Category Archives: Drama

Behind The Candelabra-2013

Behind the Candelabra-2013

Director Steven Soderbergh

Starring Michael Douglas, Matt Damon

Scott’s Review #411

70274808

Reviewed June 18, 2016

Grade: A

I thoroughly enjoyed this HBO film based on the life of Liberace, whom I was too young to know much about before viewing this movie.

The excesses of his lavish lifestyle are explored completely.

The standouts are Michael Douglas and Matt Damon who are both exceptional in their portrayals of Liberace and his young lover. Both were unrecognizable at times and completely embodied their characters.

I can’t attest to the absolute truth of the story, but the HBO film does a nice job of mixing joy, passion, heartbreak, sadness, and competition throughout.

The story undoubtedly bears a likeness to many Hollywood troubled relationships past and present.

Gett: The Trial of Vivian Amsalem-2014

Gett: The Trial of Vivian Amsalem-2014

Director-Ronit Elkabetz, Shlomi Elkabetz

Starring-Ronit Elkabetz, Simon Abkarian

Scott’s Review #409

80013601

Reviewed June 9, 2016

Grade: B+

Gett: The Trial of Vivian Amsalem is the third in a trilogy of films focusing on the title character of Vivian Amsalem and her unhappy marriage to her husband, Elisha.

To be clear, the unhappiness is hers and he sees no reason to end the marriage. It is a film about culture, religion, and modern views versus traditional ones.

I was unaware the film was a trilogy until after I finished watching and began conducting some research as I prepared to review it. It is not a necessity to view the first two films  (To Take A Wife and Shiva) to enjoy this film as I suspect they are each chapter as opposed to continuations.

Vivian is a tall, strikingly beautiful woman, though she is weary and haggard when we first lay eyes on her in the stifling courtroom, where she sits and spends much of her time. She has long dark hair and intense eyes- she appears driven and quite modern and of liberal thinking, a feminist perhaps.

A determined woman is frustrated because her yearning for an independent life has been thwarted by her husband. She would like a divorce from her husband of over twenty years. Having met him at age fifteen, his is the only life she has known. Since he will not agree to the divorce, the courts will not grant her the decision she wants. Since he has not abused her and gives her everything she desires, the judges have no grounds to grant her the divorce.

This is the conflict of the film.

Gett: The Trial of Vivian Amsalem has a clear religious message, which is an interesting component for an American viewer. How simple it is to divorce somebody in western civilization and how different the measure is in Israel. Jewish religious law is quite restrictive.

Vivian faces an enormous ordeal. She does not love her husband, yet she is unable to end her loveless marriage. The film is fraught with a clear conflict and one’s interpretation of right and wrong.

Almost set as a play since the film has merely one set- the courtroom- this aspect is very effective in showing frustration, exasperation, and even rage. All the while, Gett, has a sly sense of humor, and I could not help but smirk at a few of the supporting character portrayals.

I sensed a Pedro Almodovar (a famous Spanish director) influence in the quirky, sly writing, and his themes of political freedom.

Character after character is called into the courtroom to testify as witness to Vivian and Elisha’s happy marriage- each attorney looking for evidence to cement their client’s point of view.

In contrast, Vivian’s fierce independence, a mature neighbor couple of Vivian and Elisha heralds them as the perfect couple. Soon, the wife is grilled revealing that she is submissive to her husband and lives in an entirely different world than Vivian.

To be critical, the film does drag at times, but I wonder if this is the director’s intent. The tone of the film is a suffocating one- Vivian and her attorney languish in the same courtroom for five long years as delay after delay occurs.

Throughout the numerous testimonies, an accusation is raised that is an interesting component of the film and an aspect I wondered about very early on- was an affair brewing between Vivian and her attorney? It is alluded to, but never confirmed, rather shrouded in mystery. One wonders.

From an acting perspective, Ronit Elkabetz is fantastic, and I am saddened she did not receive an Oscar nomination, but I do recall some buzz about this fantastic actress being expressed at the time the film was released. Her scene of pure rage towards the end of the film is brilliant. All the years of bottled-up emotions come flowing out in one great performance.

Gett: The Trial of Vivian Amsalem is an intense experience in tedium, frustration, and ultimately rage, but is never stuffy or too serious as evidenced by humorous supporting characters. It is for patient film fans seeking an emotional, human experience.

The Girls-1968

The Girls-1968

Director Mai Zetterling

Starring Bibi Andersson, Harriet Andersson

Scott’s Review #404

70052262

Reviewed May 11, 2016

Grade: B+

The Girls is a 1968 political-leaning, surreal, dream-like, feminist Swedish film. These may seem like too many adjectives to describe a film, but they all happen to be warranted and work to categorize it, which is tough- it is a complex film.

The film left me deep in thought about what I had just viewed- that is a positive for me.

Directed by a female, Mai Zetterling, the film is told from a female perspective and is quite difficult to follow, though the message portrayed is a thought compelling, and powerful women repressed- whether in reality or fantasy-by men.

In my attempt to describe The Girls accurately, it appears to contain the boys versus girls component throughout- told by the girls. The plot centers around three women: Liz (Bibi Andersson), Marianne (Harriet Andersson), and Gunilla (Gunnel Lindblom).

The women are hired to star in a touring production of Lysistrata and each faces conflict and concern over leaving their respective families, but for differing reasons.

Liz’s husband, who is having an affair, cannot get rid of her soon enough. Marianne has recently dumped her married boyfriend. Gunilla has four children and suffers from guilt.  All of the women are very friendly with each other.

All three principal actresses are familiar to eagle-eyed Ingmar Bergman fans as each of them has appeared in numerous films of his-in very different types of roles.

Wild Strawberries and The Seventh Seal feature these actresses.

The women go on tour and have various surreal experiences based on the play in which they are a star. The film, made in black and white, has very overexposed cinematography. The blacks and the whites are very sharp in look and this is no doubt purposely done.

On the surface, it would appear that the women hate men and yearn to be free of them. Is that the point of the film? It seems to go in other directions as well. Do they hate their lives and feel confined with men and free without them, when they are touring their play?

How do they feel about their children? Do they miss them on tour, love them, resent them, or perhaps a bit of each? They yearn to be free of restraint.

We are treated to numerous scenes that seem to be a dreamlike state or a fantasy of one of the women. One runs through the forest and comes upon a grizzled, dirty child on the ground. Is it hers? She then sees her husband sitting in a living room chair in the middle of the forest.

The symbolism resonating through The Girls is countless. We also see the women fantasize about a handsome, young man. Are they tired of the doldrums- looks and otherwise- that their husbands have caused them?

Many political scenes of protest occur throughout the film. In one, the women march in unison- Nazi-style and chant. In another, the women lead what appears to be a charge of women- suffragette style, until the women start attacking each other and punching and kicking each other in the streets.

These scenes and countless others are tough to analyze, but perhaps this is the point. I decided to simply escape into the film and not try to figure out what everything meant.

Fantastic to see is the exterior scenes shot in Stockholm, Sweden, which reminds us what a liberal, democratic city it is. Yet the women are repressed. Made in 1968, during the sexual revolution, the timing of the film is perfect.

The Girls left me pondering the story and the viewpoint and I will need further viewings for the film to more successfully sink in and for me to get it- if I ever do, but I enjoyed it nonetheless.

The film is the kind of film that requires further viewing to understand. I look forward to watching this film again and that is high praise for it.

Les Cousins-1959

Les Cousins-1959

Director Claude Chabrol

Starring Gerard Blain, Jean-Claude Braily

Scott’s Review #402

70200457

Reviewed May 5, 2016

Grade: A-

Les Cousins is a 1959 Claude Chabrol French-language film.

Made in black and white and set in Paris, the focus is on metropolitan life as seen from the perspective of one of the main characters, who is from the country and far removed from the bustle and complexities of city life.

The focal point is contrasting traits- personality, background, and otherwise, as the film delves into psychological aspects that lend themselves to making the film a character-driven experience, and quite thought-provoking.

Les Cousins is open to many interpretations. The film, therefore, has many nuances to ponder and sink one’s teeth into deep thought.

Hence the title, Les Cousins is about two male cousins, Charles and Paul. They appear to be similar in age and are both law students, but opposites in almost every other way. Paul is the alpha male- self-centered, quick-tempered, and forceful. Living an affluent life in the heart of Paris, he has many friends, is a social butterfly, and has no filter with his criticisms and judgments of others.

Charles, on the other hand, has a completely different set of qualities. Sent by his mother to live with Paul and study for the agonizing, impending law exam, Charles is meek, quiet, and insecure.

When Charles meets Florence, a beautiful friend of Paul’s, who has a reputation for “sleeping around”, Charles falls madly in love with her, almost love at first sight, unaware of her reputation.

