum, Patrick Wilson

Scott’s Review #1,336

Reviewed January 23, 2023

Grade: A-

Having been fortunate enough to see the legendary Broadway production of The Phantom of the Opera makes any film version impossible to usurp compared to the live stage show.

The lights, the sets, the booming music, the dreaded chandelier, and presumably phenomenal acting all make for an unforgettable experience.

Since we are talking film, the cinematic version of The Phantom of the Opera (2004) is breathtaking and nearly twenty years late to the game, I should be scolded for having not seen it earlier like when it was initially released.

It’s based on Andrew Lloyd Webber’s 1986 musical of the same name, which in turn is based on the 1910 French novel Le Fantôme de l’Opéra by Gaston Leroux.

Critics were not kind to the film though most audiences liked it so I almost didn’t see it save for my hubby renting it and encouraging us to watch it.

I am glad I did because this film encompasses a feast of riches.

I wonder aloud if the fact that it was directed by Joel Schumacher who created the dreadfully bad Batman & Robin, made seven years earlier in 1997 influenced bad reviews. After all, nobody likes their superhero movies butchered and payback’s a bitch after all.

For the novice fan, the summary is as follows. Gerard Butler stars as the disfigured, reclusive Phantom who roams beneath the Paris Opera and takes budding star Christine (Emmy Rossum) under his wing.

But as he falls for her, she finds love with handsome and porcelain-like Raoul, played by Patrick Wilson, leaving the Phantom none too pleased.

If nothing else, and there is something else, the film is a spectacle. Gorgeous Parisian sophistication drips from the screen in nearly every scene from the gloomy catacombs to the enthralling opera stage.

The costumes reek of French style, glamour, and texture, and the principle cast is easy on the eyes, to say the least.

These treats are merely a warmup to the astounding and professional art direction, making the winter sequences dreamlike and gothic, capturing the tone perfectly.

This encapsulates the dire story sequence and aids in the viewer feeling the pain of the Phantom.

The all-too-familiar numbers are modernized in just the right places especially “The Music of the Night” which could have been played on popular radio stations. The lively “Masquerade” parlays into the lovely “The Phantom of the Opera” duet between the Phantom and Christine in his ugly lair.

I didn’t feel the chemistry between Rossum and Wilson the same way I did between Butler and Rossum and maybe that’s the point. Wilson doesn’t have much to work with since the character isn’t the main attraction.

I never wanted Christine to ride off into the unknown with Raoul but ached for the pain that the Phantom felt for Christine’s kindness.

As much as I like Wilson the actor I champion the casting of Rossum (unknown at this time) and Butler who is the top draw in the talent department.

His loud and colorful musical numbers enrapture me as a viewer and grip me with his pain. The passion and magnificence are on full display. Butler is my favorite actor.

Minnie Driver is perfect as the spoiled diva, and the supporting cast, including veteran Simon Callow, gives the cast further credibility.

I was transported to another world while watching The Phantom of the Opera (2004) by the sheer extravagance of what was on the screen. Schumacher more than deserves top accolades and respect for his production.

Oscar Nominations: Best Art Direction, Best Cinematography, Best Original Song-“Learn To Be Lonely”

Downton Abbey: A New Era-2022

Downton Abbey: A New Era-2022

Director-Simon Curtis

Starring Hugh Bonneville, Michelle Dockery, Maggie Smith

Scott’s Review #1,261

Reviewed May 30, 2022

Grade: B+

Following the success of the 2019 film version of the television series Downton Abbey which ran on PBS from 2010-to 2015, a sequel was made. This was unsurprising given the fan-favorite being critically and commercially well-received.

Downton Abbey: A New Era (2022) will undoubtedly please fans of the series and may even recruit new audiences who may not have been exposed to it yet.

The trials and tribulations of the Crawley’s, friends, and staff are a treat as new situations and drama arise for the group to sift through as they discuss matters over tea and crumpets.

The film is like visiting a cherished friend after a few years apart.

Award-winning creator Julian Fellowes is thankfully still involved and was given screenwriting credit. This means that the formula is still the same and nobody has tried to reinvent the wheel or veer the characters off course.

This time out the year is 1928. The main action centers around the sudden news that grand dame Violet Crawley, Dowager Countess of Grantham (Maggie Smith) has inherited a villa in the south of France from a former suitor who has just died. Some of the family must travel to France and figure out the mystery.

Secondly, A film production company requests to use Downton for a silent film. Robert (Hugh Bonneville) and retired butler Mr. Carson (Jim Carter) disapprove, but Robert’s eldest daughter and estate manager, Lady Mary Talbot (Michelle Dockery), says the income would cover replacing Downton’s leaking roof.

The household staff is eager to see the film stars and scrambles to make things as lovely as possible for the incoming actors.

The terrific thing about Downtown Abbey: A New Era is that nearly all of the nearly thirty principal characters are given some sort of storyline.

Plus there are a handful of new characters to give screen time to.

Surprisingly, as in Downton Abbey (2019), the main ‘super couple’, servants Anna (Joanne Froggatt) and Bates (Brendan Coyle) are given almost nothing to do. They are seen but their child is not and some drama would have been nice. Perhaps a mysterious illness or a malady for the couple to endure?

Maybe next time.

Still, everyone else is represented and the feeling for viewers is warm and fuzzy.

Below are some highlights.

Robert frets at the possibility that he may be half french and his birth a result of a tryst between Violet and the villa owner. Mary’s absent husband allows for a flirtation to develop between her and a member of the film. Gay butler Thomas (Robert James-Collier) finds himself pursued by the film’s big star.

Cora (Elizabeth McGovern) keeps a health secret, while a bed-ridden Violet’s health declines. Newlywed servants Daisy (Sophie McShera) and Andy (Michael Fox) scheme to unite his lonely father with the cook, Mrs. Patmore (Lesley Nicol).

Finally, Miss Baxter (Raquel Cassidy) eagerly awaits a marriage proposal from nervous Mr. Molesley (Kevin Doyle).

In addition, new characters like actors Guy Dexter (Dominic West), Myrna Dalgleish (Laura Haddock), and director Jack Barber (Hugh Dancy) are instant fan favorites, immediately connecting with mainstay characters.

This is ingenious writing that can be a lesson for any soap opera writer. Always write new characters by sharing stories with existing ones rather than writing in silos. It works wonders.

The historical relevance of approaching the 1930s is not missed as ‘talkies’ taking over the film industry meant the kiss of death for most silent film stars.

The popular LGBTQ+ storyline is wonderfully written. A gay man in 1928 was doomed to either a life of hiding or one of loneliness and one character wisely references a ‘cruel world’ in regards to the viewpoint of the lifestyle.

Times were not changing just yet.

I am crossing my fingers that a third Downton Abbey film will be made. The characters and storylines still have life especially as the timeline progresses into the 1930s and the dire 1940s when World War II commences.

Downtown Abbey: A New Era (2022) proves that in the Covid-19 times a trusted old friend is needed tremendously. Even by way of the silver screen.

The Sand Pebbles-1966

The Sand Pebbles-1966

Director Robert Wise

Starring Steve McQueen, Candice Bergen, Richard Attenborough

Scott’s Review #1,257

Reviewed May 18, 2022

Grade: A-

The 1950s and 1960s can collectively be defined as the two decades representing the grandiose film epic, which are instantly recognizable cinematic sprawling, lengthy efforts and frequently encompassing a time.

The Sand Pebbles (1966) safely falls into this category especially because it’s a war film and one minute shy of a three-hour extravaganza.

The film was a critical and commercial success at the time of release and received several Academy Award nominations (see more below) but is not remembered as well as one might expect despite being a fantastic watch.

There is something that makes the film fly somewhere under the radar and I’m not sure why that is. It might be that an anti-war message film was not as common as it would become. In 1966 there had only just begun to be a United States movement questioning the government and war in general.

It wasn’t cool or acceptable yet.

Robert Anderson adapted the screenplay from the 1962 novel of the same name by Richard McKenna which I understand is very similar.

Robert Wise, famous for directing the very memorable The Sound of Music just one year prior in 1965 and the legendary West Side Story in 1961 is at the helm resulting in a superior direction, especially in the exterior sequences and the lush, oceanic sequences.

Star, Steve McQueen was at the height of popularity when this film was made which undoubtedly helped get butts in the seats to drool over the blue-eyed actor in his Navy attire.

The Sand Pebbles has a heavier touch and promotes an anti-war viewpoint from its main character. Therefore, it has a good solid message to go with the expected aspects of a war film.

It’s not dissimilar to The Bridge on the River Kwai (1957) made nearly a decade earlier.

Not lost on the viewer will be the Asian locales and the parallels with the controversial Vietnam conflict happening at the time.

We go back to 1926 when the USS San Pablo was patrolling the Yangtze River during the clashes between Chiang Kai-shek’s communists and Chinese warlords.

Eight-year veteran machinist Jake Holman (McQueen), new to the self-named “sand pebbles” crew, immediately draws deep suspicion due to his independent streak.

Ordered to protect Americans, including schoolteacher Shirley Eckhart (Candice Bergen), Jake and the gunboat crew are unwittingly drawn into a bitter nationalistic feud that holds grim consequences.

Besides his unforgettable turn in The Getaway in 1972, the role is McQueen’s finest and I’m not the biggest fan of his nor feel he is the greatest actor.

But, in The Sand Pebbles, he has tremendous material to work with and hits all cylinders throughout. The character is rootable and relatable to the audience.

The film also presents a fascinating look at Navy life with the camaraderie and depth of the supporting characters. There is comedy and drama and the additions of Richard Attenborough and Richard Crenna are stellar.

Naturally, Bergen is the romantic love interest for McQueen as Shirley and Jake have fledging feelings for each other.

Though the film ends abruptly there is enough pain, death, and confusion to leave the viewer thinking afterward and that is always an aspect of the film that I champion.

The Sand Pebbles (1966) is an underrated production that simmers beneath some other classics from the same decade but is a terrific watch for many reasons. It has an old-world feel despite being extremely timely representing a forage into the dangerous early 1970s history still to come.

