Wild-2014

Wild-2014

Director-Jean-Marc Vallee

Starring-Reese Witherspoon, Laura Dern

Scott’s Review #249

80013281

Reviewed June 21, 2015

Grade: B+

Wild is a personal story of a young woman’s 1995 challenge to hike the 2,650 mile Pacific Crest trail as a form of therapy from her divorce and her recovery from drug addiction.

The film stars Reese Witherspoon in a thoughtful biography of a real-life figure, Cheryl Strayed, and is adapted from a novel entitled Wild: From Lost to Found on the Pacific Trail.

The film depicts Cheryl’s struggles to survive in the remote area of northern California throughout various weather patterns, and her interesting encounters with strangers along the way.

The film is a showcase for Witherspoon as she takes center stage, appearing in almost every frame of the film.

Her producing the project undoubtedly has something to do with this. Regardless, it is a winning turn for Witherspoon as she is excellent. She portrays the role with vigor, emotional rawness, and vulnerability, which comes across on-screen. She certainly deserved her Oscar nomination for this part.

What sets her apart from other actresses who may have gotten this part is that Witherspoon is a small woman, which makes her physical struggles to commandeer trails and wilderness while hauling a large backpack containing her necessities, believable.

Shot using many flashbacks of Cheryl’s life before the enormous hike, we are introduced to the character of Cheryl and her challenging life before. We know that she is a recovering addict, but we do not know what led to these events.

Living in Minneapolis, she is very close to her mother Bobbi, played by Laura Dern, who tragically dies. This leads to a path of destructive behavior for Cheryl and ultimately to her divorce from her husband Paul, who is a decent man and periodically sends Cheryl care packages along her journey.

The bond that Cheryl shares with her mother, a struggling woman herself, is deep. Bobbi has difficulties raising a family and striving to improve her education and her life and this is explored during the flashback scenes featuring Cheryl as a teenager.

I love the encounters that Cheryl faces along the trail and feel it adds depth to the film.

Few and far between are these gems of interchange since she is mostly alone with nature, the characters are interesting. Alone in the dark and desperate for a meal, she flags down a farmer named Frank. At first, it appears Frank may be dangerous and wielding a gun so Cheryl is wary as she goes home with him for dinner.

Happily, Frank is married to a kindhearted woman named Annette, and the three of them enjoy a lovely, jovial feast. Later, she encounters a young boy whose mother has died. They bond as the boy sings a song to her that his mother used to sing to him, and when the boy leaves, Cheryl sobs in emotion for her mother.

These small snippets of real-life conversations and togetherness make the film feel happy and we root for Cheryl to accomplish her enormous feat.

Thanks to a bravura performance by Witherspoon, Wild is much more than a woman surviving on her own in the wilderness. It is encased in quiet emotion and understated supporting performances that give layers to a very human story.

Oscar Nominations: Best Actress-Reese Witherspoon, Best Supporting Actress-Laura Dern

Selma-2014

Selma-2014

Director-Ava DuVernay

Starring-David Oyelowo, Carmen Ejogo

Scott’s Review #248

80013278

Reviewed June 19, 2015

Grade: A-

An Oscar-nominated factual feast, set in the mid-1960s during the Civil Rights movement, Selma is a re-telling of the life and times of Martin Luther King Jr. and the struggles that black Americans endured during a tumultuous period in history including dealings with then-President Lyndon B. Johnson and the famous and important 1965 Selma to Montgomery voting rights march, which led to the signing of the pivotal Voting Rights Act of 1965.

This film reminded me quite a bit of 2013’s The Butler in both subject matter and style- ironic since originally Lee Daniels was slated to direct and instead signed on for The Butler.

Both featured a charismatic and intelligent black man struggling with racial matters.

The film, despite being an independent undertaking, looked glossy and polished and quite reflective of the time. Similar to The Butler, Selma boasts a huge cast, historical political figures, and focuses on a tumultuous era in history.

Selma features a bevy of real-life figures from George Wallis to President Johnson to the obvious leader of the Civil Rights movement, Martin Luther King Jr., and his wife, Coretta Scott King, and the casting was very well thought out.

Tim Roth, David Oyelowo, Tom Wilkinson, and Carmen Ejogo all portray their roles professionally and passionately. None of the above received Oscar nominations and I am okay with that. I did not feel that any were definite standouts from a crowded field of talent, though perhaps Ejogo could have been in the running with her understated though compelling performance.

