All posts by scottmet99

Paranormal Activity 4-2012

Paranormal Activity 4-2012

Director Henry Joost, Ariel Schulman

Starring Katie Featherston

Scott’s Review #424

70243451

Reviewed June 19, 2016

Grade: B

Circa 2012, and at this point in the Paranormal Activity film franchise (with part 5 on its way) one pretty much knows what to expect.

To me, the plot is almost secondary.

In the story, the newborn from the first installment is now aged 7 and living next door to the family at the center of the film.

The entertaining aspect of these films is the camera angles and occasional scares that sporadically follow.

The ending to Paranormal Activity 4 is effective and a bit scary.

The original Paranormal Activity (2007) was a huge hit and novel idea at the time (though The Blair Witch Project in 1999 originally did the hand-held videotape) and was a water-cooler movie.

I’m not sure how much life remains in the franchise, but for fans of it and horror fans seeking some good thrills, this one is worth checking out.

That’s My Boy-2012

That’s My Boy-2012

Director Sean Anders

Starring Adam Sandler, Andy Samberg

Scott’s Review #423

70220030

Reviewed June 19, 2016

Grade: D

That’s My Boy (2012) is such an incredibly bad film yet there is something that strangely kept my attention.

With oodles of stereotypes and either sexist, homophobic, or racist jokes throughout the film, it should have made me angry, but somehow it did not.

This movie was so completely over the top that it could not possibly be taken too seriously.

One laughable aspect that I did enjoy was the, albeit odd, cameos by Vanilla Ice and Todd Bridges who seem to have no problem degrading themselves, and the references to the 1980s.

Otherwise, That’s My Boy is pretty rock bottom for filmmaking.

This is not a knock on the dumb comedy genre as other recent similar types of films are well written (like This is 40-2011).

But, alas, That’s My Boy (2012) is not one of those films and will not go down in history as such.

True to form, the ending was predictable and uninteresting.

Seven Psychopaths-2012

Seven Psychopaths-2012

Director Martin McDonagh

Starring Colin Farrell, Sam Rockwell

Scott’s Review #422

70241756

Reviewed June 19, 2016

Grade: B-

Seven Psychopaths (2012) is a film that I truly wanted to like more than I did.

It started well with a Quentin Tarantino style that was appealing and the film does contain an interesting premise.

Colin Farrell plays the straight man in a cast of offbeat, quirky characters and is attempting to complete a screenplay entitled “Seven Psychopaths” based on these characters.

Sounds great, but halfway through the movie stopped delivering. I found myself slightly bored.

The film has a unique concept, to be sure, but fizzles during the second act, so much so that it stopped making much sense and lost my interest.

I did admire the creativity, though, and the chemistry among the cast is great, but the overall story in Seven Psychopaths (2012) disappointed me.

Independent Spirit Award Nominations: Best Supporting Male-Sam Rockwell, Best Screenplay

Celeste and Jesse Forever-2012

Celeste and Jesse Forever-2012

Director Lee Toland Krieger

Starring Rashida Jones, Andy Samberg

Scott’s Review #421

70227647

Reviewed June 19, 2016

Grade: D

Celeste and Jesse Forever (2012) was a major dud for me.

I am not a fan of romantic comedies, but since the film received a nomination for an Independent Spirit Award for Best First Screenplay, I decided to watch it.

Why this film was nominated for that award I cannot understand. Perhaps someone knows someone who knows someone?

There is nothing impressive about the writing whatsoever. It’s a tried and true romantic comedy formula: couple together, the couple splits, the couple reunites, throw in some misunderstandings for good measure and that is pretty much the film.

The central characters and supporting characters are either dull, annoying, or both.

To be fair, there is nothing loathsome about the movie, but rather, it’s your standard-by-the-numbers romantic comedy that warrants no award nominations.

Bland.

Independent Spirit Award Nominations: Best First Screenplay

Janis: Little Girl Blue-2015

Janis: Little Girl Blue- 2015

Director-Amy Berg

Starring-Janis Joplin

Scott’s Review #420

80025570

Reviewed- June 19, 2016

Grade: B+

As a fan of Janis Joplin’s classic 1960’s-early 1970’s brand of classic, bluesy, rock n roll, viewing a documentary of the star’s life and times was a great experience.

The film sheds a bit of light on the mysterious rocker- gone way too soon and with undoubtedly much more to say. Janis was one of the most authentic, real performers of her time. A big voice in a man’s world. Impressive still, is that she wrote all of her songs herself.

The documentary is well put together as it traverses Janis’s early days as an insecure teenager living in rural Texas. Never a beauty, Janis was insecure-as most teenagers are. She was always a pistol and prided herself at being different and outspoken, oftentimes ruffling feathers in her conservative town, especially given the period.

Janis preferred hanging out with males and being “one of the guys”.

An aspect I found interesting about this documentary is the exploration of Janis’s home life- well before she found success as a singer.

Taunted in school for being different because she was a painter, and a thinker, she lived in a largely racist town and had a conflict with others who were not as progressive as she. Janis’s sister and brother are heavily featured throughout the documentary and explain interesting tidbits about Janis’s home life and conflict with her parents.

Sadly, they forged a pleasant relationship, but never really mended fences before Janis’s untimely death.

Her relationships with other rockers of the time are explored and more than one festival performance is shared- giving a glimpse of what type of performer she was- improvised, heart on the line, intense, and brutally honest.

