Carrie-1976

Carrie-1976

Director Brian De Palma

Starring Sissy Spacek, Piper Laurie

Top 100 Films #37     Top 20 Horror Films #12

Scott’s Review #325

352989

Reviewed January 5, 2016

Grade: A

Carrie is a horror film from 1976 that is adapted from the Stephen King novel of the same name.

Many King adaptations have failed, but Carrie (along with The Shining) is among the best.

Going beyond the scope of horror and receiving more than one major Oscar nomination (largely unheard of in horror), Carrie influenced films and filmmakers for decades beyond release.

This is largely due to the dream-like and breathtaking direction of mood master Brian De Palma.

By this time (2016), the film and the character of Carrie White were legendary.

Carrie (Sissy Spacek) is a lonely suburban teenager, ostracized by her classmates for being “weird”. Her mother (Piper Laurie) is a devout Christian who spreads the word of god amongst the neighbors.

Carrie has a special ability to move things, usually during anger- this is called telekinesis.

After a humiliating incident in the girl’s locker room when Carrie begins menstruating, one of the nicer girls in the class, Sue Snell (Amy Irving) feels sorry for Carrie and convinces her boyfriend, Tommy Ross, to take Carrie to the prom.

When others in the class take revenge upon Carrie with a sick joke, things take a horrific turn.

Betty Buckley as the empathetic gym teacher, Miss Collins, and John Travolta and Nancy Allen, as dastardly Billy and Chris, also star and are perfectly cast.

The direction in the film is second to none. De Palma adds interesting camera work throughout the film.

During a tender, lovely prom dance between Carrie and Tommy, the camera circles the pair repeatedly, giving a spellbinding, but not dizzying quality.

The use of slow-motion in the important “pig blood” scene is immeasurably effective.

The seemingly eternal time it takes for the blood spilling to occur, and the camera (in slow motion) goes from Sue to Miss Collins to Chris to the bucket of blood is fantastic.

The list of inspired and intense scenes goes on and on- from the climactic scene between Carrie and Mrs. White to the “jump out of your seat” final scene.

The acting is also worthy of high praise. Spacek and Laurie deservedly received Oscar nominations for their work. Spacek elicits so much rooting value into her role with a shred of psychosis bubbling just beneath the surface.

Carrie wants to fit in and have a happy life so the audience is immersed in her corner and celebrates her short-lived happiness with Tommy at the prom. Spacek is just perfectly cast.

Laurie on the other hand exudes crazy in every sense, but we do feel pangs of sympathy for her. We largely believe she cares for her daughter and wants to protect her from the dangerous world.

Carrie (1976) is a masterpiece that continues to hold up well and influence generations who can relate to school bullying,  taunting, and the desire to see the nasty popular kids get their just desserts.

More than a great horror film, it is a revered classic with a dreamy, moody vibe.

One of my all-time favorites.

Oscar Nominations: Best Actress-Sissy Spacek, Best Supporting Actress-Piper Laurie

Deliverance-1972

Deliverance-1972

Director John Boorman

Starring Jon Voight, Burt Reynolds, Ned Beatty

Top 100 Films #74    

Scott’s Review #324

433193

Reviewed January 5, 2016

Grade: A

Deliverance is a disturbing, gritty, yet wonderful 1972 thriller, directed by John Boorman, starring a cast of all-male principal actors.

The film is an adventure, albeit a dark one, with a subject matter difficult to watch, the film takes dark twists along the way, which is also the beauty of it. The viewer will get a harsh look at the backwoods of Georgia, not to mention gorgeous outdoor scenery.

A group of middle-aged, metropolitan businessmen, (played by Burt Reynolds, Jon Voight, Ned Beatty, and Ronny Cox), from Atlanta, decide to go rafting for a weekend getaway along a remote river in a desolate area of Georgia.

It is a guy’s weekend.

Lewis and Ed (Reynolds and Voight) are experienced at canoeing and are therefore the leaders of the group.

The guys are jovial but soon come upon a strange group of very poor townspeople. The men ask for a ride to the river and one of the men, Drew (Cox) engages a strange young boy in a friendly duel of banjo versus guitar, but Drew is then snubbed by the boy.

Later, events take a dark turn when a hunter versus hunted game emerges between the city-dwelling men and the country rednecks.

The film is interesting as it begins as a light-hearted adventure- nearly a buddy movie. The men laugh and joke as they relish in anticipation of the exciting weekend lying ahead of them.

The film then becomes slightly eerie during the banjo scene. We know that something strange or sinister has occurred, but we cannot put our finger on it.

Does the redneck boy hate the city men or is he simply mentally challenged? Why the strange looks of the poor people of the tiny town?

From this point, Deliverance takes a dark turn as a brutal event occurs involving two deaths- one under mysterious circumstances, and a male rape scene that is disturbing in its intensity and humiliation.

The rawness of these aspects of the film is unprecedented, especially interspersed with the contrast of the beautiful nature that is also at the forefront.

The acting is spot-on. In my opinion, Jon Voight makes this film and gives a layered, character-driven performance, so much so, that the audience becomes invested in his life. Ed is a good guy- arguably the kindest of the bunch- and is forced to become a different person as the film progresses, far from his true self.

He struggles in one scene- one beautifully peaceful scene- to shoot and kill a deer calmly grazing in the woods. He cannot do it. I love this scene as it shows Ed’s true nature. He does not dare tell the other men of his perceived shortcomings.

Ironically, he is then forced to make another painful decision involving human life.

On the surface a straightforward mainstream film, but as the film moves along, it becomes a layered masterpiece. Happy, tragic, strange, depressing, peaceful, and brutal capture Deliverance (1972).

The film is a disturbing, memorable gem and needs to be viewed to appreciate the golden age of 1970s cinema.

Oscar Nominations: Best Picture, Best Director-John Boorman, Best Film Editing

Rope-1948

Rope-1948

Director Alfred Hitchcock

Starring Farley Granger, John Dall, James Stewart

Top 100 Films #33

Scott’s Review #323

60020558

Reviewed January 5, 2016

Grade: A

Rope (1948) is one of my favorite Alfred Hitchcock films and a film that rather flies under the radar amongst his catalog of gems.  Made in 1948, the film- set as a play (and based on a 1929 play), using one set only- and appearing to be one long take- is an understated film.

The action is inside a luxurious Manhattan apartment, with a gorgeous panoramic skyline. Intelligent with subtle nuances that in current viewings are not as subtle, the tiny (nine) cast is fantastic at eliciting a fine story that never seems dated.

Starring Hitchcock stalwart, Jimmy Stewart, the film features Farley Granger (Strangers On A Train-1951) and John Dall.

Granger and Dall portray Phillip and Brandon, two college students who strangle a fellow student as an experiment to create the perfect murder. Immediately after the murder, they host a dinner party for friends, including the father, aunt, and fiancée of the victim, all in attendance.

Stewart plays Brandon and Phillip’s prep school housemaster,  Rupert Cadell, who is suspicious of the duo.

To further the thrill, the dead body is hidden inside a large antique wooden chest, in the center of their living room, as their housekeeper unwittingly serves dinner atop the dead body.

The film is macabre, clever, and quite experimental.

The very first scene is of Phillip strangling the victim, David, with a piece of kitchen rope, which is an unusual way to start a film. Typically, there would be more buildup and then the climax of murder, but Hitchcock is far too intelligent to follow the rule book.

Phillip is ironically the weak and submissive one, despite committing the crime. Brandon is dominant and keeps Phillip in check by coaxing him to be calm and in control.

The fact that many of the guests have a relationship with the deceased, munching on their dinner while wondering why David is not attending the party, is gleeful irony. Plenty of drinks are served and as Phillip gets drunker and drunker, he becomes more unhinged.

The film reminds me of some aspects of Who’s Afraid of Virginia Woolf, also based on a play and largely featuring one set- both dinner parties with alcoholic consumptions, secrets, and accusations becoming more prevalent as the evening goes along.

The chilling way that the plot unfolds throughout one evening as Rupert slowly figures out that what he had previously taught Brandon and Phillip in an intellectual, hypothetical classroom discussion, has been taken morbidly seriously by the two.

The homosexual context is hard to miss in this day and age, but remarkably, was over the heads of the 1948 Production Code censors, who had no idea of what they were witnessing.

Phillip and Brandon are a gay couple who live together and this Hitchcock has admitted to in later years. If watched closely, one will notice that in any shot where Brandon and Phillip are speaking to one another, their faces are dangerously close, so we can easily imagine them kissing.

This is purely intentional by Hitchcock.

Rope (1948) is a daring achievement in innovative filmmaking and should be viewed by any aspiring filmmaker, or anyone into robust and clever camera angles, story, and seeking an extraordinary adventure in a calm, subtle, great story, and more.

Kill Bill: Volume 1 and Volume 2-2003/2004

Kill Bill: Volume 1 and Volume 2- 2003/2004

Director Quentin Tarantino

Starring Uma Thurman, David Carradine

Top 100 Films #58

Scott’s Review #322

6003123660032563

Reviewed January 3, 2016

Grade: A

Despite being released as separate films (Fall of 2003 and Spring of 2004), Kill Bill: Volume 1 and Kill Bill: Volume 2 are one grand, sprawling feature.