Oscar Nominations: Best Picture, Best Actor-Steve McQueen, Best Supporting Actor-Mako, Best Art Direction-Color, Best Cinematography-Color, Best Film Editing, Best Original Music Score, Best Sound

The Power of the Dog-2021

The Power of the Dog-2021

Director Jane Campion

Starring Benedict Cumberbatch, Kirsten Dunst, Jesse Plemons

Scott’s Review #1,199

Reviewed November 21, 2021

Grade: A

Benedict Cumberbatch delivers a harrowing and brutally honest performance in The Power of the Dog (2021), a thought-provoking and layered film by Jane Campion. Parts western, gothic, and drama, Cumberbatch leads the charge but all players associated with the film knock it out of the park.

If the superior acting is not enough the eerie subtext and gorgeous cinematography put the viewer firmly in 1925 old Montana, where a vast and open range is the main setting. Characters are riddled with secrets and the fun is peeling back the onion on their motives and true desires.

There are enough bare male butts to titillate most viewers and Cumberbatch himself did not use the aid of a body double. He stated he wanted to be as raw and vulnerable as his character, the dastardly and cruel Phil Burbank.

Campion who hasn’t made a film in over a decade is back with a vengeance and imposes a nod to Ang Lee and his film Brokeback Mountain (2006).

From the first moment on screen, we know something is mesmerizing about Phil. He is handsome and severe, an alpha male if there ever was one, and attributes his savvy to his deceased father figure, Bronco Henry. His relationship with this man is key to the whole story.

Along with his brother George (Jesse Plemons), the Burbank brothers are wealthy ranchers. One day, at the Red Mill restaurant on their way to market, the brothers meet Rose (Kirsten Dunst), the widowed proprietress, and her impressionable and effeminate son Peter (Kodi Smit-McPhee).

Phil behaves cruelly to Rose and Peter but George becomes enamored with Rose and they marry much to Phil’s chagrin. Now all living together, Phil taunts Peter and terrorizes Rose but slowly begins to take the boy under his wing. But what are his true intentions and what will Peter do to save his mother from a complete breakdown?

The acting is so brilliant that I immediately became immersed in their lives. Particularly fascinating is Phil but Rose, George, and Peter are all substantial characters. All the characters intertwine and have special relationships with each other and all the principal actors are central to our fascination with them.

Rose may be Dunst’s best role yet and Plemons is terrific as the kind and steady George. Smit-McPhee, unknown to me, is a revelation as the androgynous young intellectual.

There are enough homoerotic scenes to make the viewer question Phil’s sexuality. His secret stash of strong man magazines and his long gazes at nude male sunbathers may be enough to unlock the key but when he rubs a handkerchief belonging to Bronco all over his body the relationship between the two men oozes to the surface.

Campion has a lot of guts in taking on the male-driven western genre and she brilliantly succeeds. Forgetting the storyline for a minute the ravishing and oftentimes lonely landscape makes the film gorgeous to look at, especially on the big screen. Plenty of long shots of the mountainous regions will inevitably grasp viewers and whisk them away to a long-ago time.

The Power of the Dog was shot in New Zealand but I was completely fooled into thinking Montana was the real filming location.

I adored seeing the costumes whether it be Rose in a housedress or more distinguished characters like the governor and his wife dressed for a dinner party. All costumes appear authentic and peppered with some glamour amidst the dirtiness of the range. Even the grubby ranch hands look great.

Discussions will certainly erupt once the film ends and isn’t that the point of great films? The Power of the Dog (2021) takes the tried and true western genre and infuses it with psychological layers. Thanks to Campion and the team she masterfully uses no gimmicks to bring the viewer into the world of the characters but instead offers authenticity and edge-of-your-seat drama.

Oscar Nominations: 1 win-Best Picture, Best Director-Jane Campion (won), Best Actor-Benedict Cumberbatch, Best Supporting Actor-Kodi Smit-McPhee, Jesse Plemons, Best Supporting Actress-Kirsten Dunst, Best Adapted Screenplay, Best Film Editing, Best Cinematography, Best Production Design, Best Original Score, Best Sound

Ragtime-1981

Ragtime-1981

Director Milos Forman

Starring Howard E. Rollins, Brad Dourif, Mary Steenburgen

Scott’s Review #1,183

Reviewed October 1, 2021

Grade: A-

Milos Forman, most famous for directing 1975’s One Flew Over the Cuckoo’s Nest and 1984’s Amadeus, creates a relevant period piece drama with a moving racial storyline.

Set in the turn of the twentieth-century New York, Ragtime (1981) mixes an important message with gorgeous costumes and a peppering of romantic intrigue.

The film was honored with an astounding eight Academy Award nominations but came away empty-handed.

The cast is enormous and I love that aspect of the film. At two hours and thirty-five minutes, the experience nearly felt too short since there were plenty of stories left to tell, mainly with the sub-plots.

Some resolutions are not clearly explained but of course, the central story ends tragically.

A fun fact is that initially Robert Altman was signed on to direct the film but was replaced by Forman. My mind conjures up endless juicy moments that Altman likely would have added. As good as Forman is Altman would have been even better.

There are also a few real-life people sprinkled in with fictitious characters which may cause some confusion, especially with the high volume cast. Newsreels of Theodore Roosevelt, Houdini, and architect Stanford White are featured.

A flurry of juicy tales based on E.L. Doctorow’s eponymous novel dissects life in pre-World War I New York City. The haves and have-nots see their lives intersect in many different ways.

A lavish party in Atlantic City is a fabulous highlight of Ragtime.

One day, a rich white family living in New Rochelle, New York, finds a black baby in their yard and takes in the mother (Debbie Allen) as a maid. A black pianist, Coalhouse Walker Jr. (Howard E. Rollins Jr.), returns for his woman and child after finding success in a Harlem jazz band.

A group of small-minded firefighters, irritated to see a successful black man own a Model-T Ford, deface it, and Walker demands retribution. This sets the main chain of events in the film as a war rages between Walker and his friends and the white firefighters.

There are more stories presented in a lesser form that I would have loved more from like the interesting friendship between the black Walker and the white younger brother played by Brad Dourif.

In a strange scene, millionaire industrialist Harry Kendall Thaw (Robert Joy) makes a scene when White unveils a nude statue atop Madison Square Garden, modeled after former chorus girl Evelyn Nesbit (Elizabeth McGovern), Thaw’s wife.

Convinced White has corrupted Evelyn, Thaw publicly shoots him dead.

From an acting perspective, the film belongs to Howard E. Rollins. I immediately treasured the character he plays and rooted for him to win. Intelligent yet put upon he goes through several incarnations of the character and twice as many emotions. He was by far the richest character of all as far as substance.

Other characters intrigued but to dissect them would be impossible since there were so many of them. McGovern, Mandy Patinkin, and Mary Steenburgen are my favorite characters.

The only slight drawback is that the film has a glossy look to it and gritty scenes are not powerful enough. As intense a moment as the finale is, for example, I wanted something dirtier. When Walker’s fate is sealed I wanted to be more frightened instead of feeling like I was being fed high drama.

Ragtime (1981) successfully and nearly flawlessly combines artistic style with an enormous social message. It looks polished and representative of the early 1900s and it challenges audiences to take a look at how different cultures co-existed in another time.

Oscar Nominations: Best Actor in a Supporting Role-Howard E. Rollins Jr., Best Actress in a Supporting Role-Elizabeth McGovern, Best Writing, Screenplay Based on Material From Another Medium, Best Art Direction-Set Direction, Best Cinematography, Best Costume Design, Best Music-Original Score, Best Music-Original Song-“One More Hour”

Bernice Bobs Her Hair-1976

Bernice Bobs Her Hair-1976

Director Joan Micklin Silver

Starring Shelley DuVall, Veronica Cartwright 

Scott’s Review #1,141

Reviewed May 12, 2021

Grade: B+

Much transpires within Bernice Bobs Her Hair (1976), a short film based on a short story by famed author F. Scott Fitzgerald.

For the non-literary crowd, Fitzgerald penned the worldly The Great Gatsby, a treasured story from the 1920s Long Island, New York setting.

The story was made into television production in 1976 for PBS for The American Short Story.

Bernice Bobs Her Hair is a quieter story than Gatsby, and more peculiar, resulting in a fabulous tale of revenge with a similar time of 1920, the cusp of the American Jazz Age.

The setting is presumed to be Long Island or Westchester County, New York though that’s never confirmed.

Regardless, our main character, Bernice (Shelley DuVall) hails from Wisconsin and comes to visit family.

The visit isn’t exactly peaches and cream as you can imagine.

The bitchy and sophisticated Marjorie (Veronica Cartwright), Bernice’s cousin, pities her for being awkward and unlikable, far inferior to the elitist company that Marjorie keeps. She rolls up her sleeves and becomes determined to shape Bernice into a sophisticated vixen, molding her into a girl who gets what she wants.

The idea ends up biting her in the ass.

Bernice, mocked for being quiet and dull, blossoms into a brave young woman, titillated by the attention of the society boys. She delights in having her pick of the litter and daringly proclaims to have her hair bobbed in a few days, to the shock and chagrin of the rich group of friends.

Would a young woman ever dare to do something so drastic for attention? Hell, she’ll have to go to a barber and be sheared!

Marjorie’s jealousy increases as Bernice’s confidence soars leading to a dramatic and satisfying conclusion.

DuVall is delightful in the role. The actress, very unconventional looking, appears the prettiest I’ve ever seen her, even when she plays dowdy. Telling so much with her wide-eyed and expression-filled eyes, she seduced me into her world of mystique and wonderment. DuVall has a charisma all her own and fascinates in any film she appears in.

Not to be overlooked, Veronica Cartwright, possesses Marjorie with fury and pizazz, also doing so much with her trademark blue eyes. The actresses work so well together as they eventually play a seductive game of will and wit.

For the boys, there are a few love interests to note. I loved seeing Bud Cort, struggling for work after his groundbreaking role in 1971’s Harold & Maude, appear in the short film. Insecure, he is nonetheless smitten with Bernice, just as Draycott Deyo (Patrick Byrne) is.

Other handsome suitors like Mark La Mura, of daytime television fame, appear.

The costumes and sets are lavish and fitting to the 1920s which enhanced my enjoyment. The hot summer setting also infuses the film with smoldering and rigid tension enhancing the experience. There is nothing like escaping into the past in style and enchantment.

The final revenge is extremely fulfilling as the classes clash. The socially awkward Bernice conquers the WASP’y Marjorie like a plain Jane would a beautiful evil princess. It’s quite satisfying.

The entire experience of Bernice Bobs Her Hair (1976) is pleasing and compelling. The kicker is when Bernice does indeed ‘bob her hair’ she looks amazing and trendy for the decade to follow. She gets her just desserts in more ways than one and the audience cheers her to victory!