What follows is a strange triangle between Paul, Florence, and Charles that is laced with jealousy, revenge, and ultimately violence.

Each of the three principal characters and their relationship with each other is interesting to ponder and is at the heart of the film.

When Paul realizes that Charles is in love with Florence is he disturbed by this turn of events? Does he feel sorry for Charles or elicit some perverse joy in bedding Florence in front of Charles? If so, why does he resent Charles?

Is Florence in love with Charles or is it a guise? Does she even realize the extent of his love for her? A sexually expressive woman, she is not outlandish in her appearance and seems quite virginal to the outside viewer.

Does she enjoy the fact that the unwitting Charles sees her as pure? Does she wish that she was virginal?

Finally, the complexity of Charles’ character is mysterious. We learn that he writes letters to his mother every day to give her updates on his studying habits and exams.

Does he harbor resentment toward his mother? Is he a “mama’s boy”? Is he overwhelmed in the city? Does he truly love Florence (tough to believe after one or two dates) or simply yearn for the freedom that she represents?

We see countless scenes of Paul and his good-looking friends engaging in various forms of merriment, usually in his modern apartment, overlooking the city.

He is affluent. Is this the main reason for his popularity?

The party-goers are all well-dressed and very good-looking- sort of a fraternity party for the exceptionally tailored if you will.

Interestingly, a female couple- appearing to be a lesbian couple- featured numerous times at the parties. Is this meant to show Paul and Parisians in general as open-minded and progressive?

A revolver- with only one bullet in a six-chamber gun, prevalent throughout the film in a Russian roulette sequence, comes into play at the startling conclusion of the film.

Without completely revealing the ending, someone is mortally wounded in the last sequence of the film and we are left to ponder what happens now.

Are the survivors lives forever changed and ruined? A knock at the door just before the credits roll leaves us wondering who is there.

My one complaint about Les Cousins is that it takes a long time to get deep into the complexities of the film and I was left pondering the film after it ended more than I was completely engaged throughout the actual film.

I also wondered if perhaps the pompous and over-indulgences were slightly overdone to elicit more audience reaction and contrasting elements between Paul and Charles.

A French new wave experience by one of France’s best directors, Les Cousins is a character study of three interesting characters that leave the audience thinking about their lives past, present, and future, comparing their idiosyncrasies, actions, and thoughts to delve deeper into their psyches.

Bridge of Spies-2015

Bridge of Spies-2015

Director-Steven Spielberg

Starring-Tom Hanks

Scott’s Review #399

80050060

Reviewed April 28, 2016

Grade: B+

Tom Hanks teams with Stephen Spielberg once again in another A-list Hollywood film.

Like Saving Private Ryan, Bridge of Spies is in the historical vein. This time the Cold War is featured- it is 1957 when the film begins.

The camera work, the artwork, and the set decorations are second to none as the film looks and feels authentic. As interesting as the overall film is, and it felt like I was watching a well-made film, there was also something missing, which did not make it truly riveting and that is why it receives a B+ rating.

Still, with Spielberg and Hanks on board, you know you will get a quality film.

Hanks portrays James B. Donovan, a Brooklyn attorney specializing in insurance law, but a wiz at negotiation and experienced with the Nuremberg trials.

He is assigned to defend suspected spy Rudolf Abel (Mark Rylance) in what is assumed to be an open and shut case-his guilt is considered a given. Abel has been arrested by the F.B.I and is thought a Russian spy. They are willing to release him on the condition that he reveal Soviet contacts, but he refuses.

Meanwhile, an American pilot, Frances Powers, is captured in Soviet territory and taken hostage. To make matters more complicated, an American graduate student, Pryor, is trapped behind the Berlin wall in East Germany and not allowed by the Germans to leave. The pressure is on Donovan to not only defend Abel in the United States but to make a deal to return the three men to their respective countries.

Hanks, a great actor, is his typical stoic, capable self, and his portrayal reminds me of his role in Captain Phillips- calm, well-mannered- a clear yet quiet leader.

The role is not flashy in comparison to other legendary Hanks roles (Forrest Gump, Philadelphia). Certainly, the film centers around Hanks and is catered to his acting style- his character is always in the forefront.

In my opinion, Hanks never gives a bad performance and I admire him in almost any he gives.

Let’s discuss the role and the portrayal by Mark Rylance in his Oscar-winning role. Giving a very subdued, nuanced performance, he is good and low-key in what could have been an energetic, over-the-top performance if written that way, but I am not sure I would have handed him the golden statuette over a few of the other nominees in the 2015 Supporting Actor category.

Not that this is a criticism, but I am unsure if there is as much meat in this performance as would warrant an Academy Award.

Bridge of Spies is very detail-oriented and every set piece- from late 1950’s cars, clothing, hairstyles, and home furnishings is spot on.

The film was expensive to produce and no expense seems to have been spared.

The film travels from Brooklyn to the Soviet Union, to Germany, and gives off a patriotic, Americana flare, which is very true to life in the given time. There was such a sense of country and community. Nothing makes this more apparent than the distasteful glares and downright coldness and hatred displayed by many characters towards Donovan.

To counteract this, when Donovan is ultimately more the hero, he is revered and celebrated.

As great as the film looks, there is something slightly disconnecting about it. I was left wanting a bit more from a story perspective and feeling slightly disengaged throughout parts of it. I was never riveted or blown away despite realizing that I was watching a well-made film. This can oftentimes happen as the story is less compelling than the way the film looks and this is the case with Bridge of Spies.

After I finished watching I was left with the feeling that I did not ever really need to see the film again, in contrast to truly great films where one can watch over and over again.

A slight mention is that Bridge of Spies is a “guy’s film”. Amy Ryan, a great actress, does all she can with the only real female role in the film in that of Donovan’s dutiful, supportive wife-a a role written one-dimensionally hundreds of times.

It is a shame her character is not more fleshed out instead of the typical worried scenes or fretting for her husband to return home to his family- purely reactionary and not furthering the plot in any way.

In this sense, the film deserves criticism for being a bit too traditional.

Bridge of Spies is a very good effort, but certainly not a tremendous film. It is the type of film that I liked, but not loved.

Plot-driven rather than character-driven. Perhaps, due to the names Spielberg and Hanks on the marquee, I expected a bit more.

Oscar Nominations: Best Picture, Best Supporting Actor-Mark Rylance (won), Best Original Screenplay, Best Original Score, Best Sound Mixing, Best Production Design

Girlhood-2015

Girlhood-2015

Director-Celine Sciamma

Starring-Karidja Toure

Scott’s Review #398

80013602

Reviewed April 24, 2016

Grade: B

Girlhood is a coming-of-age foreign language, French drama that tells the story of a sixteen-year-old French girl, living in a poor area (the projects) just outside of Paris.

She is faced with numerous conflicts and tough decisions on how to live her life. School, gangs, and romance are the main issues she tackles, as well as troubled home life.

Wisely, the film uses a female director, Celine Sciamma, which lends some authenticity to the largely female issues discussed in the film. For all its good intentions and some interesting nuances, the film suffers from a lack of grit and has a safe feel to it making it less compelling than it could have been.

I felt that I was watching a glossy film rather than any sort of harsh reality.

Still, a worthy effort.

Marieme is a tall, gorgeous teenager living in the projects near Paris. She struggles academically and is rejected from attending high school, instead of being sent on a vocational track to be able to find a job.

Her mother works long hours as an office cleaner, and Marieme’s abusive brother is in charge of the household. Marieme also has two younger sisters. Upset to learn she will not be attending high school, she is approached by a gang of girls, led by Lady, who asks her to go to the city with them.

She agrees to join their gang when she realizes that her brother’s best friend, Ismael, whom she has a crush on, is friendly with the other girls. Marieme and the girls begin to while away the days by stealing, fighting, and terrorizing anyone in their path.

Partying in hotels, they make the rounds. Marieme must ultimately decide if this is the life she wants.

What I found most interesting about the film is its use of an all-black cast and certainly, this was intentional. Sciamma (who ironically is white) felt that the female black population in Paris is underrepresented in French film.

This is accurate and scores points with me. I love the camaraderie among the girls. They always have each other’s backs and when Marieme fights a rival girl to defend the recently beaten Lady, there is a sense of sisterhood that is appealing and is at the heart of the film.

Friendship, loyalty, and bonding are explored.

Also worth noting is that most of the cast are either unknown actors or non-actors picked off the streets to appear in the film. To this effect, the acting is surprisingly good for most novice or non-actors.

The romance between Marieme and Ismael is another strong point of the film- they share an undeniable attraction for each other but are forced to only spend time together in secret. Marieme’s brother appears to run a gang of all boys and forbids anyone from being with his sister. The scenes shared between Marieme and Ismael are tender, sweet, and believable. They have a rooting factor.