The films were shot as one, but at a running time of over four hours, it was impossible to release them as one, so director Quentin Tarantino decided to release his masterpiece martial arts film as two sequential films.

I have decided to review them as one since Volume 2 is a clear continuation of Volume 1.

From a story perspective, Kill Bill is a basic revenge thriller. The plot is not complex nor ingenious and is rather ordinary containing B-movie components- think the really bad Kung-Fu films of long ago.

What makes Kill Bill an extraordinary masterpiece, however, is the style that exudes from the film, thanks to the direction and creation of Tarantino.

The film is brimming with good flavor and crackling dialogue of an intelligent sort.

Characters have long conversations with each other-not for redundancy’s sake- in between the endless martial arts and bloody sequences.

We meet our heroine, The Bride (Uma Thurman), in a chapel in El Paso, Texas. About to be married to her groom, the entire wedding party is suddenly assassinated in a bloody fashion by the Deadly Viper Assassination Squad.

Their leader, Bill (David Carradine), shoots The Bride after she reveals to him that she is carrying his baby.

The film flashes forward four years later- The Bride has survived the massacre but has been comatose ever since. When a hospital worker rapes her, she escapes and vows revenge on each one of her attackers- the revenge culminating with Bill.

Her path of destruction leads her to Japan.

Like most of Tarantino’s films, Kill Bill is divided into chapters and often goes back and forth from past to present.

The brilliance of Kill Bill is its pizazz. We know The Bride will get her revenge on the assassins, we just do not know in what way or how bloody the slaughters will be.

The film contains copious amounts of blood and swords and machetes are everywhere to be found.

The slow drawl dialogue as The Bride has conversations with her prey before she kills them, oftentimes ends in a big fight scene. Her first revenge, against Vernita (Vivica A. Fox), is unique in that it takes place in Vernita’s kitchen as her young daughter is happily eating her breakfast cereal.

The entire battle ensues in the kitchen and we are left watching blood and cereal.

It is Tarantino’s unique style of filmmaking and storytelling, adding violence, and long character conversations, that give Kill Bill, and all of his other classic films, his unique brand, and stamp of approval.

I dearly hope he continues to make films that challenge the norm, for years to come.

Chinatown-1974

Chinatown-1974

Director Roman Polanski

Starring Jack Nicholson, Faye Dunaway

Top 100 Films #30

Scott’s Review #321

374030

Reviewed January 3, 2016

Grade: A

Chinatown (1974) is like a perfectly aged fine red wine- with each passing year or viewing, it becomes more and more spectacular.

A thinking man’s film, if you will, Chinatown is a complex puzzle, just waiting to unravel in a layered, complicated fashion. However, this is to its credit, as it is a fantastic, rich, film noir, and as good as cinematic writing gets.

Set in the 1930s the set pieces and art direction are flawless- as great a film in look as in the story.

Director Roman Polanski and star Jack Nicholson are largely responsible for the success of the film.

The direction is a marvel as the cinematography, flow, and pacing are astounding. A slow build, the film takes off at just the perfect point as the mystery gets deeper and deeper, building to a crescendo.

Nicholson plays Jake Gittes, a handsome Los Angeles private investigator hired by a woman claiming to be Evelyn Mulwray. Evelyn desires to have her husband followed, as she suspects him of an affair with another woman.

Jake begins tailing the woman’s husband, only to uncover an intriguing mystery involving the Los Angeles water supply. Soon, the real Evelyn Mulwray (Faye Dunaway) turns up and the film segues into a masterful web of complications and turns of events.

One will not see the ending coming.

Nicholson leads the film as only he can. With his charismatic, aww shucks attitude, mixed with humor, he is eye candy for the camera, as he takes the case and becomes more and more immersed in the action.

This film was a pivotal point for him as he began a slew of worthwhile and abundant performances in pictures.

Let us not forget to mention the acting performance of Dunaway. Smoldering, sexy, classy, intelligent, and vulnerable, she perfectly plays almost every emotion.

Chinatown, Bonnie and Clyde (1967), and Mommie Dearest (1981) are her best works in a career that spanned decades of success.

Chinatown (1974) is an entity unto itself in film noir. It is incredibly well-written, nuanced, and flawless.

This film simply must be seen.

The final thirty minutes- in addition to the “great reveal” are also violent, shocking, and extraordinary. A blueprint of what great filmmaking truly is.

Oscar Nominations: 1 win-Best Picture, Best Director-Roman Polanski, Best Actor-Jack Nicholson, Best Actress-Faye Dunaway, Best Original Screenplay (won), Best Original Dramatic Score, Best Sound, Best Costume Design, Best Art Direction, Best Cinematography, Best Film Editing

The Silence of the Lambs-1991

The Silence of the Lambs-1991

Director Jonathan Demme

Starring Anthony Hopkins, Jodie Foster

Top 100 Films #31     Top 20 Horror Films #9

Scott’s Review #320

14546747

Reviewed January 3, 2016

Grade: A

The Silence of the Lambs (1991) has the honorary achievement of being one of only three films to win the top five Oscar statuettes, having been awarded Best Picture, Best Director (Jonathan Demme), Best Adapted Screenplay, Best Actor (Anthony Hopkins), and Best Actress (Jodie Foster) at the 1991 Oscar ceremonies.

This is no small feat, especially considering the film was released in March (not an Oscar-happy month) and is a horror film. These elements speak volumes for the level of mastery that is The Silence of the Lambs and the film holds up incredibly well as the years go by.

The film was a sleeper hit at the time of release and gradually built momentum throughout the year, becoming a phenomenon and forever a classic.

The film is adapted from the novel of the same name- written by Thomas Harris and, despite being a horror film, contains little gore. The film stars Foster as Clarice Starling, an FBI trainee, sent by her superiors to interview the infamous Hannibal Lecter.

Hannibal, “The Cannibal”, is a highly intelligent former psychiatrist who has been banished to a maximum security insane asylum after having been found guilty of killing and eating his victims.

The FBI hopes that Hannibal will aid them in a current case involving “Buffalo Bill”, a serial killer who skins his female victims.

Hannibal and Clarice embark on an intense and strange relationship in which he gets under her skin and questions her unhappy childhood in exchange for information about “Buffalo Bill”.

This relationship leaves Clarice vulnerable, though the pair develop a strong connection. As Hannibal makes more and more demands in exchange for information, he eventually escapes from custody and a chilling and bizarre escape.

The psychological elements and the intense relationship between Hannibal and Clarice are of monumental importance and Hopkins and Foster share an amazing chemistry.

Hopkins gives a top-notch and downright creepy performance as the cannibalistic killer. His mannerisms are stiff and calculating, his tone of voice monotone, and he simply embodies his character, making him a legendary and recognizable presence in film history.

Two memorable lines that he utters are, “I do wish we could chat longer, but I am having an old friend for dinner.”, and “I ate his liver with some fava beans and a nice Chianti”.

The character of “Buffalo Bill” is as terrifying as Hannibal Lecter.

Portrayed by Ted Levine, the character is maniacal, sexually confused, and otherwise downtrodden. A tailor, he aspires to make a full “woman suit” costume out of his victim’s skin. His current hostage, a Senator’s daughter, is kept confined in an old well and terrorized by Bill’s antics.

His famous line, “It puts the lotion on or it gets the hose again” still terrifies me.

Highly influential, mimicked for years to come, and containing multiple lines and characters permanently etched in film history, The Silence of The Lambs (1991) is a classic not soon forgotten.

The film was followed by multiple sequels, none of which come close to the power and psychological complexities of the original.

Oscar Nominations: 5 wins-Best Picture (won), Best Director-Jonathan Demme (won), Best Actor-Anthony Hopkins (won), Best Actress-Jodie Foster (won), Best Screenplay Based on Material Previously Produced or Published (won), Best Sound, Best Film Editing

The Hateful Eight-2015

The Hateful Eight-2015

Director-Quentin Tarantino

Starring-Kurt Russell, Samuel L. Jackson

Scott’s Review #319

80064515

Reviewed January 3, 2016

Grade: A

Quentin Tarantino does it again!

The modern equivalent of Alfred Hitchcock, Stanley Kubrick, David Lynch, or any of the great directors, his films are an experience to be reveled in.

The viewer is taken to another world and experiences a great fantasy. This time he dives into western territory with The Hateful Eight, a brutal tale of eight strangers holed up in a shelter during a Wyoming blizzard sometime shortly after the Civil war.

Another gem of a film that delivers blood, unique characters, and brilliant writing.

We are introduced to Major Marquis Warren (Samuel L. Jackson) and John “The Hangman” (Kurt Russell) early on, as Marquis hitches a ride on John’s stagecoach.

They are both bounty hunters heading to Red Rock to deliver their prisoners and collect a large sum of loot. Marquis has three dead bodies, but John has captured brutal female criminal Daisy Domergue, played wonderfully by Jennifer Jason Leigh, alive and well.

The group then picks up the new Red Rock sheriff, Chris Mannix, who is headed there to accept his new position.  Everyone is in a panic to reach safety before a vicious blizzard hits and the group comes to a shelter where they meet the other films principals, Joe Gage (Michael Madsen), Oswaldo (Tim Roth), Marco the Mexican (Demian Bichir), and General Sandy Smithers (Bruce Dern). These eight make up “The Hateful Eight” in the title.