Emma-2020

Emma-2020

Director-Autumn de Wilde

Starring-Anya Taylor-Joy, Johnny Flynn

Scott’s Review #1,128

Reviewed March 31, 2021

Grade: B

I haven’t read the classic Jane Austen novel written in 1815 nor have I seen the 1996 film version starring Gweneth Paltrow. Neither of these is a prerequisite to enjoying the 2020 version of Emma starring Anya Taylor-Joy in the lead role of Emma Woodhouse.

The film, while set in the early nineteenth century, feels incredibly contemporary and seemingly makes little attempt at a classic style save for the hair, makeup, and costumes. These items are splendid, and the high point, and make the film stylish and bright.

Beautiful, smart, and rich, Emma (Taylor-Joy) enjoys her matchmaking skills that sometimes lead to awkward or failed matches and romantic missteps. She claims to not be interested in her romance or potential suitors though that changes with time.

She struggles with the challenges of growing up, though she is pampered and has a habit of involving herself in other’s business. Emma is also mischievous and not always kind though deep down she is a good person and has regret when she hurts someone’s feelings with her antics.

In a good, coming of age way, she finally realizes that love for her and a proper match of her own has been there all along and staring her in the face.

The film begins with Emma’s governess, Miss Taylor (Gemma Whelan), marrying and becoming Mrs. Weston. She and Emma are best friends and Emma is saddened so she settles on Harriet Smith (Mia Goth), a younger girl whom Emma supposes is the unclaimed child of a gentleman; Harriet’s parents are unknown, but her education has been provided for. They become bonded and Emma’s influence is immeasured.

Taylor-Joy does a wonderful job in the title role and carefully makes Emma naughty and sometimes unlikable before carefully reeling her in with an act of kindness. She has no malice in mind but is often bored and looking for excitement. I found myself rooting for her to find romance with Mr. Knightley (Johnny Flynn), which she does but not without a hurdle or two on the way.

Other characters come and go with flirtations and romantic possibilities explored.

Speaking of Flynn, the actor is rumored to play rock icon David Bowie in a future theatrical feature. A real musician, Flynn should be the perfect casting for that important part. He is the only character to show some flesh, his bare bum, in Emma and one wonders if female director Autumn de Wilde did this purposefully. After all, traditionally in cinema, it’s been the female who is more commonly nude. Turnabout is fair play.

While Taylor-Joy is good she is nearly upstaged by the delightful Goth who is fabulous as the insecure and impressionable Harriet. With humor and innocence, she makes her character quite likable. I’d like to see more from this young actress. Bill Nighy is perfectly cast as the comical father of Emma while Miranda Hart as Miss Bates steamrolls over every scene she is in.

Some inconsistencies exist especially where Miss Bates is concerned. A quick mention that Miss Bates and her family had once been rich and are now struggling is not explored where it reportedly was in the novel.

Dividing the film into seasonal sections (Autumn, Winter, Spring, and Summer) is a good decision and makes it more like a novel. The winter snow and Christmas festivities along with a summer picnic do wonders to add fresh atmospheric tidbits. The many scenes of delicious spreads of food and drink laid out for hungry eyes to see offer a robust and colorful glimpse of the culture.

The vibrancy, the food, and the aforementioned clothing, all brimming with richness based on the seasons are the main draw. The castles and large houses featured surely small-town English style brim with vastness and atmosphere.

Emma (2020) is a fun film and the story is not the best part of it. Predictably, all characters wind up with romantically who they should wind up with and there is a happily ever after sensibility.

Adolescents can easily sit in comfort with their mother and father and enjoy the lightweight affair. Nobody will be offended and all will be satisfied. It’s a solid romantic period piece.

Oscar Nominations: Best Costume Design, Best Makeup & Hairstyling

1900 (Novecento)-1977

1900 (Novecento)-1977

Director Bernardo Bertolucci

Starring Robert De Niro, Gerard Depardieu

Scott’s Review #984

Reviewed January 28, 2020

Grade: A

An epic to rival all epics, 1900 (Novecento) (1977) is a grandiose offering of monumental proportions featuring legendary actors and created by a brilliant director.

With a running time of a whopping three-hundred and seventeen minutes in its original version, 1900 is known for being one of the longest commercially released films ever made.

The cinematography is breathtaking, and the historical values, like friendship, class distinction, and rivalry are outlined and explored in depth.

The key is to let the experience marinate and blossom with a slow and patient build.

Brilliant director Bernardo Bertolucci’s tale follows the lives of two Italian men, a peasant named Olmo (Gerard Depardieu) and landowner Alfredo, (Robert De Niro), both ironically born on January 1, 1900.

Inseparable as children, the two become estranged as their differing social status pulls them apart. Their conflicts mirror the political events in Italy, as both fascism and socialism gained prominence in the country.

Here is a bit of background on the film.

Due to its length, the film was presented in two parts when originally released in many countries, including Italy, East, and West Germany, Denmark, Belgium, Norway, Sweden, Colombia, Pakistan, and Japan.

In other countries, such as the United States, a single edited-down version of the film was released.

The latter is not the way to watch this film. I do not like severely edited films, especially in an epic such as 1900, so the full-length version is highly recommended.

The film opens on April 25, 1945, the day Italy is liberated from the fascists, and this is key to the political message Bertolucci crafts. As peasants revolt against the owner of the land, Alfredo (De Niro), and female laborers wield deadly pitchforks, the resulting ambiance is one of chaos.

We know nothing of Alfredo yet but know enough to realize he is rich and perceived as a tyrant. The natural reaction is to sympathize with them because they are oppressed.

As the film backtracks to the turn of the century, a more elegant scene emerges with the birth of two infants, Alfredo and Olmo. The sequence is sweet, both babies are bright and filled with promise.

Sadly, this is not meant to be.

A railway track is an important addition to the film and one that culminates in the climactic finale.

The most interesting aspect of the film is the dynamic development of Alfredo and Olmo as they grow. Alfredo resents his family’s wealth and sides with Olmo, a socialist. Alfredo sees his family as false and Olmo and his family as genuine.

This aspect is timeless and can be related to by any viewer with any intelligent sense of the world today. The obvious analogy of the haves and have-nots cannot be clearer in this film. Frightening, is that some have-nots are convinced they will one day become the haves.

The messages and feelings that 1900 elicited are emotional and strong. Aren’t all men created equal? On the surface they are, but Alfredo and Olmo are not equal. As the birth scene reveals and as Bertolucci makes clear, they are born with advantages and disadvantages.

These characteristics simply are what they are, and as human beings grow and learn social norms the financial differences become more robust and the humanistic connections weaker.

If the social aspects of the film or the brilliant cinematography are not enough to please a viewer, the historical lessons presented are second to none. One can revel in the political and historical excitement that existed in Europe throughout the forty-five years in which the film is set.

I wish Hollywood made more films like this.

1900 (Novecento) (1977) can be enjoyed as both a grandiose dramatic period piece, revered for its majestic and flourishing design style, or as a thought-provoking message film, about the unresolved social class distinctions that exist in the world.

I found the film a treasure that works on all levels and showcases just how good a director Bertolucci is.

This film is not his best-known work, but for fans of cinema as an art form, this is a must-see.

Little Women-2019

Little Women-2019

Director-Greta Gerwig

Starring-Saoirse Ronan, Florence Pugh

Scott’s Review #982

Reviewed January 21, 2020

Grade: A-

Numerous creations of the illustrious 1860s classic novel by Louisa May Alcott have been forged upon the silver screen, some good and some not as good.

The consensus is that Little Women (2019) is one of the better offerings, if not the best.

Director, Greta Gerwig crafts a clear feminist, progressive version of the trials and tribulations of the March family, led by spirited spit-fire, Jo (Saoirse Ronan). Gerwig’s telling is fantastic, breathing fresh life into a classic story.

The story fluctuates heavily between 1868 and 1861, during and after the United States Civil War.

Liberal, the Marches reside in Massachusetts, led by matriarch Marmee (Laura Dern) mainly living life while their patriarch, Father March (Bob Odenkirk) is off at war. The rest of the household includes sisters Jo, Meg (Emily Watson), Amy (Florence Pugh), and the youngest daughter, Beth (Eliza Scanlen).

The family endures joy, hardship, romance, love, and death as they carry on through the decade.

The focal point is Jo, a determined young lady, who moves to New York City, frequently reflecting on her life through back and forth sequences.

She begins, as an aspiring writer as she grows up, eventually becoming a success and boldly having her novel published. She resists the tried and true and questions why a woman must rely on a man for success rather than her efforts and talents.

During the story, she is pursued by two young men, Laurie (Timothee Chalamet) and Friedrich (Louis Garrel).

Little Women is a fantastic and emotional story and a film that has no need for CGI, car chases, explosions, or any ingredients meant to enliven a film. It does not need them.

The excitement is in the plot, as we thirst for more of the ups and downs that the March family faces. With any successful drama, there are nuanced characters, each taking a turn at a story.

While Jo is the headliner, Amy, Meg, and Beth are much more than opening acts. They each have their own lives, dreams, triumphs, and hardships, and the audience cares about each of them.

To capitalize on this point, the casting is dynamite. In a small, but brilliant role, Meryl Streep gives a bombast to her character of Aunt March, the wealthy widow who owns a gorgeous house and vacations in Paris. She is cranky, but wise, only wanting the very best for her nieces, which is, of course, to marry rich!

Ronan is well cast and charismatic as Jo, the actress losing her Irish accent for an American one. She uses her acting chops to infuse Jo with determination and just enough empathy to win over audiences.

Gerwig assures that the audience is reminded of the times and what it meant to be female during the 1860s, with a minimal chance at self-achievement, having to rely on a man for nearly everything.

She is in no way demeans or ridicules the male gender though. She paints no villains in her film, instead of showing men as supportive at times, enamored at other times, but never exerting their power over women.

Little Women receives a small demerit in the pacing department. The film sharply plows back and forth, in a too rapid way, from period to period, at times leaving the viewer unclear as to what section in the film he or she is in.

Blessedly, this ceases about midway through, but the technique is jarring and unnecessary. One wonders what the action was intended for and why not a more straightforward approach to the storytelling was used.