The aforementioned positives are also the negatives to Girlhood. The film lacks any real grit or dirt and the friendship and romantic elements are also played safely.

Everything is glossy and bright.

For example, two fight scenes occur, one with Lady and a rival girl, one with Marieme and the rival girl. A group of spectators gathers in a circle egging the girls on. They are in a hot, deserted parking lot.

The scenes could have been brutal, bloody, and fierce. Instead, they are very short, lack any blood or bruising, and are very safe feeling. When Marieme pulls out a knife, it is intended to cut the rival girl’s bra, not to stab her. This seems unrealistic and not how things would play out in an urban gang situation.

And on a nitpicky level, why was the mother absent from the family life? Sure she had a night job, but the film presented her as being all but out of the picture entirely. She tried to help Marieme get a job working with her, so why so much turmoil due to her busy schedule?

Also, the silly scene of the girls playing miniature golf added nothing to the plot and should have been dropped.

Girlhood is a nice, albeit sweet, coming-of-age, female gang story, that might have been more intense, but the decision was to make a soft film rather than a harsh one.

An interesting, fine effort that mainly focuses on bonding, friendship, and life choices over the realistic brutality that it could have dealt with.

Independent Spirit Award Nominations: Best International Film

Kiss Me Deadly-1955

Kiss Me Deadly-1955

Director Robert Aldrich

Starring Ralph Meeker

Scott’s Review #391

60020642

Reviewed April 2, 2016

Grade: A-

Kiss Me Deadly is a 1955 film noir drama that heavily influenced many films that followed it. On my “to see” list for years, I finally got around to viewing this influential gem and now realize the power of the film.

At times confusing and perplexing, and certainly requires additional watches, I rate it a grade of A-, however, can see its grade rising to a solid A upon subsequent viewings.

Still, Kiss Me Deadly has much respect from me as a lover and appreciator of a good film.

The mysterious plot goes something like this- Mike Hammer (played by Ralph Meeker) is a tough Los Angeles private eye. One evening, driving along a lonely country road, he picks up a hitchhiker named Christina (the film debut of Cloris Leachman) clad only in a trench coat.

He quickly realizes she has escaped from a mental institution but is compelled by her desperation.  When thugs catch up to them, this sets off the crux of the film as Mike spends his days investigating the strange turn of events.

The plot twists and turns in innumerable ways and becomes quite complex, but always fascinates. A peculiar glowing box, which everybody seems to want, comes into play as the film progresses.

Wonderfully directed by Robert Aldrich, Kiss Me Deadly features unique and creative uses of lighting, camera angles, and moody shadows to great effect, and this is one of the first aspects that I noticed.

Shot in highly effective black and white, it allows Kiss Me Deadly a murky, suspicious look- as if danger and doom might be around every corner.

Meeker and Maxine Cooper as Velda, Mike’s secretary/lover make a nice pair, as they are good-looking, but a rather B-movie type couple, in contrast, to say, Cary Grant and Eva Marie Saint, two gorgeous upper echelon Hollywood stars of the day.

Casting those stars might have changed the tone of the film.  Meeker and Cooper bring, perhaps, a blue-collar look to the film. Nevertheless, the chemistry works.

An interpretive film, Kiss Me Deadly undoubtedly influenced such later film noir classics as Chinatown, L.A. Confidential,  and Pulp Fiction, not to mention science-fiction films and, arguably even Raiders of the Lost Ark.

The list could go on and on as Kiss Me Deadly crosses into numerous genres.

The ending of the film is highly complex, spooky, and downright weird. It is one of the craziest endings I have ever experienced.

Once the mysterious box is opened, the film transforms into a strange Twilight Zone episode, containing screeching sounds, and the explosion is open to complete interpretation and changes the dynamic of the film. I had the enormous good fortune to be able to view the alternate ending, not released in theaters.

Needless to say, Mike and Velda’s fates were vastly different from one end to another. My preference was the alternate ending. Sometimes the studios play things too safe.

What does it all mean? Nuclear weapons, the apocalypse,  the Cold War, glowing boxes, detectives- so many elements in one film.

A conversation about Kiss Me Deadly could certainly be enjoyed and, in the end, that speaks volumes for the high quality of the film.

I look forward to seeing this revolutionary film again for further appreciation.

The Misfits-1961

The Misfits-1961

Director John Huston

Starring Marilyn Monroe, Clark Gable, Montgomery Clift

Scott’s Review #389

60000725

Reviewed March 27, 2016

Grade: B+

A dark film about loneliness, insecurity, and the need for friendship, The Misfits (1961) stars several of the era’s great legends in a film that I found both sad and disturbing to watch.

Tragically, two of the stars would soon be gone from this world shortly after the film was made- Clark Gable and Marilyn Monroe.  This was the final film for each.

The film, shot in black and white,  has a bleak feel and represents the onset of darker decades in the film (the 1960s and 1970s). Mostly starring in light, feel-good films, The Misfits is a complete departure for Monroe, in particular.

The film is well-written and character-driven, which appeals to me, but cruelty to animals is a lot to take.

Set in Reno, Nevada, Roslyn has arrived from out of town for a quickie divorce. She is staying with Isabelle (Thelma Ritter), who frequently assists women needing divorces, lending as their witness in court.

After the divorce is final, they go to a local watering hole to celebrate life, where they meet an aging cowboy, Gay (Gable), and his tow-truck friend Guido. They all agree to go to Guido’s house in the desert to party. When they arrive, they learn that Guido’s wife has recently died.

From this point, Gay and Roslyn become a couple and grow vegetables at Guido’s house, attempting to begin a normal life. Later, the group decides to round up mustangs and take on a rodeo hand named Perce (Montgomery Clift) to help.

This leads to conflict as Gay’s intention is to sell the horses as dog food. A subplot of a love triangle between Gay, Roslyn, and Perce, emerges.

The Misfits is a difficult watch. It is cynical from a story perspective and sometimes heartbreaking. Each of the principal characters is severely damaged and pained.

We learn that Gay has two estranged children. When he runs into them at a bar, he excitedly wants to introduce them to Roslyn, but they have left before he can.

In a drunken stupor (and a sad scene), he pathetically calls out for them to return, causing a stir. Perce’s father has died and his mother left a changed woman- his stepfather selfishly takes their ranch for himself, despite Perce’s father wanting it to go to Perce.

Alcohol abuse is prevalent throughout the film- obviously, the characters drown their sorrows to escape or avoid the pain that they feel.

The opening credits are unique and feature puzzle pieces- this symbolizes the group’s isolation as individuals and desire to find each other and fit as one- they are all misfits and come together for some sense of companionship.

This is a unique aspect of the film and director John Huston deserves the credit for immediately setting the tone for clever viewers.

The acting in The Misfits is outstanding and I would argue that the performances of Monroe and Gable are the best in their respective careers. They both chartered very dark territory in the lonely and damaged characters that they portrayed.

Thelma Ritter adds sardonic humor but inexplicably vanishes from the film about halfway through- never to return or be mentioned again.

I would have liked to have seen much more from her and more depth to her character of Isabelle. Why was she a misfit? She mentions loving all cowboys so we might assume she has had her share of damaged relationships with men. More clarity might have been interesting.

The final portion of the film is difficult to sit through- an interminable scene involves Gay and Perce savagely rounding up the horses and roping them down overnight. The length of the scene combined with the horse’s struggles to escape will pull at one’s heartstrings.

Knowing that animals, until quite recently, were not treated well on film sets, leaves me twice as unsettled.

Dark stuff.

A film fraught with difficulties (Monroe and writer Arthur Miller’s marriage breakup, Monroe’s and Huston’s substance abuse issues), and a dark subject matter, make The Misfits an intriguing experience.

Having watched the film twice, I am appreciating it more and more with each viewing and think that it contains memorable qualities that are worth exploring.

As the years have passed The Misfits (1961) has become more appreciated, like a fine wine- I am realizing why.

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

The New Girlfriend-2015

The New Girlfriend-2015

Director-Francois Ozon

Starring-Romain Duris, Anais Demoustier

Scott’s Review #382

80017300

Reviewed March 5, 2016

Grade: B

The New Girlfriend is a French, and lighter, version of The Danish Girl, a similarly themed film also released in 2014-2015.

The story involves gender identification confusion among the central character, though the time in The Danish Girl is the 1920’s, The New Girl is set in present times.

The film begins with a brief montage of the lives of two best friends- Laura and  Claire- sharing life and inseparable as children, young adults, and even as married women.