The drama surrounding the lack of scores of expected Oscar nominations is not shared by me. The truth is, the film was included in the Best Picture category and won Best Song.

While an emotional and compelling film, neither is it a masterpiece nor will change the art of cinema, though I must stress it is a very good film.

I found Selma to be an important film- a look back on history and the shame and humiliation placed on blacks who attempted to obtain voting rights- a heartbreaking scene depicts a determined woman (played by Oprah Winfrey) being denied this right by a cold and racist authority figure as she is asked impossible and tricky questions to prove her patriotism, which of course, she cannot possibly answer correctly.

Yes, the film is directed by a black, female director (Ava DuVernay) and yes, one might argue that it has a black point of view. However, the film successfully sympathetically portrays several white characters and avoids the assumption that all white people were racist in this period.

Let’s face it- racism still exists, especially in the south, and in the 1960s even more so. I did not find the message of the movie in black people vs. white people terms, but rather as a humanistic struggle for rights. And the struggles continue as the film makes abundantly clear in the message of the film.

While King was a life changer to the black people of the United States, his life was abruptly cut short in his prime. One wonders how much more good this man could have achieved.

The song “Glory” is an emotional, powerful number featured in the film and especially during the marching and subsequent slaughter scenes are highly emotional and effective.

And who will not become teary-eyed as the innocent marchers are beaten and treated like cattle, simply for taking a stand? One will gasp at the senseless bombing scene that rocks a building and takes four innocent little girls’ lives away with it.

Selma successfully transplanted me to a time that was before my time and made me appreciate and capture the positive and negative experiences of a race of people that was not too long ago.

This film both inspired and moved me and taught me what a movement occurred in 1965.

Oscar Nominations: Best Picture, Best Original Song-“Glory” (won)

Independent Spirit Award Nominations: Best Feature, Best Director-Ava DuVernay, Best Male Lead-David Oyelowo, Best Supporting Female-Carmen Ejogo, Best Cinematography

The Babadook-2014

The Babadook-2014

Director-Jennifer Kent

Starring-Essie Davis, Noah Wiseman 

Scott’s Review #247

70300205

Reviewed June 14, 2015

Grade: B

The Babadook is an Australian (English language) psychological horror film that tells the story of a mysterious, haunted book, which torments its owner or owners.

Touted as one of the scariest films of 2014 or of all time for that matter, I kindly beg to differ, though admittedly the film does contain some genuine frights and jumps.

What has happened to the horror genre in general where frightening films have not been made since the 1970s?

Exceptions like The Conjuring must be mentioned.

The Babadook attempts to be scary without the use of CGI or any extravagant effects, but rather has a classic feel to it.

Amelia, the mother in the story, has tragically lost her husband, Oskar, in a terrible car crash on the way to the hospital to give birth to her son Samuel. Now six years old, Samuel begins to exhibit signs of psychological problems as he becomes terrified of an imaginary monster.

After a child’s book, Mr. Babadook, mysteriously appears in their home and Amelia reads it to Samuel, even stranger events occur throughout their house.

The film has remnants of The Sixth Sense- loner, bullied kid is haunted with a disbelieving single Mom touting along as a ghost story or who is alive or who is dead questions are explored.

The father, Oskar, is instrumental to the storytelling. Because of this, the viewer is often confused throughout the film, but that is not necessarily a knock on The Babadook. It is not exactly clear to me if Amelia is the central character or if that honor belongs to Samuel- the interesting part of the film is the relationship between mother and son.

The Babadook is a scary story. Can a book come to life and haunt? So says the film and that is worth thinking about.

Oftentimes in horror, there is some ridiculous premise that is so unrealistic it cannot even be fathomed.

Where the film suffers in my view is that it is not that scary. Having something jump out at you now and then or some other surprise is nice, but where is the terror? The exact motivations of the book also remain unclear to me.

I admire The Babadook for attempting to bring back old-school horror to modern audiences and for telling a good, solid, haunting story.

However, the film did not quite measure up to all of the hype surrounding it.

The great film reviews are a bit much as I do not believe The Babadook is quite on the level of one of the scariest films ever made.