A lost soul with enormous talent and raw capabilities, Janis Joplin is missed, but thankfully we still have her incredible music to carry on with. Janis: Little Girl Blue is a great documentary that gives a cherished overview of the life and times of a tremendous artist.

Bully-2011

Bully-2011

Director Lee Hirsch

Scott’s Review #419

70181711

Reviewed June 19, 2016

Grade: B+

Bully is an informative and topical 2011 documentary on the bullying problem that has plagued the United States in recent years and has thankfully received more attention as a result.

Shockingly, bullying has resulted in several suicides, which the documentary addresses.

The documentary mainly deals with a handful of bullied students and tells their individual stories. Unfortunately, too often teachers and school administrators either do not take the issue seriously or attempt to squander the matter to avoid more attention, according to the documentary.

Bullying is a nationwide problem in the United States.

I only wish the producers had chosen to focus some attention on the actual bullies for accountability, but surprisingly they did not.

This point was almost completely glossed over and only the victims were featured.

It would have been interesting to hear the perspective from the bully’s standpoint. Do they have issues at home causing them to bully? Are they bullied by others?

Regardless of this flaw, Bully (2011) is a well-made documentary that should be seen by anyone with kids, especially all teachers and school administrators.

Hotel Transylvania-2012

Hotel Transylvania-2012

Director Genndy Tartakovsky

Starring Adam Sandler, Kevin James

Scott’s Review #418

70220028

Reviewed June 18, 2016

Grade: C-

Hotel Transylvania is a 2012 animated comedy film about an overprotective Dracula with a teenage daughter fascinated with the human world.

The premise sounded interesting to me- a gothic, spooky feature and the animations are very well done- bright, colorful, and unique, but the plot is way too predictable and the story as safe as they come.

Despite the dark mood of the film, there is nothing remotely scary about Dracula or any of the other characters. Rather they are completely cliched and quite amateurish.

The target audience is age 10 and under and parents might find themselves bored. I am not a parent and I was bored to tears at one point.

It is too cutesy for my tastes.

Save for the impressive animations, Hotel Transylvania (2012) is completely mainstream fare and forgettable filmmaking.

A great story achieves mountains and this one lacks.

Mustang-2015

Mustang-2015

Director-Deniz Gamze Erguven

Starring-Tugba Sunguroglu

Scott’s Review #417

80058482

Reviewed June 18, 2016

Grade: A-

Mustang is a powerful, relevant, Turkish film released in 2015 and nominated for a slew of awards, including the Best Foreign Language film Oscar.

I fully support the nomination as I feel it is a top-notch piece.

A coming of age story, of sorts, but with no clichés, and a real, true-to-life feel to it. It tells of various generational beliefs and how these beliefs conflict with other viewpoints and ideas.

It also focuses on blossoming life, and sadly, of tragic death.

The story tells of five beautiful young sisters living in a remote village in Turkey, a thousand long miles outside of Istanbul. The girls range in age from eight to eighteen and live with their Grandmother and Uncle Erol-the sister’s parents had died years earlier.

The main protagonist of the film is Lale, the youngest of the siblings, who is wise well beyond her years as the plot unfolds. We first meet her as she bids an emotional farewell to her teacher, as she moves to Istanbul.

The film is told largely from Lale’s point of view, but each of the girls plays an important role. As the girls play an innocent game in a lake with a group of boys, the game causes a scandal in their “old world” village, and the girls are banished inside the house by their Grandmother and Uncle, who fear their progressive ideas will hurt and shame them.

The obvious main crux of the story is the conflict that develops between different generations and the yearning of the girls to be free and independent, both sexually and intellectually. Their older relatives, and others in the town, prefer the old ways and are prudish.

The oldest daughters enter into arranged marriages, while the younger ones fear the same will soon happen to them.

The film wisely does not portray these conflicts in a clichéd way or make them over-obvious.

Rather, the film feels real, fresh, and like a slice of small-town Turkish life. Istanbul is mentioned as a paradise of open-minded thinkers and progressive ways, and “the place to be”. The girls fear life in the doldrums, cooking and cleaning for their men, married off to older men without any love.

It is unclear if the Uncle is molesting any of the girls- the film alludes to it, but the point is not made obvious. What is clear, though, is the girl’s desire for sexual freedom, experimentation, and love.

They are modern thinkers.

The young actress who plays Lale is a marvel. So natural, earnest, and clever, she befriends an older man who teaches her to drive and they embark on a sweet friendship.

Much of the film is shown through Lale’s eyes and her reactions to situations. Knowing nothing of sex, she sneaks a peek at a sex education book and is fascinated by her older sister’s sex discussions.

The ending of the film leaves things open to interpretation, and I choose to believe happiness awaits those featured at the conclusion.

Mustang is a wonderful film, filled with truth, conflict, great acting, and food for thought. A must-see for foreign language film lovers.

Oscar Nominations: Best Foreign Language Film

Independent Spirit Award Nominations: Best International Film

The Kid with a Bike-2011

The Kid With A Bike-2011

Director Jean-Pierre Dardenne, Luc Dardenne

Starring Thomas Doret

Scott’s Review #416

70189306

Reviewed June 18, 2016

Grade: B

The Kid with a Bike is a small French film from 2011 that has received acclaim and recognition worldwide.

The film tells the story of a troublesome young boy abandoned by his struggling father and various dramas that unfold.

I found the film somewhat disappointing as I expected a bit more than I was given.