Sadly, we learn that Laura has recently died of a terminal illness and this is where the film begins. Claire embarks on a unique friendship with Laura’s husband David when she catches him wearing female clothing and acting as a “mommy” to his infant daughter.

They form a bond and Claire agrees to harbor David’s secret and even accompany him in public as he slowly takes on the persona of “Virginia”.

I found the film quite compelling throughout most of the running time as we see David’s burning desire to both dresses as a woman and feel like a woman.

We mostly see the bond develop between Claire and David, who sometimes is Virginia, other times David. Claire is happily married to her successful, handsome, husband Gilles and the three individuals are friends- sharing dinners, tennis matches, and evenings consuming wine.

Gilles is unaware of David’s secret and begins to fear an affair has ensued between his wife and his friend. Likewise, during moments, Claire imagines David and Gilles beginning a torrid affair.

Interestingly, the film does not go full steam ahead with the love triangle between Claire/Gilles/David (Virginia) and this is a wise choice. That would have made the film more typical and generic, and perhaps even one-note.

Rather, the point of the film is the struggles David goes through to feel right as a woman and how his friends support him. When he kisses Claire and snuggles with her, it is not sexual- it is to feel close to another woman.

This makes the film more character-driven.

As with many foreign-language films, The New Girlfriend is liberal with nudity, both male and female. When nudity is featured in American films, typically it is gratuitously or sexually.

This film being French, the nudity was tasteful and even beautiful. When Claire is topless it is more expressive as the mystique of the female body than in a showing of a buxom woman, which Claire is not.

The ending of the film slightly disappointed me. The idyllic, fairy tale way that the film wrapped was romanticized and unrealistic. I would have liked to have seen even more of David/Virginia’s struggles and how his in-laws might have wrestled with the idea of their granddaughter being raised by a single man dressing as a woman.

Another flaw was the lack of explanation as to whether David- as a male-desired and yearned to biologically become a woman or if he was satisfied to dress up and publicly look like a woman. The film chose not to go this route and it undoubtedly would have made the film darker, containing a much deeper story.

Instead, The New Girlfriend was light, fun, and wholesome in its overall story.

Beasts of No Nation-2015

Beasts of No Nation-2015

Director-Cary Fukunaga

Starring-Idris Elba, Ama Abebrese

Scott’s Review #380

Beasts_of_No_Nation_poster

Reviewed February 21, 2016

Grade: B+

Having been made aware of this film following the healthy number of independent film award nominations heaped upon it in 2015, Beasts of No Nation is a war drama, set in an unnamed West Africa country,  that tells of dire events from the perspective of a young boy, having lost his family.

He is forced into a life of brutality and death, taken under the wing of a charismatic commander.

Beasts of No Nation is sometimes raw, sometimes gorgeous, but at all times thoughtful and a powerful telling of the devastation of human life, in a world very few can comprehend.

We first meet Agu (approximately aged eight or nine), and wonderfully played by unknown child actor Abraham Attah, during happy times.

He plays with his childhood chums and adores his older brother who is attempting to woo a pretty girl. His father is a leader and the family lives in a small village protected by troops- they allow refugees in for care.

Their country is in the midst of a civil war, but the family happily survives and makes a life for themselves, sharing meals. Suddenly, the government has fallen and rebels seize the area. In no time, Agu’s family is gone, leaving him alone and scared.

His world turned upside down, he becomes involved with a militia commandant, played by Idris Elba, and a fellow child soldier named Strika, who takes him in.

The film belongs to two actors- Attah and Elba, though all actors perform their roles with precision.  The relationship between the characters is interesting and complex- like a father/son mixed with mentor/protégé and is the most compelling part of the film.

The commander is certainly a father figure to Agu- he sees a warrior in him and takes him under his wing- feeds him, cares for him. He is never violent or abusive towards Agu and in one powerful scene, Agu is sodomized by Attah ( mostly off-screen yet very much implied) and Agu seeks comfort in best friend Strika, who has also met the same actions prior.

One cannot help but think sexual assaults like this are perceived and handled differently in Africa.

Rape is a subject that comes up numerous times in the film- mostly against women.

What I noticed throughout the film was the beauty of the cinematography as most scenes are set outside- the lush, green forests and the villages were tranquil and beautiful- contrasting starkly with the violence taking place.

Agu does some terrible things- in one brutal scene an innocent student is hacked to bits by Agu and Strika at the commander coaching as a sort of initiation. Agu sees the student as responsible for his family’s fates and goes berserk.

Later, Agu tearfully mistakes a village woman for his mother and angrily shoots her dead as she is being raped by his cohorts. The film is not soft and contains lots of violence. But again, this is a world unknown to most viewers.

At times we despise Agu and the violent rage he emits- but then we remember he is a young boy being turned into this warrior by savages.

He talks to God and his mother and knows what he does (and what is happening to his country) is wrong. I would have liked to have learned more background about Elba’s character. What makes him tick? Has he lost loved ones long ago as Agu has?

I surmised that the answer is yes. He is brutal, but a calm, calculating, thoughtful man- but still, one that is in control at all times.

As war rages on Agu and his fellow tribe question what they are doing. Such smarts for a young boy and the audience admires his views. He is intellectual and worldly way beyond his years.

That is what makes Beasts of No Nation a compelling character study. I more than once thought that I had seen this type of film before (Last King of Scotland comes to mind in recent times), but never to the extent of what a character-driven story it was, especially in the eyes of a child.

Beasts of No Nation takes the viewer to an unpleasant world of brutality and a world where there is no rule book. We are exposed to a once innocent child’s experiences and conflicted feelings in the face of danger and heartbreak, and hopefully, will learn its complications.

Independent Spirit Award Nominations: Best Feature, Best Director-Cary Joji Fukunaga, Best Male Lead-Abraham Attah (won), Best Supporting Male-Idris Elba (won), Best Cinematography

Wild Tales-2014

Wild Tales-2014

Director-Damian Szifron

Starring-Liliana Ackerman

Scott’s Review #374

80013561

Reviewed February 5, 2016

Grade: A

What a crazy adventure!

Receiving a well-deserved 2015 Best Foreign Language Film Academy Award nomination, Wild Tales is an Argentinian film that weaves six unique vignettes together.

Each tale involves conflict between characters and oftentimes centers around the subject of revenge. Each reminds me of a foreign language version of a Twilight Zone episode, albeit much darker, mixed with a prevalent Quentin Tarantino influence.

A psychopath arranges for all of his enemies to be on the same flight (“Pasternack”), a hit and run accident among a wealthy family turns murderous (“The Proposal”), a bomb expert turns his expertise onto a corrupt towing company (“Little Bomb”), a disturbed bride and groom bizarrely celebrate their wedding reception (“Until Death Do Us Part”), a revenge-driven waitress waits on her rival (“The Rats”), and a brutal tale of road rage (“The Strongest”) are the stories told in this fantastic film.

Wild Tales is an outrageous journey and as each chapter unfolds we are treated to the unexpected and each is cleverly written- bear in mind that they are independent stories and have nothing to do with each other chronologically or otherwise.

The vignettes also vary vastly in length with one as short as ten minutes and another hovering around the forty-minute mark.

Some characters are sympathetic-others hateful, which is interesting in itself. The diner in “The Rats” is hateful and we wish for his demise.

After “Little Bomb”, the protagonist (or antagonist depending on how you look at it) receives a hero’s welcome for standing up to corruption. In other stories, particularly in “The Strongest”, all of the characters are unlikable.

Famed director Pedro Almodovar (The Skin I Live In, Volver)  does not direct Wild Tales but does produce the project and his imprint is all over it. Almodovar has a thing for the weird and, as in 2013’s I’m So Excited, a thing for passengers in peril inside airplanes.

After “Pasternack”, the first installment, one will experience an “OMG!” moment, which wisely sets the tone for the entire movie. We wait and wonder what can happen next?

My favorite tale was a tie between two- “The Proposal” and “The Strongest”. I loved the class distinction that was evident in the former as a wealthy father struggles to cover up his family’s dirty deeds initially at any cost necessary, but has he finally had enough? Will the wealthy once again victimize the poor?  In the latter, class distinction is again explored, as a hotshot in slick car anger a simple man in a battered car, only to regret his outburst of road rage.

The story turns into a Lord of the Flies situation where it is “kill or be killed”. The clever ending for this one is fantastic as the officials completely misinterpret the events.

By far the most bizarre tale is “Until Death Do Us Part”, which is also the finale.  A glorious and festive Jewish wedding reception turns bitter and bloody as the bride’s jealousy is tested. But is the bride the unstable partner or is the groom? Or perhaps both?

This chapter reminds me most of a Quentin Tarantino film (must have been the bloody bride), as the tone and the texture is reminiscent of his films (and yes, the blood too!).