St. Vincent-2014

St. Vincent-2014

Director-Theodore Melfi

Starring-Bill Murray

Scott’s Review #246

70295665

Reviewed June 5, 2015

Grade: B-

The film St. Vincent succeeds only due to the charming, funny appeal of its star Bill Murray, who fronts this cute, mainstream comedy.

Set in blue-collar Brooklyn, New York, it tells the story of a curmudgeonly old man (the title character, Vincent), who befriends a lonely young boy named Oliver, new to the neighborhood.

Mixed in with the cast of characters are Oliver’s struggling mother Maggie (played by Melissa McCarthy) and Vincent’s pregnant, stripper girlfriend, Daka, played by Naomi Watts.

I found intrigue in how we get to know Vincent first and then watch him evolve from a grumpy, cutting old man to a begrudging babysitter of the neighbor boy, all the while clashing with Maggie and fighting with Daka.

Murray returns to comic wit using his now-legendary flawless dry, sarcastic humor and perfect timing and displays much of that in St. Vincent. Throughout all of this Vincent remains brutally honest with his snarky remarks (mainly aimed at Maggie) yet heartwarming and I loved this aspect of the film.

Thanks to Murray, Vincent is lovable, making the film, which with lesser talent, would be overly schmaltzy.

As the film progresses we get to see Vincent’s struggles- his wife suffers from Alzheimer’s, and he is indebted to bookies (primarily Terence Howard- in a bit of a throwaway role).

The film staggers with some predictability issues, though, and is formulaic and easy to predict a warm finale.

Of course, in true form, Vincent is a Vietnam vet who drinks and gambles and is angry at the world, but has a heart of gold so, despite being temperamental, the audience falls in love with him (patriotism helps).

The character contains every cliche in the book. Mean old man- rises to new heights and becomes a nice grandfather figure to a bullied boy is what this film is going for. The bullying of Oliver is also contrived- during one scene Oliver, after being picked on once again by the prominent bully, flies into a seething rage and breaks the bully’s nose.

The audience is supposed to buy that the waif-ish, shy kid triumphs over the bully. If only life were that simple. Inevitably, after both serve after-school detention, they bond over bathroom cleaning and become the best of friends.

Who did not see that coming?

In addition, most of the characters are one-note.

Naomi Watts is a brash, sexy, and aging Russian (not sure I bought that accent) stripper with a soft spot- she comes across as uptight but is caring- another cliche.

Melissa McCarthy is a hard-working, soon-to-be divorcee, trying to raise her kid right- one-dimensional. Even Vincent is seemingly tough as nails, but of course, has a soft spot for the neighbor kid.

The casting of Watts, McCarthy, and Howard is okay, and I surmise the film was going for casting “name” actors, but certainly, these parts might have been played by unknowns and had the same effect.

The gem is Murray.

Murray effortlessly breathes life into a character who otherwise would have been as dull as dishwater. I found the writing of the characters to be the weakest point of the film.

In the end, a major incident occurs that brings the cast together united as one (yawn). The film closes with the family all happily eating dinner together. I do not see this as a spoiler as this ending can be seen a mile away.

Despite the flaws and sentimentality of the film, it is admittedly sweet, humorous at times, and sends a nice message to the audience- be kind to one another and help each other get through life.

Without Bill Murray, this film would have been completely bland and unlikeable.

St. Vincent is a feel-good film that is perhaps too feel-good.

The Wicker Man-1973

The Wicker Man-1973

Director Robin Hardy

Starring Edward Woodward, Christopher Lee

Scott’s Review #245

60021185

Reviewed May 31, 2015

Grade: B+

The Wicker Man is a cult horror film from 1973 that is considered one of the finest by horror critics.

While the film does not enamor me quite as much as some other favorites in the horror genre (Halloween, Rosemary’s Baby, The Shining, Dressed to Kill, and Suspiria) immediately spring to mind while thinking of 1970s-style horror gems, I cannot help but admire The Wicker Man’s creativity and religious overtones.

Despite not awarding the film a solid “A” rating, I look forward to viewing this film again and, perhaps over time, as some films do, it will see an adjustment in scoring.

Set on an island in the Scottish Hebrides, named Summerisle, a devout Christian (Edward Woodward) named Sergeant Howie travels to the island in search of a missing young girl named Rowan Morrison, thought to have disappeared under mysterious circumstances.

The inhabitants are vague, aloof, or hostile towards the policeman. He immediately is disturbed to notice the group worships Celtic gods and notices other strange acts of worship and sexual behavior (a naked dance), which he resists and disapproves of.