The setting could not be better. The cold, wintry blizzard and the grand mountains of the west are authentic. However, most of the film is set inside Minnie’s Haberdashery, an inn, of sorts, where the eight (and some others) spend most of the film.

I found the setting tremendously effective as the howling wind,  the driving snow through the windows, mixed with the glowing warmth of the lighting and the hot, steaming, soothing stew that they ate, and the hot coffee, which is ingeniously featured throughout the film. These hot and cold elements contrasted so well.

Shot in 70 mm film to ensure a widescreen, epic look, the film succeeds in the snowy, outdoor scenes, though I am not sure I would notice this camera style without it having been touted with the release of the film.

The characters bristle with authenticity and engagement and each one is interested in his or her own right- even the secondary characters.

My personal favorites are John “The Hangman”, Daisy, Marquis, and Sandy Smithers. John is probably the most likable character of the bunch and Kurt Russell (almost unrecognizable under the thick beard), gives the character charm and wit.

As the story unfolds, each character is mysterious and their motives unclear, which makes the film fun. Are some in secret cahoots with others? When someone poisons the coffee, a whodunit erupts. This is the beauty of the film- the motivations of the characters slowly come into play and a slow reveal occurs.

The gore/violence is fantastic. Without revealing too much, there are many deaths and the film is non-linear, the middle portion of the story occurring before the first section. To keep things organized, Tarantino divides the film into chapters, and at over three hours long, the film is a monster.

I like how Tarantino features interracial an relationship (black inn owner Minnie and her white husband).

Favorite scenes include the vomiting blood sequence and the extremely brutal scene of the severing of the arm of a character.  There is also the scene of Marquis dragging a victimized, naked soldier through the snow that is intense and shocking, involving brutal sodomy.

As with all of Tarantino films, the characters are cartoonish and not to be taken completely seriously and the violence will undoubtedly offend some, but that is the beauty of his films. A masterful work by a masterful modern director.

Oscar Nominations: Best Supporting Actress-Jennifer Jason Leigh, Best Original Score (won), Best Cinematography

Strangers on a Train-1951

Strangers on a Train-1951

Director Alfred Hitchcock

Starring Farley Granger, Robert Walker

Top 100 Films #27

Scott’s Review #318

70002912

Reviewed January 2, 2016

Grade: A

A thrill-ride-per-minute film, a classic suspense story, filled with tension galore, Strangers On A Train is a great Alfred Hitchcock film from 1951, which began the onset of the “golden age of Hitchcock” lasting throughout the 1950s and 1960s.

A British version of the film exists somewhere, but I have yet to see it.

The American version is a brilliant, fast-paced experience involving complex, interesting characters, including one of the greatest villains in screen history, and a riveting and heart-pounding plot.

Who can forget the important ominous phrase “criss-cross”?

The film begins with a clever shot of two pairs of expensive shoes emerging from individual taxi cabs. Both are men, well-to-do, and stylish.  They board a train and sit across each other, accidentally bumping feet.

We are then introduced to the two main characters- tennis star Guy Haines (Farley Granger) and wealthy Bruno Anthony (Robert Walker). They engage in conversation and immediately we become aware that Bruno is assertive, Guy the more passive individual.

Ultimately, Bruno manipulates Guy into thinking they will exchange murders- Bruno will kill Guy’s unfaithful wife, Miriam, while Guy will murder Bruno’s hated father.  While Bruno takes this dire “deal” seriously, Guy thinks Bruno is joking.

A psychological complexity of the film is the implied relationship between Guy and Bruno. Certainly, there are sexual overtones as flirtation and bonding immediately develop while they converse on the train.

They are complete opposites, which makes the relationship compelling- the devil and the angel if you will. The mysterious connection between these two men fascinates throughout the entire film.

Robert Walker makes Bruno a delicious villain- devious, clever, manipulative, and even comical at times. He is mesmerizing in his wickedness- so much so that the audience roots for him.

The fact that Hitchcock wisely makes the victim Miriam (wonderfully played by Laura Elliot) devious, only lends to the rooting value of Bruno during her death scene. His character is troubled, and almost rivals Norman Bates and Hannibal Lecter as a lovable, evil, villain.

Later in the film when Guy is playing tennis, he gazes into the stands to see the spectators turning left and right in tandem with the moving tennis ball, and the audience sees a staring straight ahead Bruno immersed in the sea of swaying heads.

It is a highly effective, creepy scene.

The pairing of Guy and his girlfriend Anne (a seemingly much older Ruth Roman and, interestingly despised by Hitchcock) does not work. Could this be a result of the implied attraction between Bruno and Guy? Or is this a coincidence?

The casting of Roman was forced upon Hitchcock by the studio, Warner Brothers.

Hitchcock reveals his “mommy complex”, a common theme in his films, as we learn that there is something off with Bruno’s mother, played by Marion Lorde, but the exact oddity is tough to pin down.

She and Bruno comically joke about bombing the White House, which gives the scene a jarring, confusing edge. Is she the reason that Bruno is diabolical?

The theme of women’s glasses is used heavily in Strangers On A Train. Miriam, an eyeglass wearer, is strangled while we, the audience, witness the murder through her dropped glasses. Black and white, the scene is gorgeous and cinematic and continues to be studied in film schools everywhere.

Later, Anne’s younger sister Barbara (comically played by Hitchcock’s daughter Pat Hitchcock), who also wears glasses, becomes an important character as Bruno is mesmerized by her likeness to the deceased Miriam, as a mock strangulation game at a dinner party goes wrong.

The concluding carnival scene is high-intensity and contains impressive special effects for 1951.

The spinning out-of-control carousel, and panicked riders, with the cat and mouse chase scene leading to a deadly climax, is an amazing end to the film.

Strangers On A Train (1951) is one of Hitchcock’s best classic thrill films.

Rear Window-1954

Rear Window-1954

Director Alfred Hitchcock

Starring James Stewart, Grace Kelly

Top 100 Films #50

Scott’s Review #317

60000397

Reviewed January 2, 2016

Grade: A

There are several Alfred Hitchcock films that I love dearly and Rear Window is very high up on that list.

The film is a unique experience in that much of the filming is through the point of view of the main character L.B. Jeffries, played with conviction by James Stewart who is a fixture in several of Hitchcock’s great films.

Wheelchair-bound and confined to his Manhattan apartment, he has nothing more to do than spy on an apartment full of neighbors across the street.

He witnesses a crime and a cat-and-mouse game ensues.

What is great about this film is the viewer gets to know the series of neighbors L.B. watches and glimpses into their lives, some happy lives, some sad.

Rear Window is shot sort of like a play. The chemistry between Stewart and Grace Kelly is nice but quite secondary to the great main story.

Rear Window can be watched repeatedly and enjoyed with each subsequent viewing.

Oscar Nominations: Best Director-Alfred Hitchcock, Best Screenplay, Best Sound Recording, Best Cinematography, Color

Burn Witch Burn (Night of the Eagle)-1962

Burn Witch Burn (Night of the Eagle)- 1962

Director Sidney Hayers

Starring Peter Wyngarde, Janet Blair

Scott’s Review #316

220px-Night-of-the-eagle-poster

Reviewed January 1, 2016

Grade: B

Burn Witch Burn- re-titled for U.S. release from the original British title of Night of the Eagle, is a 1962 black and white horror film.

It is based on a 1943 novel entitled Conjure Wife.

The film is quite decent and delves into the interesting, and arguably unusual, subject of witchcraft, but is careful not to be too dark a film and resembles more of a long episode of the Twilight Zone- a very good episode.

I enjoyed how the film had a wit and a charm to it never taking itself too seriously, instead adding humor and lightness.

Norman, a psychology professor at the local university, is intelligent, successful, and well-adjusted. He has a blonde, pretty, sophisticated wife named Tansy.

The perfect housewife, she coordinates Friday night bridge parties with fellow professors and staff and is a Mrs. Cleaver type- the mother character from the famous 1950s television series, Leave it to Beaver.

When Norman discovers Tansy is practicing witchcraft and possesses various charms, dolls, and weird things, he forces her to destroy all of them.

This leads to a series of bad events.

Norman is accused of rape by a student and other dire circumstances occur. This is assumed by Tansy to be the result of the destruction of her witchcraft.

Burn Witch Burn is a fun film- it does not take itself too seriously, despite the heavy subject matter. Tansy certainly does not look like the stereotypical witch. She looks more like a PTA mom. We almost cheer for her.

At the same time, the film is not so over-the-top that it becomes ridiculous either. I found the film to be entertaining, but certainly not a masterpiece or at all scary.

As the film progresses, I found the action to be a bit confusing from a story-line perspective, but that was admittedly okay. I simply went with it and enjoyed it.

For instance, the plot thickens when some enormous eagle affixed on the front of the university building comes into play. Or the sinister university secretary’s motives are revealed.

Worth mentioning are the thunderstorm’s special effects and ambiance. I found the heavy storm to be crucial in making Burn Witch Burn an effective horror film. It gave a heavy dose of spookiness to events and the atmosphere was spot on.