Unusual, delightful, and sometimes even deranged, Wild Tales is a nice reminder that there are still creative and left-of-center projects being made in modern film that must be experienced and enjoyed. This is not an ordinary, predictable film and that is what makes it quite a gem.

Oscar Nominations: Best Foreign Language Film

Room-2015

Room-2015

Director-Lenny Abrahamson

Starring-Brie Larson

Scott’s Review #373

80073823

Reviewed January 31, 2016

Grade: A

Room is a fantastic, compelling story of a woman’s battle in captivity, along with her five-year-old son in tow. The film also tells of the after-effects that occur from reclusive living as they both strive to adapt to their changing world.

Receiving a slew of Academy Award nominations, the film is more than a one-dimensional story of peril or rescue, but rather, a smartly woven tale that delves into the psychological issues involved with being confined in a room for years, giving the film a deeper meaning. Room is adapted from the novel of the same name, written by Emily Donoghue.

We meet twenty-four-year-old Joy and her five-year-old son Jack, who live in squalor in a shed made into one single room. They exist from food and supplies delivered by their captor “Old Nick”, who abducted Joy seven years prior.

He periodically rapes her and is Jack’s father, though there is no affection on either side. Joy has attempted escape before but has failed. She is determined to break free once and for all and allow her and Jack a normal life.

In the first half, we learn about Joy and Jack and we see how they exist and forge a life together. Until the present, Joy has told Jack that only they are real and the outside world and people on television are not.

They live in a fantasy world and Jack periodically treats objects (chair, toilet, bed) as real-life things, giving morning greetings to these objects- this is both cute and sad. His only channel to the outside world is a small skylight, which he endlessly gazes at.

I love how the film suddenly changes course at the halfway point and shifts focus to the aftereffects taking a dark, complex, psychological turn.

The first half takes place entirely in the “room”, and suddenly, a whole new world has blossomed. A monumental event changes the course of the film.

From this point, the film deals with the traumatic effects of being shut away for years. Joy suffers from depression. Jack sees a new world. We see how other characters deal with the turn of events. Joy’s parents- wonderfully played by Joan Allen and William H. Macy react in completely different ways.

How have their lives changed because of Joy’s abduction? Will they see Old Nick every time they lay eyes on Jack? How will Joy’s mother’s new boyfriend react?

There is a strong theme of coping throughout the film and how all of the characters cope with life events and attempt to resume a life of normalcy. There is such a unique humanistic feel to the film that makes it deeper than I would have expected. Sure, Brie Larson gives a dynamic performance, but the film offers reflection and thought.

The direction and camera-work are a marvel. We see a blurred view of what Jack sees in “the real world”.  It is almost like the audience is reawakening to life and we see it through a child’s eyes- the sights, the sounds.

Jack has heretofore created an imaginary dog in his mind and the film introduces more than one real dog that plays a pivotal role in the film. We see Jack’s joy and terror at the new experiences.

Room encompasses a great deal of thought-provoking ideas and makes what might only have been a basic story and turns it into an intricate journey into human psychology through many different nuances and facets.

What a wonderful, dark experience this is.

Oscar Nominations: Best Picture, Best Director-Lenny Abrahamson, Best Actress-Brie Larson (won), Best Adapted Screenplay

Independent Spirit Award Nominations: Best Female Lead-Brie Larson (won), Best First Screenplay (won), Best Editing

Showgirls-1995

Showgirls-1995

Director Paul Verhoeven

Starring Elizabeth Berkley, Kyle MacLachlan

Scott’s Review #372

962109

Reviewed January 31, 2016

Grade: D

Having heard much about the infamously badly reviewed Showgirls (1995), and its ranking as one of the worst films ever made, I finally got around to watching this (twenty years after its release).

Now considered something of a camp classic, I am glad I did.

While I recognize the dubious distinction it holds and does not disagree with it, I also found something slightly entertaining about the film, and my thought process throughout was “this film is so bad that it might be good”, but in the end, it is pretty much just a bad film.

Nomi Malone (Elizabeth Berkley) hitchhikes to Las Vegas intending to find success as a showgirl. Having her belongings stolen, she is then befriended by a kind-hearted woman named Molly, who works as a seamstress at the topless dance revue, Goddess.

Molly takes her in and introduces her to the star of the show-Cristal (Gina Gershon).

A rivalry immediately develops between the women as Cristal mocks Nomi’s job at another topless club. The main story centers on this rivalry, as Nomi attempts to climb the ranks and achieve success in the shady world of adult entertainment.

Along the way she becomes involved with various men, specifically entertainment director (and Cristal’s boyfriend), Zack, played by Kyle MacLachlan, leading to further tensions.

Let me be honest here- Showgirls is a bad film in every way. I observed three major flaws in the film- poor acting, poor writing, and the film being over-the-top on every level.

Let’s break it down.

Within minutes, I knew the acting was sub-par, and I wondered if that was the fault of the director’s (Paul Verhoeven) directing or the actors themselves- or a combination.

Known for directing Basic Instinct (a sexy, smoldering film), one wonders if he had the same success in mind for Showgirls.

Berkeley gets the brunt of the mention since she is the lead character, but, wow what a bad performance. From the over-dramatic delivery to the phony earnestness, I did not buy the performance for a minute and fantasized on more than one occasion about how a different actress might have tackled the role (Nicole Kidman and Julia Roberts came to mind).

Gershon was almost worse as her sexiness and vixen-like character were fraught with an irritating brooding pout.

The writing is one-dimensional- a poor girl tries to achieve success in a bad, bad world and meets challenge after challenge. Nothing new here.

The predictability was apparent almost immediately and most of the characters were unlikable. When Nomi garners interest in a man, he turns into a player with another aspiring female star on the side, feeding her the same lines as he did Nomi.

Even the one sympathetic character (Molly), exists only to make Nomi more likable as is the case when Molly is attacked and Nomi races to her bedside.

Forced and formulaic, this scene is a prime example of poor and contrived writing.

Most scenes play over the top.

Brimming with nudity and sexual excitement, the film is bawdy and party-friendly. In one scene, dancers take a line of coke before hitting the stage and a feud between two of the dancers results in one sabotaging the production so that the other dancer will break her hip.

The larger-than-life (in more than one way) x-rated, well-endowed, mama dancer, while entertaining, is also silly and foolish.

Chaotic and pointless, each scene was hard to believe and take seriously.

You may be wondering what positives can be found in Showgirls- the answer is not many, but there is a charm I found in the film, but perhaps I am glutenous for punishment.

I think the film “feels” like it wants to have fun and a certain level of entertainment can be found in viewing it, but this is like trying to find a needle in the haystack to see any good in Showgirls.

I do not disagree with the distinction that Showgirls (1995) is one of the worst films ever made, but I found a sliver of charm, interest, and fun mixed in with the more prevalent drivel, poor quality, and painfully bad acting.

But perhaps that is because it is so bad.

Leviathan-2014

Leviathan-2014

Director-Andrey Zvyagintsev

Starring-Elena Lyadova, Vladimir Vdovichenkov

Scott’s Review #370

80013610

Reviewed January 16, 2016

Grade: B+

Nominated for the 2015 Best Foreign Language Film (Russian), Leviathan is a tale of governmental corruption at the expense of the “little man”, mixed in with a family drama- and is quite heavy at times.

The film is very good- sort of a standard, tense drama, if you will, though a bit slow-moving at times. This is not so much a complaint as it is an observation.

As with many Foreign language films versus American films, there is more nudity (not in a gratuitous way) and fewer explosions, which is admiration and hats off to foreign language films as a whole.

Leviathan made me think of the overall foreign language film genre in that assessment as it did not need CGI or any other “bells and whistles” commonplace in current American film.

Set in a gorgeous coastal area of Russia, and featuring a plethora of landscape-most of the film in outdoor shots, Leviathan is a story with religious overtones mixed in with the drama.  “Good vs. evil” and both sides questioning god or defending their actions for god are featured message points.

The protagonist of the story, Koyla, lives with his second wife, Lilya, and his son Roma on the coast in a fishing town. Koyla is hot-headed and expresses rage from time to time, but is a good man living a simple life as a mechanic.

The corrupt Mayor of the town is determined to take Koyla’s land and build a villa, offering Koyla an insulting sum of money to sell his land. The disputed land is currently in legal hands, and Koyla’s handsome lawyer friend, Dima, arrives from Moscow to handle the case and lend support to the family in their uneasy times.

A secondary plot involves a love triangle between Koyla/Dima/Lilya, and Roma’s hatred for Lilya that, while somewhat interesting on its terms, did not do much to further the main plot and I am not sure how necessary it was to the film as a whole. It had nothing to do with the land dispute and was left unresolved.