A key facet of any outstanding film is the emotional reaction and Little Women had this viewer with tears streaming down his face. Sometimes for joy, sometimes for sadness, all in an organic way given oomph by a powerful musical score that resonates but never overwhelms.

The film is one in which most of the elements come together in perfect harmony.

The film was served up six nominations, including Best Picture, Best Actress (Ronan), Best Supporting Actress (Pugh), and Best Adapted Screenplay. Sadly, and in a never-ending slight for female directors, Gerwig was overlooked.

Before 2019’s Little Women, the novel was adapted six times for film, most successfully in 1933 and 1949. Seventy years later, the most modern version is arguably the best, with a left-leaning stance that is oh so necessary in modern times.

Oscar Nominations: Best Picture, Best Actress-Saoirse Ronan, Best Supporting Actress-Florence Pugh, Best Adapted Screenplay, Best Original Score, Best Costume Design (won)

A Passage to India-1984

A Passage to India-1984

Director David Lean

Starring Judy Davis, Peggy Ashcroft

Scott’s Review #971

Reviewed December 24, 2019

Grade: A-

David Lean, famous for his sweeping, masterpiece epics including Lawrence of Arabia (1962) and Doctor Zhivago (1965), returns with his swan song, a grandiose and lavish film, A Passage to India (1984).

Though not quite on the same level as the two other mentions, the brilliant cinematography alone makes this one a winner.

The story is compelling with a mystery and he said/she said rape story that deepens, exploring racism and religion, assuredly switching viewer allegiances between characters.

A Passage to India is based on the famous E.M. Forster novel from 1924. Along with A Room with a View (1908) and Howards End (1910), the three make up a series that examines class differences and hypocrisy among the British.

All three are set at least partially in England and were all adapted to film with immeasurable success. While the film is potent and meaningful, it is the least brilliant of the three, but only by a hair.

Set in the 1920s, the British had control over India causing some tensions in the air. Adela Quested (Judy Davis) sails from England to India with Mrs. Moore (Peggy Ashcroft), the mother of her intended bridegroom, whom they plan to see when they arrive at their destination.

The women have a wonderful relationship and excitedly anticipate their adventure.

After Mrs. Moore meets the kindly Dr. Aziz Ahmed (Victor Banerjee), becoming enamored and enraptured, the women accompany him to an exploration of ancient caves, along with a guide.

When Adela and Ahmed are left alone, she suddenly appears frantic, accusing the Indian Doctor of attempted rape, setting off a blistering scandal that causes public debate and divides the townspeople, culminating in a trial.

The story is naturally the focal point of the film, but not the strongest part. At first left aghast at the accusations hurled at Aziz, by all appearances a wonderful man, the intention is for the viewer to be unclear of what transpires when Aziz and Adela are alone. The events, if any exist, take place off-screen, so we only see a disheveled Adela flee the caves in panic.

The rest is left to the viewer’s imagination and to wonder what happened. As the truth is eventually revealed, we wonder about the intended motivations and the ramifications the accusations will have on the central characters.

The film is successful at interestingly discussing racism and assumptions, leading major characters to disagree. Adela and Mrs. Moore wind up at odds after the events, with Moore refusing to believe Aziz did anything wrong.

This is a bold stance to take as the women are good friends and we would assume one would support the other. While Moore is liberal and open-minded, Adela is conservative and buttoned-up, making the ideological differences clearer.

Did Adela imagine the attack? Did somebody else attack her?

The cinematography is brilliant and the pure excellence of the film is. The plentiful exterior scenes are delectable and simmer with beauty within each frame. Since many of them take place in the grandiose mountains or caves the results are exquisite.

One can easily sit back and revel in the majestic sequences and many scenes are still and quiet which enhances the effects. As with other Lean epics, it advisable is to see this film on the biggest screen known to mankind.

At one-hundred and sixty-four minutes, the film is hardly non-stop action, but rather slightly laborious and lumbering. Some parts are a tad too slow, but the payoff is mighty and there is a measure of intrigue throughout, especially once the cave incident occurs.

I hate to say the film drags, but perhaps fifteen to twenty minutes could have been shaved off. When Lean is at the helm, a hefty running time is a guarantee.

A Passage to India (1984) is a film by a respected director that culminates a lengthy and inspired career boldly. While not his best film, this should not detract from the excellent experience the film provides.

Grandiose sequences and sophisticated style make the film able to be viewed more than once, a marvel for a film released in the lackluster 1980s.

Oscar Nominations: 2 wins-Best Picture, Best Director-David Lean, Best Actress-Judy Davis, Best Supporting Actress-Peggy Ashcroft (won), Best Screenplay Based on Material from Another Medium, Best Original Score (won), Best Sound, Best Art Direction, Best Costume Design, Best Cinematography, Best Film Editing

Downton Abbey-2019

Downton Abbey-2019

Director-Michael Engler

Starring-Hugh Bonneville, Michelle Dockery, Maggie Smith

Scott’s Review #947

Reviewed October 16, 2019

Grade: B+

Capitalizing on the tremendous success of the television series which went off the air in 2015, Downton Abbey (2019) is a British historical period drama film written by Julian Fellowes, creator, and writer of the series.

Beloved fans will eat the film up as the familiar formula and characters are brought to the big screen giving it an even grander feel.

The film plays more like a two-hour episode arc over reinventing the wheel, but the result is a resounding crowd-pleasing affair with drama, scandals, and a good dose of nostalgia.

The Crawleys and their servants reside in the lavish fictional estate of Downton Abbey during the year 1927, a year and a half after the series ended.

Little has changed and most of the characters are in similar situations, enjoying their daily lives. Robert (Hugh Bonneville) and Cora Crawley (Elizabeth McGovern), the Earl and Countess of Grantham, are notified that King George V and Queen Mary will visit their home as part of a royal tour throughout the country.

The family and staff are excited yet skittish as they prepare to ensure the lavish event goes off without a hitch.

Situations arise such as the Downton Abbey servants feuding with the Buckingham Palace staff, Violet Crawley’s (Maggie Smith) dismay at Robert’s cousin Maud (Imelda Staunton) being in attendance, and attempted plot to kill the King which is thwarted by Tom (Allen Leach), a new job offer for Edith’s (Laura Carmichael) husband, Mary’s (Michelle Dockery) frustration with keeping the vast estate up and running, and potential romances for several of the characters, including a scandalous same-sex relationship.

A few contemporary issues are created – among them women’s rights and the plight of gay men. And though welcome, neither changes the overall blueprint of what the series is about. Which is just what the series fans ordered.

Smith is the main attraction as she chews up the scenery with her insults, sarcasm, and blunt honesty. But the best scene, coming late in the film, gives Smith a chance to burst with sentimentality and limit the hammy for at least one treasured scene.

The costumes and art direction are lovely with luscious gowns, tuxedos, suits, jackets, hats, and shoes found in every scene.

The sprawling grounds of Downton Abbey and the ravishing interiors are front and center. The film takes a foray to the neighboring city of York to offer a more progressive and metropolitan vibe, but each scene looks perfect, which is what fans have come to expect.

Not every character is front and center, but with an unwieldy cast of close to thirty principles, some are destined to accept back-burner status.

Surprising, yet agreeable, is the toned-down story for “super-couple” Bates (Brendan Coyle) and Anna (Joanne Froggatt), having enjoyed their share of trials and tribulations during the original run. Wonderful moments feature supporting characters like Carson (Jim Carter), Thomas (Robert James-Collier), and Molesley (Kevin Doyle), who nearly steals the show with his hysterical fascination with royalty.

The balance and pace of the film are nearly perfect, and every character has at least something to do.

This characteristic has always helped huge ensemble casts succeed and Fellowes wisely balances humor with drama but avoids tragedy or dark situations, hoping for mainstream success with his move to the big screen, opting to play it safe. The attempt succeeds as the film takes the “if it ain’t broke don’t fix” approach.

Downton Abbey (2019) is a splendid winner based solely on production values and costumes.

For fans of the television series the film is a must-see and offers no more or no less than expected, more than enough to please those wanting what the popular stories originally offered. Despite the drama, the film does not feel “soapy” nor contrived and the tender moments may cause the need for a hankie.

If the writing can remain fresh I see no reason for another offering not to be green-lit especially due to the large box-office returns.

The Aftermath-2019

The Aftermath-2019

Director-James Kent

Starring-Keira Knightley, Alexander Skarsgard, Jason Clarke

Scott’s Review #940

Reviewed September 13, 2019

Grade: B-

The Aftermath (2019) is a heavily melodramatic post World War II period film riddled with cliches and proper plot setups but is nonetheless a moderately enjoyable experience. With a marginal romantic triangle in play and good-looking stars, this can only go so far as predictability soon sets in.

Exquisite to look at with a bright and lush European ambiance, the picture is easy on the eyes but lacks in good story or surprises. The film will be forgotten before long.

The period is 1945 and the murderous war is still fresh on the minds of all affected and animosity remains between the English and the German.

Rachael Morgan (Knightley) arrives in Hamburg during the bitter winter season to reunite with her British husband, Lewis (Clarke), who is tasked with helping to rebuild the decimated city.

The Morgans reside with a handsome German architect, Stefan, (Skarsgard), and his teenage daughter, Freda. Resentment exists between the four since Morgan’s son was killed by a German-caused explosion.

Both positives and negatives are contained within the film.

The casting of Knightley, Skarsgard, and Clarke brings professionalism and A-list sensibility so that the viewer is keen to be watching a glossy Hollywood affair. The offering of a robust romantic triangle is not fair to say since from the moment Rachael and Stefan meet they can barely take their eyes from one another.

As if this is not enough, the largely absent Lewis leaves plenty of alone time for Stefan and Rachael to lustfully watch each other. Nonetheless, Knightley and Skarsgard share great chemistry.

The time and setting are also well done. The gorgeous German house in which Stefan and daughter reside feels both grand and cozy complete with a piano and enough open space to go along perfectly with the snowy and crisp exterior shots.

The coldness mixes with the fresh effects of those ravaged by war. Music is played frequently, and a female servant dutifully waits on all principles during dinners and desserts adding classic sophistication to the film.

So, the look of it all is quite lovely.

Despite the elements outlined above the story is a real weak point of The Aftermath. It is riddled with cliche after cliche and seems to want to take a page out of every war romance imaginable. Rachael at first loathes Stefan simply for being German despite clearly being in lust with him.

Her constant gazes into the distance (thoughtfully pondering what, we wonder?) grow stale and the product is just not very interesting.