Throughout the very short one hour and twenty-seven-minute run-time the young boy broods and defies either authority or his caregivers, or fights with various people he encounters as he attempts to find his father.

The boys bond with a local hairdresser who takes him in and is interesting, but her motivations are not made clear other than being kind.

Why would she take in a strange kid? We do not learn all that much about this character and that is a shame.

There is one element towards the end of the film that was shocking and well done, but overall I expected something a bit deeper from this movie given all of the praise surrounding it.

Independent Spirit Award Nominations: Best International Film

The Perks of Being a Wallflower-2012

The Perks Of Being A Wallflower-2012

Director Stephen Chbosky

Starring Logan Lerman, Emma Watson   

Scott’s Review #415

70243461

Reviewed June 18, 2016

Grade: A-

The Perks of Being a Wallflower (2012) is a coming-of-age gem of a film.

It reminds me of a strange combination of The Ice Storm (1997), Donnie Darko (1999), and American Beauty (1999), but a bit more straightforward and less weird than those films.

Perhaps with a bit of The Breakfast Club (1985) thrown in for a lighter touch.

This movie felt very real to me and not like the typical high school schmaltz usually crowding the cinemas these days. It’s dark at times but also humorous and well-written.

Each teen in the group of friends has demons to face and complex, intricately written characters. All are insecure in some form and many teen issues are addressed, in a mature, sensitive way.

It’s nice to see Emma Watson breaking away from her Harry Potter image.

The Perks of Being a Wallflower (2012) is a character-driven treat worth seeing.

Independent Spirit Award Nominations: 1 win-Best First Feature (won)

Robot & Frank-2012

Robot & Frank-2012

Director Jake Schreier

Starring Frank Langella, Susan Sarandon

Scott’s Review #414

70227654

Reviewed June 18, 2016

Grade: C

Robot & Frank (2012) is one of those films where I am left with a “meh” reaction after having viewed it.

It’s not that it’s a bad movie, but there’s nothing particularly special either- it is quite ordinary and rather forgettable after the credits have rolled.

The premise, on paper,  seems novel: a future with robots that grow attached to humans. Unfortunately, the movie did not live up to the idea.

I was hoping for an interesting 2001: A Space Odyssey (1968) type robot idea (HAL) but received nothing of the kind.

I’m a big fan of Frank Langella and I felt he was the main attraction in this movie.

On a side note, why is Susan Sarandon suddenly playing every meaningless supporting role these days? Another wasted role. She deserves better.

Several plot points had no follow-through and the ending, while not exactly predictable, was nothing spectacular.

Meh.

Independent Spirit Award Nominations: Best First Screenplay

The Sessions-2012

The Sessions-2012

Director Ben Lewin

Starring John Hawkes, Helen Hunt

Scott’s Review #413

70209251

Reviewed June 18, 2016

Grade: B-

The Sessions (2012) is a cute, sentimental type film that is pleasant but not much more.

I found the film to be a bit safe, although Helen Hunt’s full-frontal nude scenes are surprising to me and quite brave of the actress. I’ve never been much of a Helen Hunt fan and I have always found her to be overrated, but her performance is very good.

I felt, for the subject matter, the film is too sentimental and too Hollywood, though I do admit to enjoying it.

It might have been grittier and the characters explored a bit more though.

I did not enjoy William Macy’s silly priest character. His character seems rather unnecessary to the rest of the film and has no real point except being the unnecessary moral compass.

The dynamic between John Hawkes and Helen Hunt’s characters is the best part, otherwise, The Sessions (2012) is a mediocre offering.

Oscar Nominations: Best Supporting Actress-Helen Hunt

Independent Spirit Award Nominations: 2 wins-Best Male Lead-John Hawkes (won), Best Supporting Female- Helen Hunt (won)

Life of Pi-2012

Life Of Pi-2012

Director Ang Lee

Starring Suraj Sharma

Scott’s Review #412

70213509

Reviewed June 18, 2016

Grade: B

Life of Pi (2012) is a visual masterpiece. It’s a beautiful piece of filmmaking and lovely to look at. There are several majestic scenes, mostly in the ocean sequences that one will marvel at.

I did not see this movie in 3-D so I am unsure what difference, if any, it would have made. A good portion of the film is CGI-laden, which I am typically not a fan of, but in this case, it works wonders.

What an adventure the main character has!

The actual story, and the acting, are nothing special and have been done before, and slightly stereotypical if truth be told, though I did enjoy the ending.

Life of Pi (2012) is based on a novel and is a wonderful adventure tale, one made very, very well.

The main reason to see it is for its Direction (Ang Lee) and the visual spectacle that it is.

Oscar Nominations: 4 wins-Best Picture, Best Director-Ang Lee (won), Best Adapted Screenplay, Best Original Score (won), Best Original Song-“Pi’s Lullaby”, Best Sound Editing, Best Sound Mixing, Best Production Design, Best Cinematography (won), Best Film Editing, Best Visual Effects (won)

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.

Ex Machina-2015

Ex Machina-2015

Director-Alex Garland

Starring-Alicia Vikander, Oscar Isaac

Scott’s Review #410

80023689

Reviewed June 17, 2016

Grade: B+

Ex Machina reminds me of another recent science-fiction film, Her, with more of a female empowerment edge to it than the latter, which is more of a  romantic drama with undercurrents of love.

In contrast, Ex Machina has a cynical tone and elements of imprisonment and psychosis, even narcissism.