The clear “hero” of the film is Koyla, but he is no saint himself. He drinks heavily, at one point smacks his son (albeit deservedly so), and has a temper. But his land is being taken from him by a corrupt figure so that makes Koyla empathetic and likable.

Leviathan is a compelling film as the clear message received is “bully vs. beleaguered working man”. The mayor is a fat, unattractive, drunken bully and the audience is clearly instructed to root against him. He has the town justice department in his back pocket and uses blackmail to achieve success.

The film brings religion into the plot as a priest tells the mayor he is doing “God’s work”, thereby justifying his motivations (at least in his mind). Later, a defeated Koyla has a conversation with a religious man questioning God and God’s actions.

The film has a cold feel to it- despite being set in what I believed to be the summer or fall. There is a chill in the air, it always looks windy, and the look of the film is dark. This is effective as Leviathan is a dreary film and one with an unhappy ending. Life is harsh and cruel and the film extends that message.

I did not quite understand Lilya’s motivations and not much is known about her character, despite being heavily involved in the events. What motivates her to have an affair with Dima? Why does she return to Koyla? Is she unhappy and seeking a more glamorous life?

This can be assumed but is never made clear so therefore she is a mysterious character.

Enjoyable to me most was the final thirty minutes or so of the film. When a character’s sudden death occurs, I was left wondering if a particular character was responsible for the death before it was revealed what truly happened.

A cinematic treat and an interesting premise, mixed with a bit of religion and a whodunit of sorts, make the Russian film Leviathan, a worthy viewing experience.

Oscar Nominations: Best Foreign Language Film

Independent Spirit Award Nominations: Best International Film

Terms of Endearment-1983

Terms of Endearment-1983

Director James L. Brooks

Starring Shirley MacLane, Debra Winger, Jack Nicholson

Scott’s Review #368

60004508

Reviewed January 9, 2016

Grade: A

Terms of Endearment (1983) is a sentimental favorite of mine, and while I am slightly embarrassed to include this chick-flick to end all chick-flicks on my favorites list, it is also a damned good sentimental film and makes me a bit weepy each time I see it.

It is pure Hollywood mainstream formula, but somehow Terms of Endearment works (romantic films are not usually at the forefront) and even won the coveted Best Picture Oscar in 1983. That must say something.

So if it is so sappy what makes it so great? For starters, it has some exceptional acting all around, especially by leads Shirley MacLaine, Jack Nicholson, and Debra Winger.

How can you go wrong with a talent of that caliber?

MacLaine and Winger play Aurora and Emma Greenway, a mother and daughter, (the father is deceased) who share a lifelong love/hate relationship, living in the mid-west in present times.

Nicholson plays Garrett, a retired astronaut (and womanizer) and the object of Aurora’s affection.

The chemistry among all three is apparent- I sinfully find it delicious that Winger and MacLaine despised each other throughout filming, adding a layer of curiosity and intrigue to the film, and during their scenes.

Director James L. Brooks wisely balances the heavy drama with comedy so the film does not become too overwrought. For example, Garrett and Aurora have a humorous courtship, constantly bickering or misunderstanding each other- he is a womanizing playboy type and Aurora a domineering, insecure woman- they end up needing each other, nonetheless.

Unforgettable is the hilarious drive along with the beach scene that the two share.  Even though the duo is tenuous and difficult, I love them all the same.

The tear-jerker scenes are emotional, especially the deathbed scene at the end of the film. There is so much raw emotion going on at once and, a rarity in film, the child actors involved are real, believable, and flawless.

The film feels like watching a true, real-life, drama play out. The heartache feels real and the film as a whole feels very genuine.

Also interesting is Emma’s failing marriage to Flap (Jeff Daniels) and her subsequent affair with kind-hearted Sam (John Lithgow) as well as her departure from her mother’s hometown, the constant phone calls, and being in one another’s life, just like a real mother and daughter relationship is oftentimes like.

Terms of Endearment (1983) incorporates all of the elements that make a good, old-fashioned, dramatic tear-jerker, and I find myself a sucker for it each time that I watch it.

Oscar Nominations: 5 wins-Best Picture (won), Best Director-James L. Brooks (won), Best Actress-Shirley MacLaine (won), Debra Winger, Best Supporting Actor-Jack Nicholson (won), John Lithgow, Best Screenplay Based on Material Based on Another Medium (won), Best Original Score, Best Sound, Best Art Direction, Best Film Editing

Fargo-1996

Fargo-1996

Director Joel Coen and Ethan Coen

Starring Frances McDormand, William H. Macy

Top 100 Films #79

Scott’s Review #366

493387

Reviewed January 9, 2016

Grade: A

Fargo (1996) is a treasure as far as I’m concerned and the role that deservedly propelled Frances McDormand to the forefront of the film audience’s minds- not to mention a gold statue for Best Actress.

The film epitomizes dark humor, and zany freshness, during a time in cinema when originality was emerging, and independent films were growing in popularity.

Fargo led the pack.

The film suffers from some derision by locals in and around the upper mid-west U.S.A. for its depiction of accents- perhaps overdone, but hysterical all the same.

Mixed with the snowy and icy locales, the film perfectly presents a harsh and small-town feeling.

The introduction of a crime- initially done innocently, escalates out of control.

Fargo is a part caper, part thriller, and part adventure and is a layered, cool film.

The fact that the time is 1987 is great. The cars, the Oldsmobile dealership, all work particularly.

McDormand plays a local Police Chief- Marge Gunderson, very pregnant, who stumbles upon the crime and slowly unravels the mystery.

All the while, the character keeps her cool, cracks jokes, and emits witty one-liner after another, presenting a slightly dim-witted image, but brilliantly deducing the aspects of the crime.

William H. Macy, in 1996 largely unknown, is perfectly cast as a car salesman, Jerry Lundegaard. Nervous, and shaky, yet with down-home respectability, he hatches a plot to have his wife kidnapped, the ransom to be paid by her wealthy father, enabling Jerry to pay off an enormous embezzling debt, and splitting the money with the kidnappers.

Predictably, things go awry and spiral out of control.

I love how the film crosses genres and is tough to label- is it a crime drama, a thriller, or a comedy? A bit of each which is the brilliance of it.

Fargo (1996) is an odd, little piece of art, and is remembered as one of the best films of the 1990s, making a star out of Frances McDormand.

Oscar Nominations: 2 wins-Best Picture, Best Director-Joel Coen, Best Actress-Frances McDormand (won), Best Supporting Actor-William H. Macy, Best Screenplay Written Directly for the Screen (won), Best Cinematography, Best Film Editing

Independent Spirit Award Nominations: 6 wins-Best Feature (won), Best Director-Joel Coen (won), Best Male Lead-William H. Macy (won), Best Female Lead-Frances McDormand (won), Best Screenplay (won), Best Cinematography (won)

Dancer in the Dark-2000

Dancer in the Dark-2000

Director Lars von Trier

Starring Bjork, Catherine Deneuve

Top 100 Films #95

Scott’s Review #365

60002276

Reviewed January 9, 2016

Grade: A

Dancer in the Dark is in my opinion one of the most important, inventive films of the 2000s and proudly is one of my favorites of all time.

However, the film is not pleasant to watch, and is quite painful and depressing, if the truth be told. But the relevance and sheer emotion the film elicits is more than enough reason to be exposed to it- if only, but perhaps, once.

Director, Lars von Trier, is a master at creative and disturbing, dream-like films that are either odd, non-linear, or otherwise open to interpretation in some way.

He has directed such gems as 2011’s Melancholia and 1996’s Breaking the Waves, to name but two.

With Dancer in the Dark, he uses handheld cameras which add much grit to the film so it almost feels documentary style, and a grainy, shaky look.

The addition of musical numbers mostly written and performed by the star, Bjork, is a wonderful touch.

Speaking of Bjork, words cannot express what a brilliant performance she gives in the film, and the raw emotion she expresses in her starring role is awe-inspiring.

So much was the stress of filming Dancer in the Dark, that she, to my knowledge, has never made another film.

She was shamefully overlooked in the Best Actress Oscar category- an omission that is one of the biggest fails in Oscar history.

Tensions were reportedly high on the set of Dancer in the Dark, as Bjork reportedly despised her director, never missing a chance to tell him so, disappeared from the set for days on end, and spat in his face. Co-star Deneuve, a former French mega-film star, reportedly did not get along well with Bjork.

Despite all the drama, the stars managed to pull together a masterpiece.

Bjork plays Selma, a Czech immigrant, living in Seattle with her young son. The year is 1964. Selma is poor, struggling to survive by working in a clothing factory along with her best friend Cvalda (Deneuve).