A silly side story involving Freda’s boyfriend being involved in Werwolf, a Nazi resistance movement, seems unnecessary and merely a way to momentarily cast suspicion on Stefan.

The film is plot-driven rather than character-driven, and this makes the characters less than compelling.

The final sequence, set on a train platform as Rachael, Stefan, and Freda eagerly decide to steal away into the sunset and begin a new life together, is standard fare. Lewis, the odd man out, is a bit too okay with the circumstances of Rachael and Stefan’s passion to be believed.

The farewell scene is stolen from the superb 2002 classic Far from Heaven and nearly identical in every way.

Marvelous to look at and nurturing a slight historical lesson within its bright veneer, The Aftermath (2019) is a soap opera story-telling of a romance between two individuals who are not supposed to fall in love.

The film has pros and cons and is an okay watch, mainly because the talented cast rises it slightly above mediocrity, adding some measure of realism and avoiding it from being a disaster.

Recommended for anyone who adores melodrama mixed with a classic period piece.

Colette-2018

Colette-2018

Director-Wash Westmoreland

Starring-Keira Knightley, Dominic West

Scott’s Review #888

Reviewed April 20, 2019

Grade: B+

Colette (2018) is a French period piece and biography based on the life and times of novelist Sidonie-Gabrielle Colette.

The film is directed by Wash Westmoreland who also directed Still Alice (2014), so the man is successful at creating a film from a strong female point of view.

With a prominent and cultured French style and sophistication, the film pairs well with and ultimately belongs to star Keira Knightley.

The glaring British accents rather than French and the formulaic approach bring the experience down a notch from grandeur in a film likely to be forgotten.

Knightley plays the title character whose upbringing in a rural area of France is pleasant but hardly sophisticated and utterly country. When Colette meets a handsome literary genius named Willy (Dominic West), successful but employing ghostwriters to fill his creative void, the pair marry and combine forces to create popular novels based on Colette’s naughty schoolgirl experiences.

The duo embarks on frequent dalliances with feminine and masculine women (Colette is bisexual) and faces the trials and tribulations of seesawing finances and competitiveness until their ultimate divorce. Along the way, Willy and Colette enjoy the excesses of late nineteenth-century Paris.

Besides a few quick exterior shots of the Seine River and fabulous Parisian landmarks such as Notre Dame, the filming likely did not take place in France at all though you’d never know it.

Both cozy and flamboyant scenes of Parisian eateries and lavish nightclubs like the Moulin Rouge and one rich socialite’s love nest are featured giving the film an authentic French flair.

The costumes are decadent, and stage shows with Colette and her partner crackle with daring artistic merit.

Knightley, a household name but still teetering on the brink of one definitive great role comes close with her portrayal of Colette. Westmoreland is wise to climax the film with photos and a summary of the real-life writer and her husband.

If only the film exceeded marginally good reviews and achieved great reviews, then perhaps the actress may have secured an Oscar nomination but alas the proverbial boat was missed. Nonetheless, Knightley plays the role with delicious and naughty delight sinking her teeth into a character who wants to live and have fun.

Despite the rich French flavor Colette is plagued by a jarring fault as the actors all possess English accents rather than French. All in favor of occasional suspensions of disbelief to elicit the desired effect or manipulation, assumptions are that Westmoreland decided since most of the actors are British to let the detail slide in favor of comfort in tongues.

Perhaps this misfire is why the sets and locations are overcompensated and decorated in such lovely French style.

The story is formulaic and silly if truth be told while Knightley and West share grand chemistry. As Willy and Colette paint the town they also have repeated misunderstandings or outbursts of rage and jealousy (mostly on her part) before deciding to accept and enjoy each other as they are.

Unfortunate is how through the affairs and celebratory nights Colette accepts her role as a ghostwriter to his name recognition only to divorce and never see Willy again based on his sale of the treasured Claudine series. Hopeful was I for a happily ever after result.

A crisp and polished offering of the life and times of a complex and peculiar French figure Colette (2018) has its share of ups and downs.

Unknown how true to real life the story is, the acting compels and accomplishes a high point while the cultured flavor is zestful and spicy.

The film may not be well remembered but is ultimately a success for a few above-par qualities that supersede the negatives.

Mary Queen of Scots-2018

Mary Queen of Scots-2018

Director-Josie Rourke

Starring-Saoirse Ronan, Margot Robbie

Scott’s Review #851

Reviewed January 2, 2019

Grade: B+

A period piece that has all the trimmings for brilliance (on paper anyway) Mary Queen of Scots (2018) is a very good film but misses the mark in the pacing department preventing it from being a truly great film.

Fantastic acting and wonderful photography are the high points of an otherwise uneven experience even if most of the components are intact. This is not so much a total knock as much as a light critique as the film is ultimately quite good and just missing the big oomph to take it over the top.

Saoirse Ronan stars as Mary Stuart, the likable Queen of France, who has returned to her native Scotland to reclaim the throne after her husband dies. Only eighteen years of age she initially refuses pressure to remarry, but conflict ultimately ensues with Queen Elizabeth I (Margot Robbie), who rules neighboring England and Ireland.

The women admire each other from afar but develop a rivalry in power and love. To complicate matters, religious conflict, scandals, and deceit are enveloped within the story.

The feminist theme is inspiring and makes the film better than merely a soap opera of two rival females sparring over men.

In the mid-sixteenth century women in control were hardly commonplace and quite resented by the men forced to serve the “whims of women” as one male character puts it.

Constantly showcased are males’ attempts at wooing the women in hopes of gaining power and ultimately the throne.

Still, director Josie Rourke (a woman) keeps the power firmly among the women showing they can be as tough as they are sympathetic.

Furthermore, Mary Queen of Scots continues its progressive agenda with a startling LGBT sub-plot, which largely enriches the image of Mary. One young androgynous male friend, presumably a bodyguard, frolics with Mary and other maids and confesses that he feels more like a sister than a brother to her. She accepts him wholeheartedly with an added message of “being your true nature”.

Later, the character suffers a terrible fate that devastates Mary. Regardless of the accuracy, what a nice addition to include with an inspiring message.

The acting, particularly among leads Ronan and Robbie are fantastic. Both young “it” women in Hollywood, the roles of Mary and Elizabeth showcase their acting talents and chops for handling period piece roles.

Ronan, with flawless pale skin and authentic red locks, is beyond believable as Mary exudes strength yet kindness in the role she tackles. She can be stubborn, but also fun and light and Ronan has no trouble making the role her own.

Robbie, hot on the heels of playing the trailer trash character of Tonya Harding in I, Tonya (2017) hits it out of the park and does a one-eighty with the role of Elizabeth. Insecure and barren, afflicted with a skin disorder and a balding head of hair, the actress infuses the character with sensitivity and composure.

As she wears bawdy wigs and pancake makeup to hide her affliction, Robbie portrays her insecurity and yearning for unconditional love.

A mistake that Rourke makes is not including more scenes of Ronan and Robbie together save for one treasured scene at the very end of the film. This makes for a wasted opportunity as the treasured actresses could have played off of each other’s talents in innumerable ways.

A knock-down, drag-out fight scene would have been a treasure to view.

The male characters do not leave much impact other than perhaps Lord Darnley (Jack Lowden), Mary’s bisexual second husband. As he betrays her on her wedding night with another man, Mary sees little use for him other than to produce a child.

The handsome blonde actor adds some pizzazz but is ultimately unlikable as are the other similarly written men. Mary’s half-brother and Elizabeth’s advisor (Guy Pearce) are fine but ultimately underdeveloped.

Mary Queen of Scots (2018) is an effort to be commended for the female-driven and pro-LGBT stances its features. Perhaps unrealistic given the period and questions of historical accuracy looming over the entire film, problems with the production do exist.

The film ebbs and flows will some high moments and some looming blandness, but overall is to be respected and thereby recommended.

Oscar Nominations: Best Makeup and Hairstyling, Best Costume Design

The Favourite-2018

The Favourite-2018

Director-Yorgos Lanthimos

Starring-Olivia Colman, Emma Stone, Rachel Weisz

Scott’s Review #843 

Reviewed December 17, 2018

Grade: A

The Favourite (2018) is a deliciously wicked comedy about greed, jealousy, and rage during early eighteenth-century England.

The primary rivalry consists of two feuding cousins, each jockeying for position and “favor” with the Queen, both resorting to dire methods to achieve these goals.

With splendid acting and grand designs, director Yorgos Lanthimos adds to his growing collection of odd and compelling works with the dark comedy offering.

The film takes place amid the British and French war of 1708 as a physically and mentally ill Queen Anne (Olivia Colman) rules the country by way of her confidante and secret lover, Sarah, Duchess of Marlborough (Rachel Weisz).

Though deals and modifications must be made with the ruling Parliament Anne has the final say in all decisions including doubling the state tax to pay for the war.

When Abigail (Emma Stone), a distant cousin of the Duchess, and former royalty herself, arrives seeking work as a servant, she quickly plots her way to the bedside of the Queen at all costs.

Lanthimos, known for such bizarre treats like Dogtooth (2009), The Lobster (2015), and The Killing of a Sacred Deer (2017), is not afraid to get down and dirty and wrestle with the macabre subject matter.

The Favourite is the director’s most mainstream affair yet and is quickly becoming one of my favorite modern-day filmmakers. As he now charters into royal territory the possibilities are endless in a world of politics and scheming.

Some morose highlights include an abused bunny, naked tomato throwing, and pheasant shooting.

The film is not kind to animals.

Despite being a mainstream affair in the world of Lanthimos, The Favourite is a bizarre and brazen experience. The heaps of award nominations are quite remarkable given the film will not be enjoyed by all audiences.

Despite being categorized as a comedy (see more below) the film is not an easy watch and none of the characters are likable. Abigail is sympathetic at first and quite humorous but as the plot develops her true colors and motivations are exposed.

Conversely, Anne and Sarah are initially despicable, but garner support as the story evolves.

The comic elements are the best elements and clever lines come at a deliciously rapid pace. The best dialogue is the sparring between Sarah and Abigail as the women realize they are bitter enemies and each attempt to one-up the other in a chess game for Anne’s attention.

Anne, known for fits of emotion, stuffing her face with cake and vomiting, and berating the servants, offers her comic wit. The language is salty bordering on vulgar, but that is what makes the experience so stellar and morosely enjoyable.