The film features excellent visual effects and a futuristic mystique that makes it a successful treatment.

Directed by first-timer Alex Garland, who could very well be a director to watch rise the ranks with subsequent projects.

Young, fresh-faced computer programmer, Caleb Smith, wins a week-long trip to remote Alaska, to spend it with his mysterious boss, Nathan Bateman, the CEO of a software company.

Caleb must arrive at the luxurious, sprawling estate via helicopter as it is in a deserted area of the world and exists on mile after mile of the gorgeous landscape.

Nathan, played by Oscar Isaac, is both charismatic and creepy. He lives alone save for a beautiful Asian servant named Kyoko, who speaks no English, and a female robot named Ava (played by rising star Alicia Vikander).

Caleb’s assigned task is to study Ava, and determine whether he can relate to her as a human while knowing she is a robot. It is soon revealed that Nathan plans to reprogram Ava, thereby killing her. Caleb schemes to rescue Ava, but is all that it seems?

With a cast of only four principals, it is not difficult to assess each character and their relations with each other. Caleb is the least complex of the four or rather, the one with motivations readily apparent.

The others are shrouded in mystery. Caleb expects a fun getaway but instead finds himself amid experimentation. Is Nathan’s desire to perform psychological tests on Ava, by way of Caleb, genuine?

The audience can sense immediately that there is something off about Nathan. Merely in his thirties, how could he amass such financial success so soon?

Why are he, a servant, and a robot the only inhabitants of the estate? Why does the helicopter pilot refuse to venture any further than the drop-off point?

Some of these questions are answered, some remain unanswered. It is part of what makes the film mysterious and complex. Could Ava be the one doing her share of experimentation or manipulation?

Alicia Vikander deserves much praise for her role of Ava and some would argue that the talented young actress should have won the Best Supporting Actress trophy for this role instead of for The Danish Girl.

I’m not sure I would leap to the same conclusion, but she does amass a ton of subdued emotion as Ava. She is complex and profound. She expresses a longing for exposure to the outside world and would love to cross a crowded street just to see all the faces and different types of people. Like Nathan, there is also something not right about Ava.

Is she calculating or simply soulful? But how can she be, she is a robot? I found myself comparing her to another famous film robot/computer- HAL from 2001: A Space Odyssey.

Along with Vikander, Isaac steals the film in a role that mixes creep with genius. He sits around his estate in comfy clothes a blue-collar man might wear drinking beer and studying Ava. He has sexual relations with his servant and she is expressionless.

He does not treat her well so we do not root for his character- at the same time, his character is tough to read. Is he experimenting on Ava or Caleb?

Visually, Ex Machina has a sleek blend of modern, crisp CGI, not at all usurping the story. There is also a scene of bloodletting that chills as much as any good horror film would.

Garland was heavily influenced by 2001: A Space Odyssey and Altered States and made the film with as little budget as possible and without outside influences that might change his vision. I commend this and wish more filmmakers would follow suit.

Ex Machina, while perhaps not perfect, could be a blueprint to what is to come from this young director.

Oscar Nominations: Best Original Screenplay, Best Visual Effects (won)

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 Way He Looks-2014

The Way He Looks-2014

Director-Daniel Ribeiro

Starring-Fabio Audi, Ghilherme Lobo

Scott’s Review #408

70307130

Reviewed June 4, 2016

Grade: B+

The Way He Looks is a foreign language film (Brazilian) from 2014 that tells a coming of age story about a blind high school student,  who develops feelings for the new kid in town. The other boy has rapidly become his new best friend and the boys, while unsure of the other’s sexual preferences, fall in love.

The film is a charming story about a modern romance, now becoming more prevalent in film today.

Leonardo (known as Leo) is a blind high school student struggling to be his person.  His close friend Giovana is in a similar situation as neither has ever been kissed, yet they feel adolescent desires- they are lonely but share a close bond.

Regardless of his disability, Leo is quite independent, despite having parents who border on smothering. One day, a new student named Gabriel volunteers to sit behind Leo in class and they strike up a friendship. Giovana, unaware of Leo’s sexual preferences, develops a crush on Gabriel.

The film then tells a sweet story about young, blossoming, romance. The main characters do not face particularly tough obstacles from outside sources, but rather from each other as their feelings and emotions are fragile. In addition to romance, the film focuses on the friendships between Leo, Gabriel, and Giovana.

The Way He Looks is a warm film. It is sweet and compassionate and tenderhearted. The viewer witnesses a budding romance between two teenagers and the fact that they are both males is secondary- that is how charming the film is.

The audience will root for Leo and Gabriel because they are nice kids. Giovana, the outsider, also has a rooting factor- she is in no way a villain, nor does she harbor resentment for either Leo or Gabriel, but rather, yearns for her first romance and happiness.

The film wisely does not turn her into an emotional wreck, or a psycho. Sure, she gets drunk at a party, but this is only to temporarily escape her feelings.

I recoiled at the scene after scene of Leo’s parents either fretting about something, worried sick about Leo coming home late, or simply worried that something may happen to their son. Relax already. Life is not meant to be spent frazzled because your son is blind.

The parents are not the strongest written characters in the film and are rather secondary characters. The case is the same for the bullies, the slutty girl, and the teacher. The film belongs to Leo, Gabriel, and Giovana wholly.

The supporting characters in The Way He Looks are meant to merely react to the central character’s issues.