Selma and Cvalda escape their dull lives by watching classic musical films at their local cinema. To make matters worse, Selma is suffering from a degenerative eye disease causing her to gradually lose her sight. She struggles to save enough for surgery for her son, who is sure to suffer the same fate without it.

Selma frequently imagines musical numbers in her day-to-day life involving friends and co-workers. When a tragic turn of events occurs and Selma is accused of a crime, the film goes in a very dark direction.

The conclusion of the film will always require handkerchiefs as it is as powerful as it is gloomy.  The aspect I love most about Dancer in the Dark is that it smashes barriers about what film art is and throws all of the rules out the window.

Lars von Triers, famous for this created a dreamy, independent hybrid musical and drama, a dynamic, tragic, emotional experience all rolled up into one great film.

Oscar Nominations: Best Original Song-“I’ve Seen It All”

Independent Spirit Award Nominations: 1 win-Best Foreign Film (won)

Forrest Gump-1994

Forrest Gump-1994

Director Robert Zemeckis

Starring Tom Hanks, Robin Wright, Gary Sinise

Top 100 Films #94

Scott’s Review #362

60000724

Reviewed January 9, 2016

Grade: A

Awarded a bevy of Academy Awards in the year 1994, Forrest Gump is a film that is engrained in many people’s memories since the film was a monster hit in the mid-1990s.

Some complained that the unrealistic nature of the film was silly, and the story too saccharine, but the film is an innocent, sweet piece about a simple-minded man’s journey through life and the insurmountable success that he achieves.

I adore the film largely from a sentimental standpoint and the memories that watching the film years later conjures up.

I find the film to be a comfort.

Zemeckis, a feel-good film director (Back to the Future-1985, Who Framed Roger Rabbit? -1988), carves a whimsical tale of a fellow, Forrest Gump (played brilliantly by Tom Hanks), a slow-witted, but gentle soul, from Alabama, and his decades-long journey through life.

His lifelong love is Jenny (played by Robin Wright), who is a troubled girl and relies on Forrest over their friendship spanning decades.

Forrest is always in the right place at the right time and influences the events of history in his innocent way.

Forrest Gump is unique in its clever use of editing to incorporate Forrest into real-life historical events, which is a big part of the appeal of the film.

In one instance, Forrest meets with Richard Nixon and reveals the Watergate scandal. He also met President John F. Kennedy after winning a football scholarship.

And who can ever forget the numerous lines made famous from the film- “Stupid is as stupid does”, and “Life is like a box of chocolates. You never know what you are going to get.”, to name just two.

What I love most about the film is that it has heart and the relationships that Forrest shares with the central characters in his life are rich. Forrest’s haggard, but kind mother (Sally Field) loves her son and they share a tender, emotional relationship.

When Forrest enlists in the Army during the Vietnam War, his grizzled commanding officer, Lt. Dan Taylor (an Oscar-nominated performance by Gary Sinise), surprisingly becomes one of Forrest’s closest friends.

The film takes a darker turn when we begin to see a more human side to Taylor after a horrible accident, which leaves him without legs. To counterbalance this tragedy, Forrest is comically wounded in the buttocks.

I am not sure if I love or loathe the character of Jenny. Wright is perfect at giving her some vulnerability and her terrible upbringing can excuse some of her actions and take advantage of Forrest for arguably her gain.

Still, she has Forrest’s heart so she cannot be all that bad.

A favorite scene occurs in Washington as Forrest speaks at an anti-war rally. Jenny, in the crowd, recognizes Forrest and their reunion is sweet. Jenny, now a hippie and expelled from school, returns to Forrest’s life.

The fate of both Jenny and Mrs. Gump are scenes that will undoubtedly require tissues to get through as they are tender and emotional as can be.

Zemeckis’s Forrest Gump (1994) has emotion, sweetness, and heart, and those are nice qualities for a film to have.

It is not too sappy overwrought or manipulative, instead provides an honest story.

Oscar Nominations: 6 wins-Best Picture (won), Best Director-Robert Zemeckis (won), Best Actor-Tom Hanks (won), Best Supporting Actor-Gary Sinise, Best Screenplay Based on Material Previously Produced or Published (won), Best Original Score, Best Sound Effects Editing, Best Sound, Best Art Direction, Best Cinematography, Best Makeup, Best Film Editing (won), Best Visual Effects (won)

The Color Purple-1985

The Color Purple-1985

Director Steven Spielberg

Starring Whoopi Goldberg, Oprah Winfrey

Scott’s Review #358

60026621

Reviewed January 9, 2016

Grade: A

Steven Spielberg, admittedly a director who focuses more on sentimentality, mixes heartbreak with the courage to blend a recipe that makes for a perfect, mainstream film from 1985.

It is a different direction for him- far extreme from the summer blockbusters he was known for until this time.

Exceptional acting and cinematography lend themselves to The Color Purple, a film based on the much darker novel by Alice Walker. Certainly, one of the best films of the 1980s.

A relative unknown when the film was made, Whoopi Goldberg gives an astounding performance in the lead role.

The film spans approximately forty years in the early twentieth century and is set in rural Georgia.

Celie Harris (Goldberg) is an oppressed black woman, her sister and best friend Nettie is sent away, leaving Celie a virtual prisoner with a man, Albert Johnson (Danny Glover), whom she is forced to marry and care for in addition to his children.

Raped and beaten, Celie is left with little self-worth until two women, rotund, feisty, Sophia (Oprah Winfrey), and Shug (Margaret Avery) inspire her to be something better.

The Color Purple is a very sentimental film filled with inspiration for anyone beaten down or otherwise abused by people or by society.

The depiction of southern life for blacks, especially black women is depicted well, though softened I have no doubt. Liberties must be taken for the sake of film as black men, in particular, are not portrayed well- surely there must have been some decent black men in this time?

But, despite Spielberg being a male, The Color Purple is told from a definite female perspective.

Her role of Celie is Goldberg’s finest and hers is a case of the Academy getting it all wrong; she should have won an Oscar for this performance instead of a conciliation win a few years later for her secondary (and unremarkable) role in Ghost.

Goldberg never achieved any roles as great as Celie.

Her expressions and mannerisms spoke volumes and her occasional wide, beaming smile would melt the coldest heart.

Winfrey, equally brilliant as Sophia (and also robbed at Oscar’s time), is a completely different character. Angry, abrasive, and outspoken, she fills Sophia with life and energy, which makes her big scene heartbreaking to watch.

Defying a white man she is beaten and arrested and reduced to living out her days as a limping maid to a white woman- who she swore she would never serve.

The cinematography and direction of The Color Purple are grand.

Spielberg does a believable job of depicting time accurately. The costumes worn by the cast and the lighting, in general, are bright and colorful, and I think this gives the film a flavor that is nice to watch.

Again, Walker’s novel and the real-life experience were undoubtedly much darker, but for the film’s sake, this adaptation (numerous stage versions preceded and followed) makes for a wonderful film.

Oscar Nominations: Best Picture, Best Actress-Whoopi Goldberg, Best Supporting Actress-Margaret Avery, Oprah Winfrey, Best Screenplay Based on Material from Another Medium, Best Original Score, Best Original Song-“Miss Celie’s Blues (Sister)”, Best Art Direction, Best Cinematography, Best Makeup, Best Costume Design

Amarcord-1974

Amarcord-1974

Director Federico Fellini

Starring Bruno Zanin, Magali Noel

Top 100 Films #81

Scott’s Review #357

247784

Reviewed January 9, 2016

Grade: A

Federico Fellini’s Amarcord, the winner of the Best Foreign Language Oscar and Golden Globe in 1974, is a semi-autobiographical film based on the childhood of the famed director himself.

Set in the small Italian village of Borgo San Giuliano, the film features quite an array of weird and eccentric characters inhabiting the village.

The plot centers around young Titta, and his coming-of-age development as he blossoms into a young man- his sexual desires and fantasies are heavily explored in this zany film.

Since the time is the 1930s and Fascism, led by the tyrannical Mussolini, was rearing its ugly head, Amarcord is not all light-hearted fun and games, despite how it appears on the surface- there is a serious undertone to the entire film.

Still, the film lacks any sort of story that can be dissected very well, which both pleases and frustrates- the film is simply to be “experienced”. It can either leave your head spinning, scratching your head, or disliking the film.

That is not to say that I take issue or offense with Amarcord I adore the film, but it is not an easy watch. Scenes meander about in a dream-like fashion as we follow Titta through his sexual blossoming.

In one memorable scene, Titta has a titillating experience with a buxom older female who lives in the village. Some of the other characters we meet are giddy with peculiarities: a blind accordion player and a female nymphomaniac to name but a couple.