Burn Witch Burn is a fun, late-night horror flick that does not take itself too seriously but is a worthy film for horror fans to partake in and enjoy.

An underappreciated British horror flick.

Far from the Madding Crowd-1967

Far from the Madding Crowd-1967

Director John Schlesinger

Starring Julie Christie, Terence Stamp, Alan Bates

Scott’s Review #315

70111488

Reviewed January 1, 2016

Grade: A-

A sweeping, gorgeous epic made in 1967, Far from the Madding Crowd is pure soap opera (this is not a negative), done very well, which features a woman with three male suitors and contains many similarities to another brilliant epic, Gone with the Wind.

The cinematography, score, and writing are excellent, and, at close to three hours, are a lengthy experience.

The film is based on the popular novel, written by Thomas Hardy.

The setting is lovely, rural England, the landscape green and lush- mostly farmland, where Bathsheba resides having recently inherited her Uncle’s enormous estate and is, frankly, overwhelmed with the heavy responsibility required to successfully run it.

Three men appear in one form or another to lend a hand and each falls madly in love with her- she had her choice of any of them. Throughout the film, each is given a chance to win her heart, and the trials and tribulations of each occur.

The wealthy neighbor, William Boldwood, is older and insecure. Frank Troy is a bad boy who is a cavalry sergeant, and Gabriel, a former farmer, has lost all of his sheep.

Having only seen this film twice (so far), I notice more and more the similarities to Gone with the Wind. Both are set around the same period (the 1860s) and both films feature very strong, independent, gorgeous female characters with multiple male suitors.

Unlike Gone with the Wind, though, Bathsheba is not self-centered, but wholesome and honest.

Julie Christie was certainly the “it” girl during the time in which the film was made, having recently starred in Darling, and Doctor Zhivago, among others, and Far from the Madding Crowd is a perfect film for her, focusing on her beauty and earnestness.

She is exceptionally cast.

What I enjoy most about the film is we do not know which of the men Bathsheba will wind up with…if any of them. Gabriel Alan Bates) is my personal favorite, but at the beginning of the film, she rebuffs his marriage proposal.

In a heartbreaking scene, one of his dogs goes mad and leads his entire flock of sheep to their death. He then is forced to work as her shepherd, a job beneath him. He is the most likable of the three men and it is fun to root for their ultimate union. But is he prone to bad luck?

Frank Troy is dashing- a clear lady’s man, yet I did not root for him. A character, which I found to have strange motivations, having impregnated, and almost married a young lady named Fanny, only to turn her away based on a misunderstanding, then ultimately change his mind about Bathsheba.

In one scene he manipulates his way into getting the townsmen drunk on brandy, which leads to a crisis. He is charismatic and used to getting his way.

Finally, Boldwood is wealthy and sophisticated and appealing to Bathsheba in a certain way (main stability), but there is also something I find “off” about the character throughout the film- unstable maybe, needy? I did not find his character likable either.

The overlap and the relationships between the men are also interesting aspects of Far from the Madding Crowd. Will they become friends? Would they kill each other for Bathsheba’s affection?

Many emotions run through all four characters, which makes the film rich in character development.

Grand, sweeping, and beautiful are words to describe Far from the Madding Crowd, a film that I enjoy exploring and evaluating upon each viewing.

Oscar Nominations: Best Original Music Score

2001: A Space Odyssey-1968

2001: A Space Odyssey-1968

Director Stanley Kubrick

Starring Keir Dullea, Gary Lockwood

Top 100 Films #16

Scott’s Review #314

207856

Reviewed December 31, 2015

Grade: A

In my mind, 2001: A Space Odyssey (1968) is a masterpiece, pure and simple, and simply must be seen repeatedly to let the message and the experience sink in.

It is one of those films that is comparable to a fine wine- it just gets better and better with age is palpable with deep-thought and allows the viewer to experience the good taste in film art.

The delicious quality is meant to be savored and enjoyed- the slow pace and odd elements only enrich the film. Needless to say, it is one of my favorite Stanley Kubrick films.

Simply an epic journey through space.

Made in 1968, and the year 2001 way off, the film challenges and breaks down barriers and film, as Kubrick simply makes a film that he wants to make and the results are genius.

The film contains no dialogue during the first twenty or the last twenty minutes.

The film begins in the African desert millions of years ago as the evolution of man is apparent- two tribes of ape-men dispute over a watering hole. A black monolith appears and one of the tribes is guided to use bones as weapons.

Millions of years later, we meet a team of scientists- led by Dr. David Bowman and Dr. Frank Poole- as they embark on a mission aboard the United States spacecraft, Discovery One, on a mission to Jupiter.

The ship is mainly controlled by an intelligent talking computer named HAL 9000- nicknamed “Hal”. Hal boasts that he is “foolproof and incapable of error”. As events unfold, the film dives into a study of humans versus technology in a cerebral game of mental chess.

The film is very tough to review analytically as it is so intelligent and visually stimulating- it must be experienced. It challenges the viewer to think and absorb the events occurring.

Visually it is breathtaking and still holds up shockingly well from this perspective. The use of classical music throughout- especially in dramatic scenes is effective.

The stunning scene where David and Frank converse about their suspicions regarding “Hal”, as the intelligent computer system looks on, simply an orange light, but seemingly displaying a myriad of emotions (surprise, rage) in the viewer’s mind, is incredibly compelling.

2001: A Space Odyssey (1968) is an enduring masterpiece.

Oscar Nominations: 1 win-Best Director-Stanley Kubrick, Best Story, and Screenplay Written Directly for the Screen, Best Art Direction, Best Special Visual Effects (won)

The Shining-1980

The Shining-1980

Director Stanley Kubrick

Starring Jack Nicholson, Shelley Duvall

Top 100 Films #20     Top 20 Horror Films #7

Scott’s Review #313

959008

Reviewed December 31, 2015

Grade: A

The Shining is one of the great horror masterpieces of all time.

Released in 1980 and atypical of the slasher craze that was running rampant at that time, the film is a psychological ghost story with frightening elements including a musical score, long camera shots, and a haunting grandiose hotel in a deserted locale.

Without the brilliant direction of Stanley Kubrick, The Shining would not be the masterpiece that it is- to say nothing of the talents of Nicholson and Duvall in the lead roles.

Based on the popular horror novel by Stephen King.

Nicholson plays Jack Torrance, an author and alcoholic, who takes his wife Wendy (Duvall) and son Danny to serve as caretakers at the vast Overlook hotel- for the winter in snowy Colorado.

The lavish hotel will be deserted for the season and Jack looks forward to months of peace that will enable him to complete his novel.

Unfortunately, the hotel is haunted by spirits of the past, and the added burden of the previous caretaker going mad and chopping his family to bits with an ax.

The real success of The Shining is that the hotel itself is a character and has nuances of its own. The hotel is deathly quiet as the Torrances take over for the season-long hallways are featured and the forbidden Room 237 takes on a life of its own.

Creepy images of two young girls and red blood gushing from the elevators take over. Young Danny can communicate with the chef without speaking to each other. Jack imagines a gorgeous nude woman in the bathtub only to discover she is a shriveled old hag.

The film’s cinematography coupled with the looming, morose, musical score perfectly go hand in hand and, in my opinion, are the reasons for the success of the film.

Throughout the film, there is a sense of dread and a forbidden presence that works beautifully.

The very first scene is an aerial shot of the Torrances driving along a mountainous road to be interviewed for the caretaker position. The vast land and mountains as we eventually see the Overlook immediately reveal to us the feeling of isolation, which is really what the film is about.

These exterior scenes are also gorgeous to marvel at.

The crisp, gloomy, winter scenes and the endless maze of animal shrubbery come into play during the film’s final act as Jack, now completely mad, chases Danny through the snowy paths that seemingly lead to nowhere.

The catchphrase, “Here’s Johnny!”, that is uttered from an ax-wielding Nicholson, is permanently ensconced in the relics of pop culture.

Nicholson and Duvall have such dynamic and palpable on-screen chemistry that makes the film work from a character perspective. There is something slightly off with each of the characters, readily apparent from the outset, but that has more to do with each actor being rather non-traditional in appearance.

I can imagine no other actors in these roles.

Author, Stephen King, who reportedly despised the film version of his novel, has since grown to respect the film and Kubrick’s direction, a great deal. The Shining is one of my favorite horror films in addition to being one of my favorite films of all time.

Boogie Nights-1997

Boogie Nights-1997

Director Paul Thomas Anderson

Starring Mark Wahlberg, Burt Reynolds

Top 100 Films #21

Scott’s Review #312

1180077

Reviewed December 31, 2015

Grade: A

Boogie Nights (1997) is a fantastic film about the pornography industry (The Golden Age of Porn) of the 1970s and 1980s and does a wonderful job of portraying the characters as human beings with feelings and emotions, rather than as nymphomaniacs or perverts.

They bond with one another as a family- a group of misfits striving to survive. This and many other reasons are why Boogie Nights is one of my favorite films of all time.

Written, produced, and directed by Paul Thomas Anderson (Magnolia-1999, There Will Be Blood-2007, Inherent Vice-2014), he is a champion at exploring the underbelly of society and flawed and desperate characters.