A kind film about a same-sex, young romance. Charming, not too heavy, with likable characters, who one can root for. There are no bombs, car chases, or explosions needed.

The Way He Looks is a slice of life film that is simple, pure, and true.

Earthquake-1974

Earthquake-1974

Director Mark Robson

Starring Charlton Heston, Ava Gardner

Scott’s Review #407

60030175

Reviewed June 2, 2016

Grade: B+

One of the several disaster films to populate film screens in the early to mid-1970s, Earthquake is one of the “main four” blockbusters (The Poseidon Adventure, The Towering Inferno, and Airport being the others), that still resonate with viewers in modern times and are nostalgic to watch.

One might argue that the aforementioned few largely influenced Earthquake since it was the last of the group to be filmed.

Certainly, the influence is apparent.

Earthquake is a classic, traditional, disaster film containing many stock characters (or types) and is an ensemble piece- as disaster films always are- frequently containing stars of yesteryear attempting exposure in the modern cinema.

The gender roles in Earthquake are quite mainstream for the day as the females are all clearly  “damsels in distress” types and the men are portrayed as the heroes.

The action begins as we witness a Los Angeles-based middle-aged couple (the central couple if you will) engaging in a dispute.

Charlton Heston and Ava Gardner play Stewart and Remy Graff, an affluent couple, a former football star, she a boozy socialite. Her father is the wealthy Sam Royce, played by Lorne Greene. Stewart is carrying on an affair with a young actress, Denise Marshall, creating a soap opera-style romantic triangle, adding drama to the film.

We meet other characters who round out the character’s stories- LAPD Sgt. Slade (George Kennedy) shares a flirtation with Rosa (Victoria Principal), while drunkard Walter Matthau and evil kineval character Richard Roundtree provide comic relief.

These stories are merely filler until the inevitable earthquake arrives to ‘shake’ things up.

The earthquake is the main character in the film just like the tidal wave, the fire, and the airline peril are in the other same genre films.

The character’s trivial relationships soon take a back seat to the action as the earthquake shatters the city in subsequent onsets and aftershocks, destroying buildings and resulting in many deaths.

The very lengthy main earthquake sequence is second to none and hovers around the twenty-minute mark. We see many characters in peril. The scene goes on and on but is hardly redundant.

The scene is masterful and well done. The effects, cinematography, and visuals alone hold up well today and must have been breathtaking circa 1974.

In one particularly thrilling scene, a group of office workers on the thirtieth floor of a skyscraper desperately try to scramble to the elevator as the building shakes and shimmies. One businessman shoves a secretary out of the way and selfishly immerses himself in the crowded elevator as others desperately pound on the elevator door to escape.

Things do not end well for the folks on the elevator as bolts loosen and the car crashes to the ground. An animated blood splat fills the screen in a lighthearted, comical way.

The film wisely does not take itself too seriously.

As fantastic as the destruction sequence is, Earthquake is not a film without a few flaws, mostly from a character standpoint.

Unbelievable is Heston playing Greene’s son-in-law and Gardner are assumed to be young enough to be his daughter- they appear to be around the same age.

A strange character, Jody, a store clerk, suddenly dresses as a soldier, wearing a wig, following the destruction and, assumed to be gay by thugs, is teased, which prompts him to shoot them with a machine gun. He subsequently becomes obsessed with and nearly rapes Rosa.

The sub-plot seems uneven and very unnecessary.

With spectacular special effects, Earthquake is a must-see disaster film with a slightly downcast, hopeless tone. It does its job well- it entertains, thrills, and features an all-star cast of former Hollywood elite and a few rising stars.

A fun time will be had.

Oscar Nominations: 1 win-Best Sound (won), Best Art Direction, Best Cinematography, Best Film Editing

Faster, Pussycat! Kill! Kill!-1965

Faster, Pussycat! Kill! Kill!- 1965

Director Russ Meyer

Starring Tura Satana, Haji

Top 100 Films #85

Scott’s Review #406

220px-Faster_pussycat_kill_kill_poster_(1)

Reviewed May 28, 2016

Grade: A

Shamefully, this cult masterpiece from 1965 has somehow alluded me for many years- largely due to its unavailability on Netflix- head shaking for sure.

Finally, I decided to simply buy the newly released Blu-Ray edition, and I immediately became a huge fan of this Russ Meyer work of art.

Influential and intriguing, it is no surprise it is a camp classic.

Several famous directors, most notably Quentin Tarantino, have paid homage to this film in their later works- most notably, Death Proof. Fast cars, sexy women, and murder represent this unique film.

In comparison to other famous Meyer works, specifically the gregarious yet brilliant Supervixens (1975), Faster, Pussycat! Kill! Kill! is almost understated and quiet. He also directed the well-known Beyond The Valley of the Dolls from 1970.

Shot in black and white, several notable comparisons to Supervixens must be pointed out: a hot California desert, large-breasted women, and gas stations are prevalent throughout.

Unlike Supervixens, though, there is little or no nudity.

Three go-go dancers race through the desert in their sports cars. They have murder and kidnapping on their minds. The ring leader, Varla (Tura Satana) is a vicious, sexy, Asian woman. Her two side-kicks are Billie (Lori Williams), and Rosie (Haji). While Billie and Rosie squabble and fight in a juvenile fashion, Varla is the serious one.

The trio enjoys racing their cars and engaging in the game “chicken”. When they meet the all-American couple, Tommy and Linda, out for a romantic drive, they have a dispute and end up killing Tommy- drugging and kidnapping Linda.