He is tempted by a gorgeous seductress, Willow, played by Britt Ekland- most notably known as a Bond girl in The Man with the Golden Gun, and butts heads with the island leader, Lord Summerisle, played by horror legend Christopher Lee.

As he attempts to locate the missing girl, he uncovers some very dark goings-on around the island as the annual Mayday harvest celebration is about to occur. He deduces that Rowan is slated to be the sacrifice at the celebration and he races to find her before it is too late.

But is there more to the island than meets the eye?

The Wicker Man is not mainstream fare and that is what I admire most about it, as well as its British flare. It strives to challenge the norm in horror and question who is right and who is wrong and who the audience should champion.

Religion and the occult have been portrayed in horror films for eons, but rarely given a normal face. Typically, the villains are scary, horrid, or even cartoonish, clearly defined as bad.

Despite all of the townspeople being in on the sacrifice, they are seemingly ordinary appearing. They raise their kids, farm, run stores, and teach the kids in a classroom setting.

On the surface, they appear wholesome and that is part of what makes The Wicker Man so scary. Rosemary’s Baby did the same thing.

Typically, any sort of satanic overtones or human/animal sacrifices, frighten audiences, especially if the culprits could be their neighbors, friends, or even loved ones. The realness is unnerving.

Differing, controversial, religious beliefs are a prevalent theme throughout The Wicker Man as are elements of good vs. evil.

The film is not predictable. It delves into questions of morals and beliefs- for example, Howie is a virgin- saving himself for marriage and trying to be a good, decent person.

He is the moral center of the film and, in his belief, everyone on the island is either perverted, crazy or a sinner.

By this logic, Howie looks down on others who are dissimilar to him and comes across as preachy. I do not get the impression that the film wants the audience to love Howie- or hate him.

The balance between the old gods (Christianity) and new gods (Celtic paganism) makes the film interesting.

The shocking conclusion involving an enormous, life-sized burning wicker man is terrifying beyond belief and by far the best part of the film, as the hero must come to terms with his fate.

The final thirty minutes are quite spectacular from the final twist through the ending.

My lack of an exceptional grade for The Wicker Man stems from it being a tad too slow-moving. Perhaps a few additional jumps or frights along the way would have been beneficial, but, on the other hand, it is not a scary film, nor does it try to be.

It is, however, quite intelligent and, I suspect will increase my enjoyment with each subsequent viewing.

A fine addition to the relics of classic horror, The Wicker Man (1973) is a creative, mysterious, and left-of-the-center film.

Frenzy-1972

Frenzy-1972

Director Alfred Hitchcock

Starring Jon Finch, Barry Foster

Top 100 Films #24     Top 20 Horror Films #8    

Scott’s Review #244

Frenzy_movieposter

Reviewed May 17, 2015

Grade: A

Frenzy (1972) is a latter-day Alfred Hitchcock film that returns the masterful director to his roots in London, England, Hitchcock’s country of origin, and where his early films were made.

As with numerous other Hitchcock stories, the protagonist is falsely accused of murder and struggles mightily to prove his innocence before time runs out and he meets his doom.

The film is quite British, with an entirely British cast, and mixes in a humorous side story of the primary investigator’s wife, a horrid cook, who prepares exotic, yet tasteless meals for her husband.

This comic relief perfectly balances the heavy drama encompassing the main murder story as Frenzy is one of Hitchcock’s most violent and graphic.

Made in 1972- post-movie sanctions, he was able to get away with much more explicit content. A neck-tie murderer, who also rapes his female victims, is on the loose in London.

In the opening sequence, we see a dead woman floating in the Thames River during broad daylight, nude, except for a neck-tie that she has been strangled with. A crowd of spectators races to see what all the fuss is.

We then meet the central character of the film- down-on-his-luck bartender Richard Blaney, who is fired from his job as a bartender by his hateful boss.

Blaney has a loyal girlfriend in Babs, a barmaid at the same local watering hole. Babs is sexy, yet plain. He also has a successful ex-wife, Brenda, who runs a dating company. Blaney regularly sponges money and dinners from Brenda. Also in the picture is successful fruit-market trader, Bob Rusk, who is a friend of Blaney’s.

All four of these central characters have much to do with the main plot.