Boogie Nights is no different.

The dysfunctional family is the common theme of the film. Most of his characters are not happy people, but they are survivors and desperately look for a piece of happiness.

Many in his cast of Boogie Nights also appear in Magnolia. Mark Wahlberg (Eddie/Dirk Diggler), Burt Reynolds (Jack Horner), Julianne Moore (Maggie), Don Cheadle (Buck), William H. Macy (Little Bill), John C. Reilly (Reed Rothchild), Heather Graham (Rollergirl), Philip Seymour Hoffman (Scotty), Malora Walters (Jessie), and Alfred Molina (Rahad Jackson), round out the large cast.

The setting of the film in Los Angeles and the period runs from 1977-1984. Though only seven years take place, much happens to most of the characters during this time and we experience their trials and tribulations.

The unique thing about Boogie Nights is that I care about every character, thanks to great writing and fantastic acting. They succeeded in obtaining my empathy for them. Boogie Nights is an extremely character-driven film, which is an enormous part of its brilliance.

The cast is an ensemble one, but the main character is Eddie Adams, a high school dropout, who we meet working as a dishwasher at a nightclub. He has an abusive mother who kicks him out of the house, leading him to audition for and move in with Jack Horner.

Jack is a patriarch type, who shares a house with Maggie, the matriarch of the household, and roller girl, a fellow high school dropout always wearing roller skates. Eddie’s talent is his large “manhood”.

We watch Eddie, at first shy and polite, rise to superstardom in the porn industry, becoming rich and living a lavish, drug-fueled, lifestyle, where his ego gets the best of him. He, like many of the characters, hit rough times as the early 1980’s shift to videotape was the death of many 1970’s porn actors careers.

The musical soundtrack is very important to the success of Boogie Nights. Many scenes contain songs that were hits of the time or prior, including “Sister Christian”, “Jessie’s Girl”, “God Only Knows”, “Got to Give it Up”, “Ain’t No Stoppin’ Us Now”, and countless others- so much so that the soundtrack is almost a character of the film and we look forward to hearing what song might be featured next.

At one point later in the film, circa 1983, as things begin to spiral out of control for many of the characters- the musical score turns ominous with low bass music, a nighttime setting, the lighting becomes darker, and several stories begin to intersect on one late L.A. night on the streets.

Jack, filming a scene in a limousine starring Rollergirl and a young college jock they pick up off the streets, Dirk-forced to prostitute himself for $10 to a young man in a pickup truck, and Buck-who innocently stops to buy doughnuts for his very pregnant wife Jessie.

Each of these stories ends in brutal violence and the tone is crucial to the success of the scenes. This lengthy scene reminds me quite a bit of a Quentin Tarantino scene in its macabre tone.

Particular favorite scenes include the heartbreaking scene when Maggie loses custody of her son, the New Year’s Eve party at Jack’s house, and the ill-fated drug sale at Rahad Jackson’s.

Each is heartbreaking, powerful, fraught with tension, or otherwise empathetic to the characters, which makes them each quite powerful in different ways.

Induced in the drug sale scene is some black comedy- Rahad’s presumed Chinese houseboy has a fetish for firecrackers, which startle Dirk, Reed, and Todd, as the fear of possible gunshots fills the air. Maggie’s sob scene elicits viewer emotion as we cry with her, and the New Year’s Eve turn of events involving Scotty and Little Bill is tragic.

Boogie Nights (1997) is one of my favorite films because it contains brilliant writing, characters who are fleshed out, damaged, and human, a killer soundtrack, and a dark, mysterious industry (porn) that is both misunderstood and categorized.

Thanks to director, Anderson, we see the people within this lifestyle as real people, with issues, but also with full hearts and kindness.

Oscar Nominations: Best Supporting Actor-Burt Reynolds, Best Supporting Actress-Julianne Moore, Best Screenplay Written Directly for the Screen

Horror Express-1974

Horror Express-1974

Director Eugenio Martin

Starring Christopher Lee, Peter Cushing

Scott’s Review #311

7780013

Reviewed December 30, 2015

Grade: B

Horror Express (1974) is a fun 1970s Spanish/British horror film starring legendary horror actors Christopher Lee and Peter Cushing.

A horror version of Agatha Christie’s Murder On The Orient Express with a bit of camp thrown in, it is an entertaining late-night experience, on a low-budget level.

It is the early 1900’s, and while traveling from Shanghai to Moscow, via the Trans-Siberian Express, a British anthropologist named Professor Alexander Saxton (Lee) brings an enormous,  mysterious crate on board that contains a creature he discovered in a cave.

What we know is it has something to do with human evolution.

A fellow passenger, Doctor Wells (Cushing), and various other passengers become suspicious of the crate and demand to have it opened.

Things go awry and victims begin to be murdered by the creature (an ape-like monster) and left with eyes completely white with missing pupils and irises.

The best part of Horror Express is the setting. The cozy train is a perfect backdrop for the events taking place and it makes the film exciting as the different cars are set-decorated nicely.

This lends itself to a sense of entrapment and being unable to escape the creature as it roams freely from car to car.

For being a low-budget film,  the train sets are quite believable, as are the sounds of the train. It feels like the actors are on a real train as the tooting horns and the sounds of the tracks are authentic.

Having actors as big as Lee and Cushing gives the film respect in horror circles and both actors do believable work.

This film would not have been as good without the talents (and name recognition) of both.

There are also interesting supporting characters and I didn’t find the acting to be too over-the-top as is known to occur in similar types of horror films.

Specifically, the countess’s role and the appearance of Telly Savalas as a Cossack officer investigating events are interesting.

Fans of this genre of horror will understand that suspension of disbelief is necessary as the plot gets a bit goofy- something about the creature taking the information from the victim’s brain and the victims subsequently turning into zombies- it doesn’t make a whole lot of sense.

Especially towards the end, as some drunken Russians and some weird resurrections happen, but that is somehow okay.

For a late-night viewing with some spirits, you can’t ask too many questions and Horror Express (1974) is a decent flick.

The Danish Girl-2015

The Danish Girl-2015

Director-Tom Hooper

Starring-Eddie Redmayne, Alicia Vikander

Scott’s Review #310

80058477

Reviewed December 29, 2015

Grade: A-

The Danish Girl tells the loosely based story of Danish painters and married couple Lili Ebe and Gerda Wegener and recounts Lili’s struggles as the first known recipient of sex reassignment surgery, unheard of at the time that it was (1930).

The film is a showcase in terrific acting (Eddie Redmayne and Alicia Vikander especially) and a journey of one person’s struggle with gender identity.

The subject matter is quite important and timely as the recent transgender movement has emerged at the forefront of social issues today.

A happy, young couple living in Copenhagen, and married for six years, Gerda and Einar are inseparable and madly in love. They are best friends and help each other with their art. In a pinch because of a female model’s tardiness, Gerda convinces Einar to stand in for the model, wearing female clothes.

This event triggers a lifelong identification as a female named Lili Elbe. Lili has emerged sporadically since childhood.

Through painful self-assessment and encouragement from progressive loved ones, Lili decides to go through with a highly experimental and risky sex change operation.

Gushing with sensitivity and tenderness and groundbreaking in a sense, though I bet even more so if made ten years ago, one feels for both lead characters as it is important to note that they both go through emotional turmoil.

It would be easy to lessen Gerda’s emotions and, perhaps with a lesser actress this might have happened, but Vikander (unknown to me before seeing this film) gives an emotional performance that is raw and exudes empathy.

One can imagine how they would feel if their spouse identified as the opposite sex. Confusion, blame, anger, sorrow, would all be common reactions. Gerda is strong, brave, and helpful, all the while crumbling beneath the surface. Vikander brings all of this to the screen flawlessly.

Similarly, Redmayne brings depth and empathy to his role.  Redmayne’s Einar is masculine, but there is something sensitive and slightly feminine to him from the start.

Was this purposely done to soften the blow? He also appears to be very slightly built. Redmayne lost a bit of weight to portray this role and have a softer appearance.

Actors can easily dress up in drag, but the emotional investment needs to be there and Redmayne makes the viewer care about Lili a great deal. One is teary-eyed along with Lili as she sees no other choice, but to undergo the risky operation. We see the desperation in Lili’s eyes and this is thanks to Redmayne’s acting skills.

I loved how supportive the characters are in the film. Granted, Einar/Lili and Gerda travel in liberal and progressive circles, but for 1930, this was wonderful to see.

Of course, Copenhagen and Paris are open-minded cities, but Lili’s childhood friend Hans, a sophisticated, macho guy, offers nothing but support. The same goes for the Doctor taking on Lili’s surgery.

These aspects lend to a delicate, peaceful film of encouragement.

To be clear, Lili is not gay, and this is made crystal clear during the film as she meets a gay man and the distinction between them is made. She does, however, identify and feel that she is a woman. She was simply born with the wrong parts.

The greatest aspect of The Danish Girl is its powerhouse acting and compelling subject matter. One’s gender is a given for most, but watching a riveting drama about someone who is at unrest with their gender is eye-opening and still rather taboo.