The musical score adds muscle and the diabolical string arrangements give The Favourite a gruesome, morbid atmosphere.

The feeling of dread is prevalent and downright haunting at times as the audience, knowing that some sort of shenanigans will soon occur, does not know when or how.

This quality enhances the overall product and gives ambiance to an already superior piece.

Finally, the acting in The Favourite is brilliant and worth the price of admission. With heavyweights like Colman, Stone, and Weisz this is unsurprising, but the gravy is in the individual moments.

The chemistry the women share is what works best as every scene sparkles with exceptional delivery and a sly sense of humor. When the three women appear together-these are the best scenes.

Deserving of all the accolades lauded upon it The Favourite (2018) is an experience that contains all elements of a fine film though one that is quite the unconventional work.

With glistening art direction, set pieces that shine with authenticity, and costumes that would make Scarlett O’Hara drool with envy, The Favourite takes all of its parts and spins a crafty tale that encompasses the entire film.

Oscar Nominations: Best Picture, Best Director-Yorgos Lanthimos, Best Actress-Olivia Colman (won), Best Supporting Actress-Emma Stone, Rachel Weisz, Best Original Screenplay, Best Production Design, Best Cinematography, Best Costume Design, Best Film Editing

Independent Spirit Award Nominations: Best International Film

Vanity Fair-2004

Vanity Fair-2004

Director Mira Nair

Starring Reese Witherspoon, James Purefoy

Scott’s Review #772

Reviewed June 12, 2018

Grade: B

An adaptation of the classic 1848 novel written by William Makepeace Thackeray, Vanity Fair (2004) softens the traditionally unlikable and roguish character of Becky Thatcher quite a bit.

This proves not to be the smartest move as the character, now more of a heroine is watered down and forever changed, as is this film adaptation.

Reese Witherspoon (Becky) drew harsh criticism for her starring turn, but I do not think she is so bad, and the costumes and set designs are wonderful and quite the highlight of the resulting period piece.

In 1802 England, we meet Becky Sharp, a young woman who has just graduated from a School for Girls and been sent to work as a governess. Because her father, a talented painter, is impoverished, Becky is cast aside as lower class and deemed undesirable to anybody upper class- the men she is most interested in.

Despite her reputation as a tart, Becky aspires to marry rich and frequently gets into trouble with her shenanigans and smart tongue while romance blooms with the handsome Rawdon Crawley (Purefoy).

The story is supposed to encompass Becky’s life from approximately age eighteen through her mid-thirties (though Witherspoon never appears to age) and displays her trials and tribulations, her loves and losses through the years.

We follow her from rural England to London and Belgium, eventually residing in Germany, reduced to working in a casino, where the film concludes.

The film is a treat as the various countries as they appeared in the nineteenth century, and the wars and battles occurring during this period are featured making for an interesting history lesson.

The main appeal should be Becky Thatcher since the film revolves around her, and numerous criticisms were thrown around accusing the film of casting Reese Witherspoon in the important and demanding role based on her star power at the time.

In 2004 Witherspoon was experiencing enormous film success after 2001’s Legally Blonde and 2002’s Sweet Home Alabama- admittedly fluff films- but securing her box office power nonetheless. These films undoubtedly led to her being cast in the pivotal role, but I thought the star was perfectly adequate and gave Becky appropriate humor and zest.

Based on Witherspoon’s “girl next door” persona and the fact that she just looks like a good character- perplexing the decision to cast her if filmmakers wanted to be true to the character.

Witherspoon was delicious in 1999’s Election as villainous Tracy Flick, a role of a lifetime. But that is the exception and not the standard.

But I digress- the bottom line is that while she is a capable actress, she does not give the gritty performance that many were expecting to be true to the character in the novel.

The rest of Vanity Fair is just mediocre as far as the story goes.

While the antics of Becky are both humorous and dramatic, her rooting value in the romance department does not come across in the 2004 film offers- not enough chemistry exists between the leads to warrant much support.

Opinions abound that other incarnations of Vanity Fair are far more superior and compelling than this film is, but I have yet to see any.

Compliments must be reaped on the costume department and the art direction- both are superior. Such threats are the lavish and colorful costumes and gowns that mark the time. From the classic style hats and highfalutin dresses featured in ball after ball, this aspect is nearly enough to recommend a watch over the dull story and immeasurably the highlight of the entire film.

Vanity Fair (2004) is considered a messy travesty to those well-read enough to have turned the pages of the classic novel. Since I have not yet read the book, perhaps I enjoyed the film slightly more than I should have, but alas, I did not find the casting of Witherspoon as Becky nor the overall product to be drivel as many did.

I recommend the film for the gorgeous visual treats if nothing else.

Mudbound-2017

Mudbound-2017

Director-Dee Rees

Starring-Carey Mulligan, Garrett Hedlund

Scott’s Review #724

Reviewed February 12, 2018

Grade: B+

Mudbound is a 2017 Netflix period drama offering that transports the viewer to a time of racism and struggles as World War II ravaged Europe.

The piece is largely set in rural Mississippi, however, during the 1940s as a vastly different way of life existed for most- especially black folks.

The film depicts the hardships and struggles of two families living on the same land- one white and one black, and how their lives intersect with one another’s dramatical.

The film received several Oscar nominations including Adapted Screenplay, Supporting Actress, Song, and Cinematography. I will suffice it to say I support the latter two mentions in the group, but not the former.

While the final act kicks the film into much-needed high gear, and the filming detail of the rural southern terrain is quite apt, I kept waiting for a stunning scene involving the usually wonderful Mary J. Blige to erupt, but sadly nothing ever came.

The writing, while inspired, would not get my vote in the screenplay category either, especially when other, more worthy films (think Mother!) were bypassed.

The mood of Mudbound is immediately impressive as we are introduced to the grizzled and muddy town of Marietta, Mississippi, a sort of farm wasteland, where brothers Henry and Jamie McAllan struggle to bury their recently deceased “Pappy” as the lands are ravaged by a driving storm.

When Henry briefly leaves Jamie in the watery grave the pair has dug, Jamie is panic-stricken that Henry will not return. In this way, director Dee Rees reveals a major clue to tension between the brothers as the film rewinds to sometime earlier when times were happier for the brothers.

Mixed in with the trials and tribulations of brothers McAllan, is Henry’s wife Laura (Carey Mulligan), who shares a loveless marriage with him, while secretly lusting after Jamie.

A poor black family resides and works on the McAllan farm, and must endure hardship and racism from the white residents of Marietta, especially when their son Ronsel returns from World War II, a celebrated hero. Old habits die hard as the Ku Klux Klan rears its ugly head- targeting the young soldier for daring to bed with a German woman abroad.

As most of the film meanders during the first hour or so with odd edits and pacing, I did not easily connect with many of the characters, though I wanted desperately to.

There seemed to be not enough buildup to the ultimate drama. The film is shot in a way that you know you are watching something of substance, but it takes a long, long time to reach a crescendo.

The aforementioned criticism of Mary J. Blige, who portrays long-suffering matriarch Florence Jackson, is not of the part itself or her acting, but rather, I expected a gritty, meat and potatoes style performance from the talented lady.

I disagree with her Oscar nomination, and instead would have chosen the brilliant Michelle Pfeiffer from Mother!

Praise must be written for Mulligan’s performance, shamefully overlooked, like the haggard, intellectually unfulfilled housewife, Laura. As she wistfully buries her nose in a novel to escape her dull life, or longingly looks at Jamie, disappointed with her loneliness, we feel every emotion that Mulligan plays.

A consistent problem with Mudbound was there lacked a grand emotional scene from either Blige or Mulligan.

The film’s racist subject matter can be utterly difficult to watch as a major character sees their tongue removed and another character forced to make a difficult choice. This action leads to a deadly turn of events and the murder of another character, resulting in a lifetime of secrets.

The final thirty minutes is the best part of Mudbound.

A must mention, and the historical feat is the nomination of Rachel Morrison in the cinematography category. She is the very first female to ever receive this honor and it is certainly about time. Morrison successfully fills Mudbound with the perfect mood- both picturesque greenery and a depressing, downtrodden aura.

This is not as easy as one might imagine, but creative talent achieves this effortlessly.

Mudbound is a film that has received lots of attention but is not the masterpiece some are touting it as. Taking way too long to hit its stride, the film has good aspects and also some missed opportunities.

Perhaps a better put-together film might have resulted in a brilliant experience instead of “only” a very good watch. I recommend Mudbound, but I expected and hoped for much more than I was given.

Oscar Nominations: Best Supporting Actress-Mary J. Blige, Best Adapted Screenplay, Best Original Song-“Mighty River”, Best Cinematography

Independent Spirit Award Nominations: Robert Altman Award (won)

Howards End-1992

Howards End-1992

Director James Ivory

Starring Anthony Hopkins, Emma Thompson, Helena Bonham Carter

Scott’s Review #702

Reviewed December 1, 2017

Grade: A-

Howards End is my favorite film in the collection of E.M. Forster’s adapted novels turned into films during the 1980s and 1990s (1985’s A Room with a View and 1987’s Maurice are the other two quality works).

The novels were written during the early 1900s and set during the same period, focusing on class relations in 20th-century England.

The film is lovely, and picturesque, and tells an interesting story about romance and drama between the haves and the have-nots during this period.

The film was a success and received heaps of Academy Award nominations in 1993.

Margaret Schlegel (Emma Thompson), an upper-middle-class intellectual, part of London’s bourgeoisie, befriends wealthy and sophisticated, yet shockingly conservative Ruth Wilcox (Vanessa Redgrave).

The two women strike up a powerful friendship, which results in her beloved country home being left to Margaret when an ailing Mrs. Wilcox dies.

To complicate matters, Margaret falls in love with a businessman (and husband of Ruth), Henry (Anthony Hopkins), while Margaret’s sister Helen, briefly becomes engaged to Paul Wilcox, Henry’s son.

The two families’ lives further intersect when they wind up as neighbors in London and the true owner of the beloved “Howards End” is questioned.

Added to the mix are several other characters of various social backgrounds, having connections to the families.

The writing in Howard’s End is rich and emotional as each character is perfectly fleshed out this includes the supporting as well as the lead characters.

Thompson and Hopkins, both sensational actors, have tremendous chemistry together, and unsurprising was Thompson’s win for Best Actress during this competitive year. She carries the film seamlessly with her upper-middle-class ideals- not conservatively rich, but far from working-class- she epitomizes poise grace, and empathy for those less fortunate than she.