After stopping for gas, Varla hatches a plot to steal money from a crazy old man, his muscular yet dimwitted son (known as the Vegetable), and the old man’s seemingly normal son, Kirk.

Faster, Pussycat! Kill! Kill! is a groundbreaking film as it is gender-bending. The women are hardly written as sex objects. Most films of that day were far from it. They are ferocious, specifically, Varla, as they do typically masculine things- race cars, fight, kill, yet do not sacrifice any of their femininity.

All three women are sexy, and busty, and wear stylish make-up. They are not trying to be like men, but are tough girls. This is part of what makes the film so wonderful to watch.

Usually, in Hollywood, these characters would be molls to even rougher men or supporting the men in some way. These female characters are the film.

My favorite character is Varla. Sexy, fierce, and a minority, how often is a female villain this charismatic?  Perhaps in Bond films, but then she would be a conquest of Bond and not her person.

Varla makes up her own rules. The fact that she is Asian is superb and breaks many barriers in the way Asians are portrayed in the film. Varla is more devious than the other characters- willing to kill anyone who stands in her way- even her friends.

She is a character written very well by Russ Meyer, and a pure femme fatale.

The male supporting characters are interesting. The old man, actor Stuart Lancaster, would later appear in Supervixens. He is a cripple, wacky, and as diabolical as the women. He has designs on innocent Linda and makes no bones about it. The Vegetable is hunky and fresh-faced- an innocent victim of his father’s evil ways, so he is a character we root for. I enjoyed the brief romance between him and Billie.

Lastly, Kirk is the “normal” son, also a victim of his father. When he and Linda run across the desert while being chased by Varla, we root for them to survive.

The black and white style, chosen to save money, actually adds to the unique cinematography,  with sharp edits, and gives the film a mystique.

The 1960s jazzy score adds to the film as well. In color, I wonder if the film would have had a more cartoonish quality. The black and white moves Faster, Pussycat! Kill! Kill! into art film territory.

The debate over the film is, “Is the film exploiting women or empowering them”? To me, the film is answering the question of whether women can be tough, sexy, and complicated with a resounding yes.

All three principal characters are layered- each develops feelings for other characters, and at one point Rosie’s sexuality is questioned by Billie. Still, the female characters are not monsters nor are they caricatures. They are complex with real emotions.

Faster, Pussycat! Kill! Kill! (1965) is an influential art film/exploitation film that empowers female characters, questions gender categorizations, and takes hold of the viewer, never letting go.

A miraculous representation of the changing times in cinema during the 1960s. It is brilliant.

Legend-2015

Legend-2015

Director-Brian Helgeland

Starring-Tom Hardy

Scott’s Review #405

80057599

Reviewed May 24, 2016

Grade: B+

Tom Hardy is one of my favorite modern film actors (he should have won the 2015 Oscar for his riveting performance in The Revenant, in my humble opinion) and in Legend fans are treated to a dual role by the handsome Brit.

Hardy portrays Reggie and Ronald Kray, two of London’s most feared and brutal gangsters.

The film belongs to Hardy in every way, shape, and form, the locales of London are fantastic, and more than one scene is jaw-dropping violent, but the film meanders quite a bit and the vocals of Ron Kray are quite difficult to understand.

Still, an impressive effort as a whole.

The time is late 1950’s London. Reggie Kray, the more mainstream of the Kray brothers, is a feared member of the organized crime community.  He is coddled by his mother and can do no wrong in her mind. This makes any relationships difficult as his mum disapproves of his mates.

He falls in love with Frances Shea, a young woman who narrates most of the film, so it is told from an outsider’s perspective. Reggie’s brother Ron has recently been released from a mental hospital and if off of his medications, is certifiably crazy, and very volatile.

He is gay and makes no bones about it.

Ron and Reggie have a love/hate relationship, to say the least, and this dynamic is the most interesting aspect of the film.

Thanks to Hardy, as the writing is not Legend’s strongest suit, we see two very different characters, even though they look alike. In the myriad of scenes shared between the brothers, it appears as though two different actors are playing the roles and that is to Hardy’s credit.

An important scene emphasizes the relationship between the two. When a rival dares to mention Reggie’s wife’s name disparagingly, he points a gun and fires at the man’s head.

Fortunately, the gun is not loaded, so the audience breathes a sigh of relief. Yet, a worse fate awaits the victim. After the deed is done, Reggie whispers in Ron’s ear that he killed the man “because I can’t kill you”.

This means that Reggie would kill Ron if he could- shocking since they are brothers. To add to this, it is implied that he would kill his brother with the same savageness as his victim.

This makes the audience ponder.

Impressive is the sexuality of Ron, and especially since he is not written stereotypically. He is brutal, masculine, and hardcore. The fact that Ron Kray was a real figure is important to note. His entourage of boyfriends follows him around in dedication.

Who can blame them as his charisma oozes- think an unstable James Bond.

The twin’s relationship is the best part of the film, but as a mob film, Legend meanders quite a bit, so much so that it becomes tough to identify what the point of the film is, if not for Hardy.

Save for Frances, none of the supporting characters are written with any interest and they are all rather forgettable.

The wonderful Chazz Palminteri is wasted in the role of Angelo Bruno, head of a Philadelphia crime family and friend of the Krays. There is little meaning or interest in his role.