2015 was a year of progressive transgender films and The Danish Girl is towards the top in its class and graceful in dealing with the subject matter in a calm non-judgmental way.

Oscar Nominations: Best Actor-Eddie Redmayne, Best Supporting Actress-Alicia Vikander (won), Best Production Design, Best Costume Design

Black Christmas-1974

Black Christmas-1974

Director Bob Clark

Starring Olivia Hussey, Margot Kidder

Top 100 Films #36     Top 20 Horror Films #11

Scott’s Review #309

70057846

Reviewed December 29, 2015

Grade: A

Black Christmas (1974) is one of my favorite horror films of all time and, in my opinion, an under-appreciated classic.  Somehow it is just not the first, second, or third film mentioned when most discuss the influential horror films of years past.

My hubby and I make sure to watch it every holiday season.

It largely influenced Halloween (another love of mine) from the killer’s point of view camera shots to the seasonal element.

It is quite horrifying in several key scenes, in fact, and I am proud to list it as one of my favorite films.

Black Christmas is a must-see for fans of the horror genre.

The setting (a cold and snowy Christmas) is perfect and the film is shot quite dark. There are Christmas lights and carolers for a great winter holiday effect. Most of the film takes place at night and the location is primarily inside a huge, rather creepy, sorority house. The ambiance is well thought out.

Several sorority girls, led by boozy Barb (Margot Kidder) and sweet-natured Jess (Olivia Hussey), prepare to depart for the holiday season by having a small farewell Christmas party. Recently, the girls have been harassed by a prank caller spouting nonsensical gibberish daily.

As in true horror fashion, the girls are systematically offed one by one as events turn dire. Two sub-plots that ultimately merge with the central plot include Jess’s pregnancy by suspicious boyfriend Peter and the search in the park for a missing young girl.

The best part of Black Christmas is that it is an honest, raw film, made on a small budget, that does not include gimmicks or contrivances.

It has authenticity.

A disturbing film for sure,  one victim being posed in a rocking chair continuously rocking back and forth next to the attic window, while said victim is bound in plastic wrap, holding a doll, mouth, and eyes wide, is one of the most chilling in horror film history.

The nuances of the killer also scare and the brilliance of this is that his motivations are mysterious and unclear (in large part the success of Michael Meyers as well). We never fully see the killer except for his shape and eyes, and that is the brilliance of the film.

The one slight negative to the film is the decision to make the cops appear incompetent. The desk sergeant, in particular, is a complete dope- one wonders how he got his job- as a sexual joke by one of the girls goes over his head while the other detectives laugh like fools.

Why is this necessary? I suppose for comic relief, but isn’t that the purpose of Mrs. Mac, the overweight, boozy sorority mother?  Her constant treasure hunt for hidden booze (the toilet, inside a book) is comical and fun.

Her posing and posturing in front of the mirror (she is a very frumpy, average woman) are a delight and balance the heavy drama.

The conclusion of Black Christmas is vague and fantastic and works very well. Due, once again, to the police errors, the final victim’s fate is left unclear as we see her in a vulnerable state, unaware that the killer is looming nearby.

We only hear a ringing phone and wonder what happens next.

My admiration for Black Christmas (1974) only grows upon each viewing as I am once again compelled, to notice more and more ingenious nuances in the film.

Can’t wait until next Christmas to watch it again.

Carol-2015

Carol-2015

Director-Todd Haynes

Starring-Cate Blanchett, Rooney Mara

Top 100 Films-#90

Scott’s Review #308

80058700

Reviewed December 27, 2015

Grade: A

My comparison would be that this film is the female version of Brokeback Mountain if you will.

Carol is a story of hidden romance and secret lives in the early 1950s, a time in which it was very difficult to lead an alternative lifestyle openly (or even in hiding!).

The film is a marvel in its honest storytelling, exquisite class, and its gracefulness, with excellent cinematography and a nice, heartwarming tale.

Carol is directed by Todd Haynes, a director known for films about doomed romances faced with societal challenges. Carol is a wonderful piece of work.

The film contains two equal female lead roles- Carol Aird (Cate Blanchett) is a gorgeous, sophisticated socialite.  She exudes confidence and style in everything that she does.

Always perfectly dressed, well made up, perfect fingernails, her mannerisms relay confidence, and control. She is married to a wealthy businessman, Harge (Kyle Chandler), who is madly in love with her, yet they are divorcing because of her “problem”.

The fact that Carol is a lesbian is known to Harge and they share somewhat of an understanding…..and also a five-year-old daughter. The divorce they are going through is difficult.

Therese Belevit (Rooney Mara), on the other hand, is the polar opposite of Carol.  Young, naïve, she is a part-time shopgirl, who is fascinated by photography. She dates men and goes to parties, living out a typical young girl’s life.

When Carol and Therese meet at the store where Therese works, they are immediately enamored with one another and a friendship develops. Both seem to be caught off guard and the chemistry between the two actresses sizzles.

The focus of the film is the budding romance between Carol and Therese, but also the societal differences that they face, not to mention the age difference between the two women. I found the chemistry quite evident and this is thanks to Blanchett and Mara.

Worlds apart, the two women somehow find their way to each other and form a bond. Their relationship is tender, gentle, and carefully laid out for the audience. They are neither animalistic nor barbaric in a sexual way, but rather- sweet.

When Therese takes a spontaneous car trip from New York to Chicago, leaving her boyfriend, Richard, perplexed, she is conflicted. He wants them to run off to Paris- Therese wants to be with Carol. He breaks up with Therese and accuses her of having a crush on Carol.

Therese and Carol’s romance is finally consummated in a mid-western hotel. It is New Year’s Eve and Todd Haynes chooses to shoot this scene in a romantic, spontaneous way. They are celebrating the holiday, but both are blue and vulnerable. It makes perfect sense that they would turn to one another at this moment.

The film delves into many different emotions that Carol and Therese face- love, glee, anger, rage, confusion, rejection, and loneliness. These adjectives and the aforementioned examples of the tone of the film are why it succeeds.

From an acting perspective, both Blanchett and Mara are great, but I am more partial to Blanchett’s performance. She embodies this character. From the way she confidently orders a martini dry with one olive, to how she brazenly approaches Therese, she is a woman in control. But faced with family issues she becomes vulnerable and we see her as a human being.

Besides the interesting story of a love faced with many challenges, the look of the film is grand. The sets, hairstyles, clothes, and makeup are all graceful and rich. To summarize- everyone looks great and it portrays a perfect picture of the 1950s.

A progressive Hollywood tale did very well, Carol showcases glamour, great acting, and sends a powerful message of acceptance and struggle during a difficult time to be “different”, to fulfill one’s life.

Oscar Nominations: Best Actress-Cate Blanchett, Best Supporting Actress-Rooney Mara, Best Adapted Screenplay, Best Original Score, Best Cinematography, Best Costume Design

Independent Spirit Award Nominations: Best Feature, Best Director-Todd Haynes, Best Female Lead-Cate Blanchett, Rooney Mara, Best Screenplay, Best Cinematography (won)

Jurassic World-2015

Jurassic World-2015

Director-Colin Trevorrow

Starring Chris Pratt, Bryce Dallas Howard

Scott’s Review #307

80029196

Reviewed December 23, 2015

Grade: C

Jurassic World is a film that I expected to like much more than I did.

Sure, it is summer, blockbuster, popcorn flick, but based on the success of the earlier franchise efforts,  and, if memory serves, finding enjoyment in 1993 original, Jurassic Park, I expected a fun ride.

Unfortunately, I was treated to a formulaic, escapade with uninteresting characters and mediocre writing.

The premise is standard- a behemoth of an amusement park exists in Central America, on the island of Isla Nublar, where a dinosaur theme park has been running without incident for ten years.

A genetically modified dinosaur, created because a magnificent new attraction is needed, breaks loose and runs rampant.  A silly love story exists between the two leads Owen and Claire (Chris Pratt and Dallas Bryce Howard), as well as the inclusion of two young boys (Zach and Gray) sent by their divorcing parents to be with their Aunt Claire, who works as the Operations Manager at the park.

Owen is the dinosaur trainer. Predictably, there are “bad guys” who are greedy and/or desiring to advance science at the risk of human life.

The special effects are fine, albeit completely CGI-laden, which is to be expected- the main stars are dinosaurs after all. I did, however, expect better writing or, at least, more of a creative attempt at coming up with something a bit edgy.

The story was completely redundant. Where was the character development? There was none. We know very little about any of the principal characters except on a superficial level. One might argue that an adventure film does not necessitate this, but I disagree- I think it is important. We know that Claire is a workaholic and has none time for her nephews- why? What makes her tick?

Here is a slight complaint- Why kill off only extremely minor characters or villains? I could see this (and the ending) a mile away. The whole film just seemed forced and sloppy.

Jurassic World is also filled with clichés- Owen and Claire initially dislike each other having had one unsuccessful first day back in the day. The film tries to push the love/hate, opposites attract element and it seems contrived. How many times have we seen this in film history?

Also, Chris Pratt is perfect as the hunky, muscular “hero saves the day” type, and Dallas Bryce Howard running through the forest in a tight tank top is not unintentional.