Hopkins, on the other hand, is calculating and confident, yet charismatic and sexy as an old-school, controlling businessman.

Somehow, these two characters complement each other exceptionally well despite their varied backgrounds

The role of Helen may very well be Helena Bonham Carter’s finest. Not being an enormous fan of the actress-overrated and too brooding in my opinion enjoys portraying an interesting character in Helen.

Lovelorn and earnest, yet somewhat oblivious, she develops a delicious romance with the young clerk, Leonard Bast, my favorite character in the film. Living with Jacky, a woman of dubious origins, he is the ultimate nice guy and sadly winds up down on his luck after heeding terrible business advice.

Bast, thanks in large part to actor Samuel West, who instills an innocent, good guy quality in his character, deserves major props.

The cinematography featured in Howards End is beautiful with extravagant outdoor scenes- the lavish gardens of Howards End- just ravishing and wonderful.

Kudos too to the art direction, set design, and costume department for making the film look so enchanting.

There is something so appealing about the look of this film and director, James Ivory, undoubtedly deserves praise for pulling it all together into a suave picture. Whether the scene calls for sun or rain, tranquil or bustling, every scene looks great.

If I were to knock any points from this fine film it would be at two hours and twenty-two minutes, Howards End does drag ever so slightly, and many scenes involve the characters merely having chats with each other, without much action.

But this criticism is small potatoes when compared to the exceptional writing and well-nuanced character development displayed throughout the piece.

Admittedly, and perhaps shamefully, I have not read any of the Forster novels, but Howards End appears to be the film that is most successfully adapted, gleaming with textured finesse, grace, and style.

With the film’s finest actors along for the experience, and intricate, fine story-telling, Howards End (1992) is a film well worth watching.

Oscar Nominations: 3 wins-Best Picture, Best Director-James Ivory, Best Actress-Emma Thompson (won), Best Supporting Actress-Vanessa Redgrave, Best Screenplay Based on Material Previously Produced or Published (won), Best Original Score, Best Art Direction (won), Best Cinematography, Best Costume Design

Independent Spirit Award Nominations: Best International Film

A Room with a View-1986

A Room with a View-1986

Director James Ivory

Starring Helena Bonham Carter, Julian Sands

Scott’s Review #695

Reviewed November 3, 2017

Grade: B+

A Room with a View (1986) is one of four major films to be based on famed British author E.M. Forster’s novels- Howards End (1992) and A Passage to India (1986), and Maurice (1987) being the other three.

The foursome contains common elements such as the vast English countryside and class distinctions, leading to heartaches and passion.

In the case of A Room with a View, the film traverses from artistic Florence, Italy to a cozy village in England.

The film is a period drama mixed with lots of authentic, unforced, good humor and at its core is a solid romantic drama, though if compared with the aforementioned other films, is not quite on par, though is still an entertaining watch- given the dismal year of cinema circa 1986.

The film was considered one of the best releases that particular year and was awarded a handful of Oscar nominations- winning Costume Design, Adapted Screenplay, and Art Direction.

Cultured and oftentimes brooding, Lucy Honeychurch (Helena Bonham Carter), goes on holiday to Florence with her rigid and conventional older cousin Charlotte (Maggie Smith), who also serves as her chaperone.

While enjoying the artistry of the European city, Lucy meets and falls madly in love with free-spirited George Emerson (Julian Sands), who is also visiting Florence with his easy-going father, Mr. Emerson (Denholm Elliott).

The men seem oblivious to Lucy’s (and Charlotte’s) Victorian-era upbringing, which attracts Lucy and appalls Charlotte.

Months later, the would-be lovers reunite in England and spend time averting obstacles thwarting their love, while admitting to themselves that their love is blossoming.

As Lucy has become engaged to snobbish Cecil Vyse (Daniel Day-Lewis), a sophisticate deemed suitable by her family to marry Lucy, the pair lacks the romantic connection that she shares with George.

Day-Lewis, on the cusp of becoming a breakout star and brilliant talent, gives Cecil a somewhat comical, yet endearing persona, that makes him the main foil, but also breathes sympathy into the character. This is especially evident during the Lucy/Cecil break-up scene.

The standout performance in A Room with a View is the comic brilliance of Smith as the manipulative and witty, Charlotte Bartlett, and this is evident throughout.

Smith injects vigor and comic wit into her character, as Charlotte seemingly makes one blunder after the other in the self-deprecating way she manages to use to her advantage to humorously manipulate other characters into doing things her way.

A risqué and quite hysterical all-male frontal nudity scene occurs mid-way through the film and, while not advancing the plot in any way, steals the entire film in its homoerotic and free-spirited way.

As the Reverend, young George, and Lucy’s energetic brother, Freddy, walk along a beautiful path, they decide to skinny dip in a pond where they horseplay and wrestle with each other completely in the buff.

As they chase each other around the pond, grab each other, and lightly smack bottoms, one cannot help but wonder if this scene set the tone for 1987’s gay-themed period piece based on another E.M. Forster novel, called Maurice.

A coincidence? I think not. As the trio of rascals come upon the properly dressed girls on the path, hilarity takes over the scene.

The art direction and costumes are of major excellence to A Room with a View as the film “looks” like a 1910 period rather than seeming like it is 1986 with the actors donning early twentieth-century styles.

Every scene is a treat from this perspective as we wonder who will wear what attire in the next scene.

As with the other aforementioned E.M. Forster films, class distinctions, and expectations are a major element in A Room with a View and make Lucy and George all the more likable as a couple.

Still, from an overall standpoint, there is something slightly amiss in the story department.

I did not find Helena Bonham Carter, an actor I like, overall very compelling as Lucy, and I think this leads to the story being slightly less than it might have with another in the role.

We may root for Lucy and George, but if the pair do not wind up together it is more of a pity rather than a travesty.

To summarize A Room with a View, the story is good, not great, and other key components to the film are much better than the central love story of Lucy and George but are therefore secondary to the main action.

Given a Charlotte romance, the film’s best character, that would have catapulted this film to the exceptional grade. Imagine the possibilities.

Or more of the two Miss Alan’s and their gossipy nature, or even a story to the rugged nude horseplay among men.

Many of the aspects that could have made A Room with a View (1986) great, were too often on the sidelines.

Oscar Nominations: 3 wins-Best Picture, Best Director-James Ivory, Best Supporting Actor-Denholm Elliott, Best Supporting Actress-Maggie Smith, Best Screenplay Based on Material from Another Medium (won), Best Art Direction (won), Best Cinematography, Best Costume Design (won)

My Cousin Rachel-2017

My Cousin Rachel-2017

Director-Roger Michell

Starring-Rachel Weisz, Sam Claflin

Scott’s Review #685

Reviewed September 25, 2017

Grade: B-

My Cousin Rachel has the advantage of providing wonderful, scenic locales of Florence, Italy, and lovely scenes filmed around England that makes the film a joy to watch from a cinematic perspective.

The acting, especially by seasoned veteran Rachel Weisz,  is also stellar and noteworthy.

The plot, however, is a big negative to the film as My Cousin Rachel suffers from weak dramatic storytelling, an anti-climactic conclusion, and missed opportunities with the plot.

The film is based on the 1951 novel of the same name, written by Daphne du Maurier. I have yet to read the book, but I am certain the film does it no justice. The overall tone of the film contains little mystique to say nothing of lacking any sort of haunting elements as one might expect to receive with titillating anticipation.

The story begins well enough as, through narration, we learn that a young man named Philip, having been orphaned as a child and raised by his older cousin, Ambrose, returns home from school to his childhood home in lavish Cornwall.

He learns, through a letter, that Ambrose has married his widowed cousin, Rachel, and has moved to Florence. He also cryptically writes that he is in fear for his life and suspects Rachel of poisoning him.

The main plot kicks off after Philip finally meets Rachel and astonishingly begins to fall madly in love with her.

To be fair, the film is shot beautifully and glimmers with interesting camera angles, and in a few hallucination scenes, use a blurry, almost magical film-making style.

The aforementioned locales give My Cousin Rachel a sophisticated, graceful look. On the negative side of this filming evaluation, the lighting is much too bright, appearing more like an episode of the PBS series Downton Abbey, rather than the mysterious, cryptic film that My Cousin Rachel is promoted as.

The best thing about the film, though, is the wonderful acting performance by Rachel Weisz as the title character, Rachel. While not played quite as mysterious, Weisz envelopes her character with a passionate, earnest quality that sells the character as enchanting.

With a winning smile, and a polite, dutiful manner, Rachel is tough to imagine as a murderess, which helps the lackluster plot just a bit. She happily goes about making a “special” tea or performing other household tasks in cheerful, uniform pizzazz.

Without Weisz in the role, I shudder to think how bleak the result might have been.

It is mentioned early on in the story how Philip’s wealthy family, the Kendalls, are surprised that Ambrose married, as he was never known to be in, or enjoy, the company of women. It also must be noted that in flashbacks, Ambrose is portrayed as somewhat effeminate, or at most, less than manly.

This seems a blatant attempt to question the character’s sexuality, yet the film chooses never to pursue this topic again. I am unaware of how the novel handled this plot item, but it seems rather a wasted opportunity.

Chemistry, or lack thereof, is also an issue with My Cousin Rachel, as no connection between Weisz and Claflin exists throughout, nor is there any between either character and Philip’s intended love interest, Louise Kendall, played by Holliday Grainger. The actress herself is fine in a role that is given little meat or substance.

Uneven at best, My Cousin Rachel is a beautiful looking period piece, but mostly is just a mediocre piece of film-making. The ending is quite sudden and answers definitively none of the main plot questions.

Released in 2017, the film will likely be forgotten by 2018.

The Beguiled-2017

The Beguiled-2017

Director-Sofia Coppola

Starring-Nicole Kidman, Colin Farrell

Scott’s Review #659

Reviewed July 4, 2017

Grade: A-

A remake of the 1971 film (also adapted from an earlier novel) starring Clint Eastwood, The Beguiled is a 2017 release directed by Sofia Coppola (Lost in Translation), a director ready to burst onto the front lines.

Coppola carefully chooses her films, but each one is different from the others and The Beguiled is no different. A piece fraught with atmosphere and tension, Coppola does wonder from a directing standpoint.

The story has tons of unchartered potential and drags at times, but overall The Beguiled is a hit if nothing more than to look at in wonderment.