Titta and his family are featured heavily as they eat together, fight together, and live together. When one day the family treks to visit their Uncle Teo, who is confined to an insane asylum, they take him out for a day in the country, where he climbs a tree and refuses to come down.

A dwarf nun and two orderlies finally arrive and coax him down- he obediently returns to the asylum. It is a bizarre sequence, but one that sums up Amarcord perfectly.

Amarcord contains one wacky scene after another, but many of the scenes are not just to showcase outlandish behavior nor are created as fluff. Fellini has a distinct message to the film and several scenes mock Christianity or Mussolini’s crazy political ideas.

The film is larger than life but also encrusted with the fear of 1930’s Fascism and the fear that the Italians felt during this time.

The film is also sweet and Fellini successfully adds a nostalgic feel to it- everyone feels cozy in a large sprawling town with unique characters, shenanigans, and a celebratory theme, but seriousness lurks beneath.

Amarcord is a zest for life throughout a tumultuous time and Fellini successfully creates a hybrid of the two creating one fantastic film in the process.

Oscar Nominations: 1 win-Best Foreign Language Film (won), Best Director-Federico Fellini

Lawrence of Arabia-1962

Lawrence of Arabia-1962

Director David Lean

Starring Peter O’Toole, Alec Guinness, Omar Sharif 

Top 100 Films #82

Scott’s Review #355

60028312

Reviewed January 9, 2016

Grade: A

Lawrence of Arabia (1962) is quite a grand film and one that must be seen on the large screen to fully appreciate the enormous scale of the production.

Numerous shots of objects appearing in the distance are featured and the small screen dulls the experience.

A wonderful film from top to bottom and groundbreaking at the time by the scope and vast proportions of the production, Lawrence of Arabia achieves its place in the annals of cinema history and is a treat to revisit from time to time.

The film is divided into two parts divided by an intermission as was the case with epics nearly four hours in length.

Peter O’Toole stars as T.E. Lawrence, a bored British Army Lieutenant, who talks his way into a transfer to the Arabian desert.

As the film opens, it is 1935, and Lawrence has just been killed in a motorcycle accident. This concept of revealing the ending of the story and working backward, common in current films, was a novel experience in 1962 when the film was made.

While in Arabia, Lawrence successfully bands together bitter rival tribes to work together to unite against Turkish oppression during World War I. While there he meets two young guides and other central characters such as Prince Faisal (Alec Guinness) and Sherif Ali (Omar Sharif).

Much of the film features the many battles that occur between the rival tribes and the peace that Lawrence has to achieve.

Also, a multitude of location sequences of Lawrence and company traveling across miles and miles of hot desert is featured.

Some complain that Lawrence of Arabia is too slow-moving a film, but to me, that is its selling point. I find the scenes of the group languishing across the desert incredibly lush and rich in meaning.

The intense heat and the beating sun are fantastic in their cinematic grandeur. The film is meant to take its time- exactly how the experience in the Arabian desert would really be like and the mountainous dunes and swirling winds are brilliantly filmed.

David Lean is the king of the sprawling epic and Lawrence of Arabia is his crown achievement.

The character of Lawrence is written well and he is a layered and complex individual- he is not easy to describe or to understand and that is also to the film’s credit.

The sheer weight loss that O’Toole went through over the two years that it took to film Lawrence of Arabia is impressive enough, but he is also a tortured soul emotionally.

An epic film of the grandest proportions, Lawrence of Arabia requires a half-day of dedicated viewing but is worth every minute.

For a reminder of what a true, breathtaking film looks like sans the oversaturated CGI and quick edits, one should take a deep breath and appreciate this work of art for its majestic look.

Oscar Nominations: 7 wins-Best Picture (won), Best Director-David Lean (won), Best Actor-Peter O’Toole, Best Supporting Actor-Omar Sharif, Best Screenplay Based on Material from Another Medium, Best Music Score-Substantially Original (won), Best Sound (won), Best Art Direction, Color (won), Best Cinematography, Color (won), Best Film Editing (won)

Beaches-1988

Beaches-1988

Director Garry Marshall

Starring Bette Midler, Barbara Hershey

Top 100 Films #93

Scott’s Review #352

60011617

Reviewed January 9, 2016

Grade: A

Beaches (1988) is a film that can easily be described as sentimental, sappy, and a chick flick- all in a derogatory fashion- but that regardless, is a treasure to me. I fall for this tearjerker every single time that I watch it.

It is not necessarily a great film, not high art, nor particularly edgy, but a good, old-fashioned, conventional film about friendship.

Bette Midler and Barbara Hershey give the film believability whereas other similar films would appear contrived.

C.C. Bloom (Midler) and Hillary Whitney (Hershey) are lifelong friends from opposite backgrounds. Besides, they could not have more opposite personalities. C.C. is blue-collar, outrageous, and brash, Hillary, is demure, rich, and sophisticated.

We meet our friends as young girls on the boardwalk of Atlantic City, C.C. hiding from her overbearing stage Mom, and Hillary lost and wandering the boardwalk.

The two become fast friends despite their vastly different upbringings and stay connected through ups and downs and life’s trials and tribulations, for over thirty years.

The chemistry between Midler and Hershey is great. I completely buy them as best friends through the years, despite having little in common.

Throughout their tender, emotional scenes, and the knock-down-drag-out fight they have at the mall (a fantastic scene!), there is never doubt about what they have.

They compete over a man, which ordinarily is a lame plot device, but in Beaches, it works because the two stars make it work.

Each actress puts her mark on the individual role. Midler’s C.C. is arrogant, feisty, and interesting as she begins a “have not” and becomes a “have”.

She becomes spoiled and pampered- all of the things she envies about Hillary. She does not handle wealth as well as Hillary because she lacks education. Hillary, an attorney, is classy and graceful.

These characteristics are why it is believable that the women would be at odds.

The last act is a weepy one as one of the women dies, leaving the other to pick up the pieces and move on- alone. This is a sad moment in the film, but the women’s devotion and loyalty are admirable.

Beaches (1988) may not be high art, but boy will it get you reaching for the tissues.

Oscar Nominations: Best Art Direction

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

Monster-2003

Monster-2003

Director Patty Jenkins

Starring Charlize Theron, Christina Ricci

Top 100 Films #83

Scott’s Review #347

60032559

Reviewed January 9, 2016

Grade: A

Monster (2003) may feature one of the best acting performances of all time-Charlize Theron simply embodies the role of the notorious female serial killer, Aileen Wuornos, in a simply astounding triumph.

The mannerisms, the anger, and the charisma that Theron portrays are nothing short of brilliance.

This brazen acting is simply the best aspect of Monster and the main reason to witness the film.

Besides this, the film itself is also great.

The film immediately focuses on Theron- we meet the down-on-her-luck prostitute sitting in tatters underneath an overpass.

Suicidal and with five dollars to her name, she goes to a dive bar for one last beer- having blown someone for the five dollars she reasons that the money will go to waste if she does not spend it.

Her older confidante is Thomas, a grizzled man assumed to be an occasional client of hers, who is played by Bruce Dern. She goes to a gay bar and meets Selby Wall (Christina Ricci), a lesbian.

Aileen insists she is not gay but winds up spending the night with her in Selby’s family home. The two form a connection and bond immediately, spending more time together and becoming immersed in each other’s lives.

When Aileen is brutally raped and beaten by a client, she begins down a dark and murderous path, killing men she meets after she steals their money.

Selby eventually catches on to this and is conflicted over whether to turn her friend in or serve as an accomplice to her crimes as the police close in on the pair.

Enough cannot be said of Theron’s performance. She simply becomes Wournos- from her walk to her infamous manic mannerisms, and her hair flip.

Theron, a gorgeous woman, gained weight, used false teeth, and became simply unrecognizable in the role of a brutal, angry, and trashy-looking woman.

Ricci also deserves praise, but plays her role as a bit clueless or dimwitted, counterbalancing Theron’s manic, in-your-face role. It works well. Both characters are longing for love and companionship and both are misfits.

In a sweet scene, the pair go roller skating together, hand in hand, to the famous rock song, “Don’t Stop Believin”.

This is a great scene.

One can argue the fact that director, Patty Jenkins, softens the way that Wournos is written. Known as a hardened, mean woman, Jenkins writes her as much more sympathetic.

This can also be attributed to the fact that Theron emits some vulnerability to the character- the woman never knew love until she met and bonded with Selby.

Needless to say, Monster (2003) is a dynamic, energetic film, thanks in large part to the powerful performance of Charlize Theron- a role that awarded her the Best Actress Academy Award.

Oscar Nominations: 1 win-Best Actress-Charlize Theron (won)

Independent Spirit Award Nominations: 2 wins-Best First Feature (won), Best Female Lead-Charlize Theron (won), Best First Screenplay