A mediocre story, but with leading characters with depth, make Legend an interesting film that flies under the radar and received little notice. Hopefully, if nothing else, it continues the success that Tom Hardy is currently achieving in modern film.

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.

Bone Tomahawk-2015

Bone Tomahawk-2015

Director-S. Craig Zahler

Starring-Kurt Russell, Patrick Wilson

Scott’s Review #403

80075001

Reviewed May 10, 2016

Grade: B+

Bone Tomahawk, unfortunately, a film from 2015 that almost nobody saw or heard of, is a unique independent horror/western hybrid, that has strong influences of Quentin Tarantino, and contains an impressive cast for such a low profile film.

Bone Tomahawk is the proverbial diamond in the rough and is worth seeing for film fans with patience enough to sit through the slow-moving pace to get to the good stuff, which largely comes in the final thirty minutes of the film.

Notably, the film was recognized by the Independent film committee and received two spirit awards, for Best Supporting Male (Richard Jenkins), and Best Screenplay- it won neither.

The film does not have a “star”, but rather a myriad of heavy hitters in a clear ensemble. Kurt Russell plays Franklin Hunt, sheriff of a tiny town named Bright Hope, presumably somewhere in the west (Wyoming?) circa 1890. His deputy sheriff, Chicory,  is played by Jenkins.

When drifters kill some travelers, they accidentally stumble upon a mysterious Native American burial ground and taint its contents, leaving one brutally murdered by the tribe.

The other (played by David Arquette) stumbles into Bright Hope and is immediately deemed suspicious. When he, a female Doctor’s assistant, and a young local man disappear, it is realized that they have been abducted by the owners of the burial ground, who are feared to be cannibalistic savages.

Hunt, Chicory, a foreman named Arthur (the doctor’s assistant’s wife), played by Patrick Wilson, along with a local playboy played by Matthew Fox, decide to trek long terrain to find and rescue the missing.

The pacing of the film is extremely slow and this will undoubtedly turn off some folks seeking slicker, high-tech viewing, or even some CGI, but the payoff for patience is immense.

To be fair, the group’s trek through the desert in pursuit of the accosted seems endless, and I did have thoughts of what the point was, but the forthcoming turn of events makes this tedium worth it.

In defense of the long plodding journey, this aspect does make the audience get to know and begin to care about the characters- some make it out alive, others are not as lucky. The fun part is finding out who does and doesn’t.

Bone Tomahawk contains one of the most gruesome scenes that I have ever witnessed in my thousands of viewed films. A male character, nude, is brutally scalped and a spear is hammered into his throat in full view of the prisoners.

As if this is not shocking enough, he is then turned upside down, split down the middle, and chopped in half, as his insides spill to the ground. The snapping sounds of his bones and the visual horror of the guts are even tough for the non-squeamish to view.

It is uncanny that Kurt Russell plays a very similar character in another 2015 film- the much higher profile, The Hateful Eight. Sure, in the latter he is a bounty hunter, but the period, setting, and costumes are almost identical. One might wonder which was made first.

Bone Tomahawk is a guys movie, but not in the traditional sense- there are no explosions, no unnecessary machismo, or apparent clichés.

But at the end of the day, it is a western- the cast is mainly male- besides the Doctor’s assistant, the only other females are wives with small roles.

The most glaring is Sean Young- given hardly anything to do in what amounted to a cameo appearance. Otherwise, the Native American females- blind, deaf, pregnant, and missing appendages are the only other females in sight.

A unique hybrid of film genres, Bone Tomahawk is a clever, different experience. I am a champion of independent film and this film is a good example of why I am. Evidently, with a stellar cast of A-list or former A-list stars banding together to make a piece of art, it seems others champion good film too.

Independent Spirit Award Nominations: Best Supporting Male-Richard Jenkins, Best Screenplay

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.

Spectre-2015

Spectre-2015

Director-Sam Mendes

Starring-Daniel Craig, Christoph Waltz

Scott’s Review #401

80056799

Reviewed May 5, 2016

Grade: B+

A modern treat for James Bond fans, Spectre is a slick, very expensive production sure to please die-hard aficionados of the storied franchise.

It contains a rich history and nods to recent installments, wrapping the story-arc up, a fantastic villain, and fast-paced, compelling story-telling.

What it does lack is an interesting lead Bond girl, a quality that detracts from the film, and what is a must for the cherished franchise.

This is the only major flaw in an otherwise fantastic film.  In typical Bond fashion, his adventures take him to London, Rome, Mexico City, Austria, and Morocco.

Speeding along in what is now the twenty-fourth Bond film, and still feeling fresh and relevant, Spectre commences where its predecessor, Skyfall, left off- mainly hot on the heels of M’s (Judi Dench’s) shocking death. How wonderful to see her again, albeit in a videotaped message- that turns out to be crucial to the central plot.

The new M is a male character again and portrayed by Ralph Fiennes. In the film’s sub-plot, a new character, C, comes into play as the head of the Joint Intelligence Service, who deems the 00 section outdated.

The focal point of the story is Bond’s avenging of the former M’s death by taking down Spectre, an organization not seen in a Bond film since 1971’s Diamonds Are Forever, but once again a strong presence.

The opening sequence in Mexico City kicks off the energy of the film.

Fast-paced, and with an awesome helicopter chase/fight sequence, it is a long sequence that thrills. We watch, engaged, as the helicopter swirls and tumbles mid-air, while hundreds of spectators in a large outdoor square flee for safety.