This is not to say that the film is bad. It is a decent adventure film and the special effects are kind of cool. I did enjoy the homage to the original 1993 version as the boys stumble upon the original visitor station complete with the 1992 jeep from the original Jurassic Park film. I thought this was a neat little nod to history and I love that in a franchise film, but that is it for the positives.

Yes, this film was a blockbuster smash and made oodles of money. It, however, felt forced and clichéd and quite formulaic. I was hoping for much more and deeper, stronger, material.

It Follows-2014

It Follows-2014

Director-David Robert Mitchell

Starring-Maika Monroe, Debbie Williams

Scott’s Review #306

It_Follows_(poster)

Reviewed December 23, 2015

Grade: A-

It Follows (2014) is a mysterious, very unique, dreamlike (or shall I say nightmarish!) independent horror film that is a pleasant throwback to old school horror films (my favorites!), with a supernatural twist thrown in.

The film is directed very well by newcomer David Robert Mitchell containing wonderful cinematography, creative camera angles, etc.

This film is not glossy and has a raw, almost videotaped feel, which I found quite wonderful. The film was shot entirely in and around Detroit giving it a cold, industrial look.

The film begins on a dramatic note leaving the viewer curious right off the bat.

A young woman flees her suburban home and nervously stands on the street looking back at her house.  A neighbor asks if she needs help. She then returns to her house, collects her things, and hurriedly drives to the beach. She suspects something or someone is watching her. She tearfully phones her father and tells him she loves him.

The next scene appears to be the following morning and the woman is lying murdered on the beach in a grotesque position- her leg strangely bent.

This is a fantastic way to begin the film.

From this point, the premise is quickly revealed. The main character of the film is Jay, an attractive college-aged girl. She lives with her sister Kelly and is good friends with their next-door neighbors Paul and Yara. An additional neighbor and classmate, Greg, also figures into the plot.

Jay is on a date with Hugh and things are going well. They attend a classic film. They sneak into a deserted lot and have sex. Afterward, Hugh chloroforms Jay and the weirdness begins. A strange woman appears and Hugh tells Jay that she must pass on a curse. Otherwise, an entity in the form of another person that nobody else can see but the victim will get Jay and she will be doomed.

I loved the throwback elements to 1970s and 1980’s horror it is vague when the film is set- purposely so I imagine- as many cars are 1970’s and 1980’s models. Only one cell phone is used throughout the film, but mostly the time could be present or past. Even the houses appear dated.

Story-wise, It Follows is tough to figure out and open to a certain level of interpretation. Is the film anti-sex? Is the story a metaphor for sexually transmitted diseases?

The victims become possessed by the entity after sex and then must pass it to another unwitting victim, sexually.

I noticed some similarities to John Carpenter films- specifically the classic Halloween. Jay sits in a classroom (ironically in the back row next to the window ala Jamie Lee Curtis in Halloween) and looks out to see a strange old woman slowly lumbering towards her, eyes fixed on Jay.

Later, the three principal girls casually walk around the neighborhood engaging in small talk similar to the characters of Laurie, Lynda, and Annie on Halloween.

The ending- a scene in the indoor community swimming pool where the kids try to catch the spirit is a bit hokey and unresolved. However, I did enjoy the final scene- a peaceful one in which I was unsure if the entity has been destroyed or remained. A sequel perhaps?

I give It Follows (2014) major props for its styling, creativity, while all the while giving classic horror fans a good old-fashioned treat without much CGI necessary.

Independent Spirit Award Nominations: Best Director-David Robert Mitchell, Best Cinematography, Best Editing

Blow-Up-1966

Blow-Up-1966

Director Michelangelo Antonioni

Starring David Hemmings, Vanessa Redgrave

Scott’s Review #305

60033579

Reviewed December 21, 2015

Grade: A

Blow-up is a mysterious and compelling 1966 (the spawn of more edgy films) thriller that undoubtedly influenced the yet-to-come 1974 masterpiece The Conversation, directed by Francis Ford Coppola, as both films are tense tales of intrigue focusing on technology as a tool to witness a murder.

This film is legendary director Michelangelo Antonioni’s first English-speaking film and what a film it is.

Set in hip London in the 1960s, it certainly interestingly portrays the fashion world. The story is about a fashion photographer named Thomas, who is in high demand. He revels in bedding women so they may have their photos taken by this rock star photographer and is chased around London by gorgeous women.

He aborts a photoshoot one day because he is bored. He is not the nicest guy in the world and is rather an unlikable character.

But perhaps that is secondary or even intentional. While walking in Maryon Park one day, he comes upon a couple in the distance. They appear to be amid a secret rendezvous, nervously kissing,   so he begins photographing them.

The woman, Jane,  (played by a very young Vanessa Redgrave) realizes they have been snapped and is furious- demanding the film.

This sets off the mystery and the meat of the film.

The film is a tremendous achievement in cinematic intrigue. It is quite psychological and open to much interpretation, which is the genius of it. The main questions asked are “What exactly transpired in the park and who is responsible?”

We feel little sympathy for Thomas, which perhaps is intentional. and what about Jane?

Talk about mystery!

We know little about her other than she has secrets, but is she responsible for the crime? Thomas and Jane play a sort of cat-and-mouse game throughout the film, both seemingly trying to outwit and outmaneuver the other.

The unique aspect of the film is that the viewer will often ask questions- “Was there even a crime committed”? “Are the events all in Thomas’s imagination or has he misinterpreted the series of events”? One will revel in the magnificence of these questions.

Comparisons to The Conversation were apparent to me right away- both feature one of the senses as a means to solving or realizing the crime committed- in The Conversation, it is hearing, in Blow-Up it is sight.

In both, the main character uses these senses for a living and both are arguably not the most likable characters. Both films feature mimes.  Both films are quite cerebral and both are cinema gems for the “thinking man”.

Blow-Up has weird, little intricate moments- a very tall, female, Russian model experiences an odd photoshoot with Thomas. Later,  a giggling pair of young girls end up in a grappling match with Thomas after asking him to take their photos.  A topless (from behind) Jane prancing around Thomas’s apartment is an unusual scene.

As a first-time viewer, I adored this film and it is a good example of a film that requires multiple viewings to fully appreciate and I look forward to doing just that.

A fantastic creative achievement, Blow-Up (1966) is a masterpiece that can be dissected with each subsequent viewing.

Oscar Nominations: Best Director-Michelangelo Antonioni, Best Story, and Screenplay Written Directly for the Screen

The Peanuts Movie-2015

The Peanuts Movie-2015

Director-Steve Martino

Starring-Noah Schnapp, Hadley Belle Miller

Scott’s Review #304

80057058

Reviewed December 20, 2015

Grade: B-

Having adored the Peanuts comic strips in the “funnies” papers every Sunday as a wee child, as well as the wonderful classic A Charlie Brown Christmas special that aired every holiday season, I was eager to see a full-length film released in theaters.

The Peanuts Movie commemorates the 50th anniversary of the Christmas special.  The Peanuts gang is so All-American and ingrained in our culture that I could not resist seeing it. I expected “cute” and that is exactly what I received.

The film was nice but quite safe and certainly predictable.

The Peanuts gang is much more than just the antics of Charlie Brown and his faithful dog Snoopy, who take center stage in the film. It is the entire beloved gang and they are all featured here- Woodstock, Peppermint Patty, Marcie, Linus, Lucy, Frieda, Pig-Pen, and others, albeit in clearly supporting roles.

There are two main stories featured in the film- the long-suffering and (in his mind) friendless (despite actually being loved by the gang), Charlie Brown is enamored with his new neighbor- the Little Red-Haired Girl- well-known from the original comic strips as Charlie Brown’s schoolyard crush-yet never seen.

The other is Snoopy’s writing of a book about the Flying Ace- in which he saves his crush, Fifi, also a pilot, from the dangerous Red Baron and his army.

As usual, the film is really about Charlie Brown’s endless insecurities prompted by bad luck and always screwing things up no matter that his intentions are noble.

When the Little Red-Haired Girl moves in across the street from Charlie Brown, he is immediately smitten and does numerous things to impress and acquire her attention- of course with difficulties arising.

A talent show in which he plays a magician goes wrong. To his delight, he is partnered with the Little Red-Haired Girl on a book report, but when she is called out of town he is forced to write the report himself, thereby foiling his attempts at getting close to her.

As usual, all parents remain unseen and speak in garbled voices as the story is solely about the kids.

An interesting element is, while the Little Red-Haired Girl is seen and does indeed speak, most of this occurs towards the end. Up until this point, we see her only from behind allowing an element of mystery to surround her.

It would have been interesting seeing some of the supporting characters explored more- is Peppermint Patty gay and is Marcie her love interest? How about a love interest or background for some of the others? A very quick side story explored is a growing romance between Pig-Pen and Patti.

The film does a nice job of featuring the familiar settings of the original comic strip- Lucy’s psychiatrist’s booth, the wall,  and the skating pond are prominently featured, which is a treat for long-time fans.

In the end, The Peanuts Movie is a nice film. I would have preferred a bit more of an edge or more creativity as original creator Charles Schultz had, but it is nice to be reminded of a simple time in life and this film is a good time.