The film gets off to a moody start as we follow a young girl, eerily humming as she picks mushrooms, along a deserted southern road. It is Civil War times (1864), and the setting is a mostly deserted all-girls boarding school in southern Virginia.

The girl (Amy) is startled when she discovers an injured, handsome Union Army soldier, Corporal John McBurney (Farrell). Sympathetic, Amy helps the soldier back to the school, led by the headmistress, Martha Farnsworth (Kidman).

Slowly, the females in the school become enamored with John as they develop rivalries with each other to gain the upper hand for his affections.

There is something so sinister and wickedly foreboding about almost every scene as we shrink at the thought that something bad will happen at any moment- sometimes it does and sometimes it does not.

Almost like a horror film would, the camera angles are such that something or someone is bound to suddenly leap out and grab a character.

The colors are muted and almost pastel and there is commonly fog floating through the exterior scenes. Coppola does a fantastic job of portraying a deserted southern landscape. The lighting of the film is also intriguing as lit candles serve to enhance the dimness and the final dinner scene (poison mushrooms anyone?) is gloomy and Shakespearean.

Beyond the look of the film, The Beguiled is well-acted. With heavyweights like Farrell, Kidman, and frequent Coppola star, Kirsten Dunst, as the vulnerable and unhappy teacher, Miss Morrow, the acting is stellar and believable. The audience is unsure if John is manipulating the women for his gain or if he has developed feelings for any (or all) of them.

The lovesick teen, Alicia (Elle Fanning), with hormones raging, sets her sights on John almost from the beginning, sneaking out of musical lessons, to kiss an unconscious John goodnight.

The story, while compelling, is quite slow-moving and left with oodles of possibilities when the conclusion finally happens. Other than the tart, Alicia, the endless romantic potential could have been reached with both Miss Morrow and Miss Farnsworth.

I was left wondering throughout the film when a romance would develop between Martha and John, but only towards the end of the film was this ever addressed and barely skirted over, as they take charge and stoic Martha slowly began to let her guard down.

In this way, the film could have added some further romantic complications and beefed up the very short running time of ninety-three minutes.

As Nicole Kidman is one of my favorite film stars of all time (she can tell a story by facial expressions alone), she has wisely begun to choose fantastic supporting roles as she ages in Hollywood (2016’s Lion immediately comes to mind).

Dunst has aged gracefully into a middle-aged actress chomping at the bit for meaty roles, and Colin Farrell is as ruggedly handsome as ever sprouting a dark and bushy beard for most of the role. The acting in The Beguiled is fantastic.

The Beguiled is a film to watch if only to escape to the joys of great, atmospheric, film-making, and to appreciate the wonderful talents of one of the few prominent female director’s of today (hopefully the mega success of 2017’s female-directed Wonder Woman will begin to change this).

The story has a few issues, but overall The Beguiled is worth the money spent.

Lincoln-2012

Lincoln-2012

Director Steven Spielberg

Starring Daniel Day-Lewis, Sally Field, Tommy Lee Jones

Scott’s Review #476

70251896

Reviewed September 10, 2016

Grade: A

Lincoln is a 2012 film, which received a slew of Academy Award nominations. There appear to be differing opinions about the film itself, however.

Lincoln has audiences divided over whether it’s a brilliant film or a snore-fest.

My opinion leans decisively toward the former.

I recognize that (especially the first half) the film is slow-moving, but I found it engrossing and well-made.

Even the subtle aspects (costumes, art direction, lighting) are masterfully done.

I found Daniel Day Lewis’s (Abraham Lincoln) lengthy stories intriguing, not dull and found it to be a wonderful history lesson.

Steven Spielberg does what he does best- he creates a Hollywood film done well. He also has done controversial, shocking, or experimental, but the mainstream fare is his forte.

This film is not for everyone, but if you can find the patience it will be an enlightening experience. If nothing else, a thing or two may be learned.

Oscar Nominations: 2 wins-Best Picture, Best Director-Steven Spielberg, Best Actor-Daniel Day-Lewis (won), Best Supporting Actor-Tommy Lee Jones, Best Supporting Actress-Sally Field, Best Adapted Screenplay, Best Original Score, Best Sound Mixing, Best Production Design (won), Best Cinematography, Best Costume Design, Best Film Editing

Daisy Miller-1974

Daisy Miller-1974

Director Peter Bogdanovich

Starring Cybill Shepard, Cloris Leachman 

Scott’s Review #383

DaisyMillerPoster

Reviewed March 6, 2016

Grade: B

Daisy Miller is a largely forgotten 1974 film based on a Henry James novella of the same name, directed by Peter Bogdanovich and starring then-girlfriend Cybill Sheperd in the title role.

I admire the film in certain aspects, but ultimately rank the film as good, but not spectacular. I pondered the film afterward and had a feeling that something was missing from it.

The story, set in the late 1800s, tells of a wealthy upstate New York family, led by the naïve Daisy Miller (Sheperd), visiting Europe in the hopes of becoming more cultured and worldly, but instead, are largely met with defiance and snobbery from European sophisticates. Daisy attempts to find love with her numerous potential suitors.

The film is largely shot in Switzerland and Italy.

The romantic story between Daisy and upper-class Frederick Winterbourne is the focal point. Daisy, a chatterbox and flirtatious, captures Winterbourne’s fancy and he gradually woos her but is conflicted by social norms and her innocent involvement with other men, most notably dashing Italian Giovanelli.

This leads to conflict. I noticed some chemistry between Daisy and Winterbourne.

Bogdanovich, who only directed a handful of films, including the masterpiece The Last Picture Show (1971), uses several great actors in both films.

In addition to Sheperd, Cloris Leachman, and Eileen Brennan appear in supporting roles. Leachman as Daisy’s equally chatty and naïve mother, and Brennan as the vicious socialite Mrs. Parker.

Brennan, in particular, shines. Outstanding at playing snobs and unique character roles, this was right up Brennan’s alley and she almost steals the show.

I adored the cinematography and the costumes featured in the production and thought both were the film’s main strengths.

The clothing that the characters were dressed in is both gorgeous and believable for the period. The backdrop during the hotel garden scene is exquisite and picturesque as the lake, sky, and mountain are all in full view adding a unique viewing experience.

I also found the subject of cultural class distinctions quite interesting. The Millers are rich but uneducated and unlikable- they live in Schenectady and are considered far beneath the clever, intelligent figures of Europe.

They do not measure up and they lack the same breeding and class as many of the characters.

Adding to this is the fact that the Millers never really seemed all that interested in being in Europe, almost taking the opportunity for granted, so I was never completely captured by the Millers or found them particularly sympathetic as a group.

Given that she is the focus, I found the character of Daisy Miller a bit unlikable and this could be due to the casting of Sheperd. Daisy’s endless rants, largely about herself, teetered on annoying to say nothing of her irritant little brother.

Sure, Daisy is sweet and kindhearted, but there is something that did not compel me about her. She was a less charismatic, northern version of Scarlett O’Hara.

I kept wondering if other actresses might have brought more to the character and given her more muscle. Was this role a showcase for Sheperd because of her relationship with Bogdanovich?

The conclusion of the film surprised me and features a downcast ending that I did not expect given the sunny mood of the rest of the film, and this is to Bogdanovich’s credit.

He certainly did not make a mainstream film and I admire that.

Daisy Miller (1974) is a mixed bag for me. I give my admiration for some aspects, but the story and the casting could have used a bit of altering.

Oscar Nominations: Best Costume Design

Gosford Park-2001

Gosford Park-2001

Director Robert Altman

Starring Maggie Smith, Helen Mirren, Ryan Phillippe

Top 100 Films #68

Scott’s Review #350

60021796

Reviewed January 9, 2016

Grade: A

Somewhere between the brilliant PBS series of the 1970s and the ultra-modern cool of Downton Abbey (also PBS) lies the masterpiece that is Robert Altman’s 2001 gem, Gosford Park.

Ironic is that the creator, writer, and executive producer of Downtown Abbey, Julian Fellowes, wrote the screenplay of Gosford Park.

No wonder, combined with Altman’s direction, they created genius.

The period is 1932 and the wealthy, along with their servants, flock to the magnificent estate of Gosford Park, a grand English country home. The guests include both Americans and Brits and everyone is gathered for a shooting weekend- foreshadowing if ever there was.

Following a dinner party, a murder occurs and the remainder of the film follows the subsequent police investigation, and the perspectives of the guests and the servants as a whodunit ensues.

Many of the character’s lives unravel as secrets are exposed.

Sir William, the murder victim, is a powerful industrialist. After he announces he will withdraw an investment, the ramifications affect many of the guests so that the set-up is spelled out for the audience.

At the risk of seemingly nothing more than a plot device- it is so much more than that.

During a pheasant shoot, Sir William receives a minor wound thanks to a stray birdshot- is this intentional or merely an accident? When Sir William meets his fate that evening, the potential suspects pile up.

If there are two compelling aspects to a great film, they are a good old-fashioned whodunit and an enormous cast, all potential suspects.

What makes Gosford Park exceptional is that every character is interesting in some way and all are written well.

Secrets abound for miles in this film and are revealed deliciously. Torrid affairs, sexuality secrets, and blackmail abound as revelations make their way to the surface and Altman knows exactly how to cast doubt or suspicion on many of his characters.

The compelling relationship between American film producer Morris Weissman and his valet, Henry Denton (Ryan Phillipe), along with the domineering head housekeeper, Mrs. Wilson (Helen Mirren) are my favorite characters and dynamics.

How clever that Maggie Smith would play similar roles as stuffy aristocrats in both Gosford Park and Downton Abbey.

Rich in texture is the balancing between the haves and the have-nots and how those characters mix (sometimes in secret rendezvous!)

Typical of Altman films, the character dialogue commonly overlaps, and the actors largely improvise the script. In addition to being an actor’s dream, this quality gives a dash of realism to his films and Gosford Park is no exception.

Since there are so many characters and so many plots and sub-plots going on at once, my recommendation is to watch the film at least twice to fully comprehend the layers of the goings-on.

Gosford Park (2001) will become more and more appreciated.

Oscar Nominations: 1 win-Best Picture, Best Director-Robert Altman, Best Supporting Actress-Helen Mirren, Maggie Smith, Best Screenplay Written Directly for the Screen/Original Screenplay (won), Best Art Direction, Best Costume Design