The film then forays into the inevitable Bond song- “Writing’s On The Wall”, this time wrote and performed by Sam Smith.  This particular song has received mixed reviews, but I am fond of it.

This leaves the audience geared up for a wild adventure to come.

The return of the crime organization, Spectre, to the story, brings a rich history and is the strongest, most interesting part of the film. We have a rooting value since it is familiarity.

Even more pleasing is the return of Bond’s arch-enemy Ernst Stavro Blofeld, known more forcefully as “Number 1”, which has been played by such legendary actors as Donald Pleasance, Telly Savalas, and Max Von Sydow.

In Spectre, Christoph Waltz takes over the role and this is a major win. Waltz, a tremendous actor, plays Blofeld in a sly, wicked manner- taunting, yet with some comedic elements mixed in.

In a compelling scene (and the first one containing Waltz), James Bond appears, hidden, at a Spectre summit.  He recoils as he recognized the shadowed Blofeld, realizing the detrimental repercussions this will mean.

I only hope that in subsequent Bond films, Waltz will return.

Let’s discuss the Bond girls in the film- Ironically, the small role featuring the oldest Bond girl in franchise history (aged fifty and played by the gorgeous Monica Bellucci) is more compelling than the lead Bond girl, Dr. Madeleine Swann, played by Lea Seydoux.

As Lucia Sciarra, widow of the Italian crime lord, Sciarra, there is more chemistry between Daniel Craig and Bellucci than Craig and Seydoux.

I would have much rather seen Sciarra as the primary focus, but she is shamefully underused, appearing in two scenes only. Seydoux seems to lack energy and I noticed zero chemistry between her and Craig.

I am not sold on the new Moneypenny either- Bond’s labored sidekick and always suggested one-sided love interest, in earlier films it used to be a fun dynamic. She was a secretary, older, and their flirtation was charming, light, and fun- she was almost a mother figure to him.

Now, there is no flirtation or romantic hints at all as the character has been modernized to fit the twenty-first century.

Despite this character’s misses, the film is exceptionally well-made with tons of action. Sometimes Bond films hold up well, other times they do not.

Time will tell what fate holds for Spectre, but my hunch is that it will age well.

Oscar Nominations: Best Song-“Writing’s on the Wall” (won)

Bus Stop-1956

Bus Stop-1956

Director Joshua Logan

Starring Marilyn Monroe, Don Murray

Scott’s Review #400

60004539

Reviewed April 30, 2016

Grade: C

Bus Stop is a 1956 film starring Marilyn Monroe that, while surprisingly ranking as one of her best roles, is one of her worst films in my opinion and, at present times, feels dated, chauvinistic, and diminishing to women.

Perhaps perceived as romantic and cute in 1956, times have changed and the film no longer has the charm that it undoubtedly must have had decades ago.

The film is based on a play by William Inge, and, remarkably is Monroe’s first full-fledged dramatic performance. She plays a nightclub performer named Cherie or mispronounced “cherry” by her love interest, Beau, an immature, naïve, socially inept cowboy, unfamiliar with women, and looking for his “angel”.

He is accompanied by his friend and father figure, Virgil.

Together they travel by bus from Montana to Phoenix, Arizona for a rodeo. Once Beau meets Cherie, he is intent on conquering her and marrying her despite her resistance to his pursuits.

As a fan of Monroe’s more familiar works- Gentlemen Prefer Blondes and How To Marry A Millionaire, it is nice to see her in a dramatic role, which gives her some nice range and meatier material to tackle.

In 1956 she was still looking marvelous and the sexy nightclub outfit the film had her prancing around in works well.

While Monroe will never be accused of being the greatest actress in the world, her turn in this film is to be praised, and she lets out some nice emotions. Unfortunately, the character is poorly written, but Monroe gives it the old college try.

Another positive I found with the film is that of the supporting cast.

Bus stop owner Grace (Betty Field), who has a suggested tryst with the bus driver (Robert Bray) is a delight and nearly steals the show! I found their limited screen time and limited romance more interesting and fraught with more potential than the main couple (Beau and Cherie).

Eileen Heckert is fine in the role of Vera, a waitress, and confidante of Cherie, though she is given little to do.

My favorite scene takes place at Grace’s Bus Stop as the group is stranded during a sudden winter storm. Beau and the bus driver engage in a bare-knuckles fight outdoors in the driving snow while the rest look on. The bus driver is tired of Beau’s obnoxiousness and intends to teach him a lesson.

Despite being on a sound stage the scene is authentic and the snow and gusts add to the animal-like, masculine scene.

Otherwise, the film is not kind to women and in some parts is downright sexist. When Cherie, clearly rebuffing Beau’s advances, attempts to board a bus out of town (and alone), Beau decides to lasso her to prevent her from leaving.

In the next scene, we see Cherie obediently sitting next to Beau on another bus to Phoenix to presumably marry him.  It is suggested that she finally gives in, temporarily, to his advances.

This film would never be made today.

The character of Beau is not well crafted. Dumb, lower class, and bordering on abusive to Cherie, I am perplexed as to why the intent is for the audience to root for this character to obtain Cherie and ride off happily into the sunset- I certainly did not.

I would have much preferred a pairing of Cherie and Virgil, who are older, sensible, and kind.

Dated, sexist, with poorly written characters, Bus Stop (1956) is not Monroe’s best film, but it does allow an audience to see her in a dramatic role and that is worth a viewing.

Oscar Nominations: Best Supporting Actor-Don Murray