Les Bonnes Femmes-1960

Les Bonnes Femmes-1960

Director Claude Chabrol

Starring Bernadette Lafont

Scott’s Review #303

60000531

Reviewed December 19, 2015

Grade: A

Les Bonnes Femmes (1960) is a French film by Claude Chabrol, a wonderful director whom before watching this film, I was shamefully unfamiliar with, save for the recently viewed Les Biches, made in 1968.

He has been labeled the French equivalent of Alfred Hitchcock and, by all accounts, that is an accurate statement.

In the case of Les Bonnes Femmes, it is a brilliant film that came about during the experimental New Wave films of the 1960s and simply cannot be forgotten upon viewing it.

It has resonated with me on a profound level and I cannot stop thinking of it and analyzing it.

The film centers on four shopgirls, living in Paris, all of whom happen to be young and beautiful and mysteriously look similar to one other.  Their names are Jane, Jacqueline, Ginette, and Rita. They are rather bored with their lives and meander aimlessly through life and the doldrums of their job by looking forward to social occasions, which mainly include men.

The girls party (some more than others), date, go to the zoo, swim, and enjoy typical young lady festivities.

So far the film might sound like a typical, lighthearted, nice story- think a French Sex and the City. It is, by and large, this way on the surface, but throughout the film, there is a calm sense of dread- like something bad might be lurking in the shadows of coming around the bend.

As the girls are at the zoo one day, a mysterious individual begins following them, though the viewer has no idea why or who it is.

The film contains more than a sense of dread now that I ponder this point. Rather, a sense of chilling violence is in the air. A brooding, cold, ugly feeling transpires and it is due to superior direction and the overall mood.

Paris, one of the world’s most gorgeous cities, looks bleak, dark, and gloomy throughout the film. The black and white cinematography undoubtedly adds to this as greyness envelopes every shot.

Throughout  Les Bonnes Femmes there is plenty of foreshadowing as situations arise that give a sense of danger or something bad is imminent.

Early in the film, two of the girls are walking along the street when they are approached by two men in a car wanting to party with them. They accept and the viewer wonders what a bad decision they may have made. The men wine and dine the women, who are looking for love.

One of the girls is quite a bit more reserved than the other and ends up spending the night with the men. Later, the owner of the shop tells a story of how she once acquired a serial killer’s bloody handkerchief after he was guillotined and has kept it for years.

Creepy? Yes.

The tigers snarling at the girls when they visit the zoo is laced with symbolism as is a, at first, fun game at the pool, as the men dunk the girl’s heads underwater until things escalate towards danger.

Jacqueline, the sweetest of the girls, meets a motorcycle man and they begin to spend time together. They are happy. The irony of this is that during these later scenes, in which an act of brutality occurs (one character is murdered), the tone of the film is suddenly sunny, warm, and bright. A lovely afternoon in the woods turns evil, and quickly.

This was a shocking scene for me to experience as I was caught off guard. The ending of the film can be discussed in vast detail.

During the murder, it almost seems like the victim is welcoming death. Could this be? Additionally, is one of the shop girls his next intended victim, or is a new girl the killer’s next target?

In the final shot, we see him dancing with a girl, but it is unclear (at least to me) if it is one of the shopgirls.

Chabrol is not a happily-ever-after kind of director. His films are known to be stormy with dread looming. But they are also laced with style, sophistication, and a dark appeal.

I cannot wait to sink my teeth into more of his works.

The Seven Year Itch-1955

The Seven Year Itch-1955

Director Billy Wilder

Starring Marilyn Monroe, Tom Ewell

Scott’s Review #302

60004542

Reviewed December 18, 2015

Grade: B

Following a string of successful hits by director Billy Wilder (mostly famous for films in the 1940s and 1950s), The Seven Year Itch features Marilyn Monroe in her prime and at her finest.

It is a cute film made charming by the likable legend. While certainly not high art, it is a fun experience in classic romantic comedy cinema and it has an innocence certainly lost in today’s genre.

Playing a familiar character to what she was known for (sexy, flirty, sweet blondes), it is arguably Monroe’s best role (though Some Like it Hot still wins out for me as her best film role).

Richard Sherman, a successful New York publisher, finds himself alone for the summer when his wife and son leave for a vacation in the country. Middle-aged and bored, he immediately is enamored with his gorgeous new upstairs neighbor, simply known as The Girl, played by Marilyn Monroe.

The Girl is a commercial actress and former model and is quite friendly and bubbly. She is conveniently staying in New York City while filming a new television ad for toothpaste. Richard finds himself awkwardly tempted by the curvaceous Girl in one situation after another.

The Seven Year Itch is pure innocence and fantasy. The Girl has no designs on Richard, whatsoever, and his flirtation with her is harmless and juvenile. Richard is nerdy and socially awkward, not to mention fearful of his wife’s stern nature, should she find out that he is even spending a moment with The Girl.

Much of the film includes scenes where Richard imagines conversations with his wife or imagines her with another man, justifying his attraction for The Girl. These scenes are done hilariously as he imagines conversations with his wife and much of his thoughts are exaggerated.

Humorous scenes transpire such as the “champagne scene” in which The Girl and Richard attempt to open a champagne bottle while cooling off with Richard’s new state-of-the-art air conditioner.  The Girl keeps her underpants in a freezer to cool off.

The Girl appearing in her toothpaste commercial, comically, is also a treat. And who can forget Marilyn Monroe’s famous scene in which she appears standing over a subway grate, clad in a sexy white dress and high heels, the wind from the subway blowing her dress in the air is one of the most memorable in film history and priceless.

Some would argue that The Seven Year Itch is nothing but fluff and they in large part are correct, but in an age of crude and obnoxious films disguised as romantic comedies, with cheesy jokes and canned humor, it is refreshing to revel back to 1950’s culture, largely an innocent era, and enjoy a fun film romp with one of cinema’s forever stars.

Tangerine-2015

Tangerine-2015

Director-Sean Baker

Starring-Mya Taylor, Kitana Kiki Rodriguez

Scott’s Review #301

80037676

Reviewed December 17, 2015

Grade: A

On the very rare occasion that I am lucky and privileged enough to stumble upon a gem like Tangerine, it reaffirms my faith in the film and creative filmmakers in general.

Here is a universal lesson- it does not require oodles of money to make a great film. This film was shot with three smartphones!! It takes talent and creativity.

Tangerine is a groundbreaking film- the first (that I am aware of anyway) to feature transgender actresses at the forefront of the feature.

The film has been honored with multiple Independent Spirit Award nominations.

Shot documentary style, with grittiness and a frenetic pace, while mixing in unique styles of music (hip hop to classic) as the musical score (a child-like tune begins the film), Tangerine is unique from both a story perspective and a visual style.

The film’s first scene begins with two transgender sex workers- Sin-Dee Rella and Alexandra, having a conversation in a coffee shop. Sin-Dee has just been released from jail and learns that her boyfriend, and pimp, Chester, has been cheating on her.

It is Christmas Eve.

The crux of the film explores Sin-Dee’s rage and subsequent search all over Los Angeles for Chester, and the girl he has been with. She vows revenge on them both.  However, beyond this story point, the heart of the film is of loneliness and isolation that most of the characters (trans and otherwise), share, in one form or another.

Interspersed with the Sin-Dee story, are stories involving Alexandra’s feud with a “john”, and her pursuit of a singing career.

Another very interesting story is that of a straight male, Razmik, an Armenian cab driver who is infatuated with transgender sex workers.

This may sound bizarre or too out there for some, but Razmik’s story is quite tender and compelling. He has a wife and baby at home, along with various other relatives, and is the breadwinner. He is also very conflicted. He does not “use” the sex workers, but rather cares for them and admires them.

I found all three principal characters interesting in different ways- Sin-Dee and Alex are over-the-top, yet sensitive. While Sin-Dee is aggressive and vengeful, Alex is the kinder of the two and the more sensible and rational.

She is a sex worker but aspires to more out of life. Razmik is even more interesting- does he have a fetish? is he shameful for spending money on prostitutes while supporting a wife and child?

All of the characters are victimized in one form or another and all are dysfunctional- at the same time they are all weirdly likable. I witnessed moments of Quentin Tarantino’s film style coming across the screen- most notably in the coffee-shop scenes (the beginning and final scenes) as all hell breaks loose, and the characters delve into all sorts of crazy behavior, though Tangerine is a sweet tale about friendship too.

It is a memorable and powerful film experience.

In the end, all the characters are hurting, living such sad lives, especially since the time is present-day Christmas Eve, which I guess might make this film sound depressing, but it is not.

I found it almost uplifting in a way.

Tangerine is a completely original, groundbreaking film that I hope is remembered and appreciated 50 years from now.

Independent Spirit Award Nominations: Best Feature, Best Director-Sean Baker, Best Female Lead-Kitana Kiki Rodriguez, Best Supporting Female-Mya Taylor (won), Piaget Producers Award

Welcome to my blog! 1,425 + reviews posted so far! My name is Scott Segrell and I reside in Stamford, CT. My blog is a diverse site featuring tons of film reviews I have written since I launched my site in 2014. I hope you enjoy perusing the site for latest or greatest films or to search for your own favorites to see how we compare. Please take a look at my featured sections at the top of the page which change often! Utilize the tags and category links.