As events begin to unfold, the film is not a whodunit as traditionally it could have been. Instead, the audience knows very quickly who the murderer is and their motivations, which is an interesting twist in itself.

Regardless of this knowledge, the film is quite compelling as a classic Hitchcock horror thriller.

It is interesting for Hitchcock fans to compare this film with many of his earlier works. Released in 1972, at a point in film history where aforementioned sensors were more lax, it is the first Hitchcock film to feature nudity.

It is also the film of Hitchcock’s that features the most brutal rape/murder scene of all, surpassing the shower scene from Psycho, in my opinion.

The victim’s ordeal is prolonged, as she begins praying, thinking she will only be raped, at first unaware that her attacker is also the neck-tie murderer and her life is running short. This leads to a sad, gruesome outcome for her.

One of the most interesting murder scenes takes place off-camera and is an ingenious idea by Hitchcock. The neck-tie murderer lures a victim to his apartment complex under the guise of being a friend of hers.

They walk upstairs to his unit and go inside, all the while the camera remains poised outside of the apartment so the viewer only imagines the horrors occurring inside.

The camera then slowly goes back down the stairs and out onto the street and looks up at the murderer’s window. The fact that the victim is one of the principal characters makes one’s imagination run wild as to what is transpiring inside the apartment and the viewer is filled with grief.

This is a brilliant choice by Hitchcock and so effective to the story.

Another great scene is the potato truck sequence.

As the neck-tie murderer has dumped his victim, like garbage, into a potato sack, he is panicked to realize that she has taken his pin from his jacket and presumably clenched it in her fist as a clue, despite her demise.

What will he do now?

The long scene features the murderer inside the potato truck attempting to unclench his pin from her hand and escape the moving truck without being caught.

It is my favorite scene in Frenzy.

Frenzy (1972) is a return to triumph for Hitchcock, after the complex Topaz (1969) and Torn Curtain (1966), underappreciated political thrillers made a few years before this film.

He returns to the horror genre like gangbusters throwing some good, sophisticated British humor into his recipe for good measure.

What a treat this film is.

The Virgin Spring-1960

The Virgin Spring-1960

Director Ingmar Bergman

Starring Max von Sydow, Birgitta Valberg

Scott’s Review #243

60011418

Reviewed May 15, 2015

Grade: A

The Virgin Spring is a quiet masterpiece by director Ingmar Bergman.

A Swedish language film, it won the Best Foreign Language Oscar in 1960, surprising for such a dark film.

I have heard about this film for years, but it had alluded me up until this point, and I am finally glad that I viewed it. It is breathtaking and mesmerizing.

A unique film for many reasons, it inspired “revenge” films to follow, specifically The Last House on the Left and I Spit on Your Grave, which is a horror film, yes, while The Virgin Spring is interestingly an art film.

The film also questions morals and the main character’s religious beliefs and reflections on guilt.

The filming is in black and white and the first point that struck me about the film is its gorgeous cinematography and lighting. The brilliant deep contrast of black and white with the illumination of a character’s face while the background is death black is very brazen and reminiscent of Citizen Kane.

It gives the film warmth and glow that contrast perfectly with the bleak subject matter.

The story of The Virgin Spring is a tragedy, yet the filming is so magnificent that it was not until the film concluded and I pondered the actual story that I realized just how horrific it truly is. And that is what Bergman was going for-provoking a thought.

This is not a film to kick back and be entertained while munching a tub of popcorn. It is a film meant to make one think.

An affluent Swedish couple, who owns a farm, lives a peaceful, quiet existence. They are stellar members of their community and church. They are humble, but they can afford to have servants.

They have a beautiful and pampered young daughter named Karin, who is sent to deliver candles to their church one sunny day. Karin is a trusting, virginal, and proper girl. She comes upon a trio of males- two adults and a young boy.

At first, gleefully sharing food with them and enjoying her newfound friends, they soon turn on her and she is viciously raped, robbed, beaten, and murdered.

The look of surprise, pain, and horror on Karin’s face is monumental. As this occurs, a pregnant and spiteful servant, Ingeri, watches in horror from a hiding place. A rival of Karin’s, Ingeri wanted misfortune thrust upon Karin, but as she watches in horror, the expressions on her face portray regret.

As the family hopes and prays that they can find the missing Karin, the men, and boy show up at the farmhouse in need of food and shelter.

Unbeknownst to the family, they are Karin’s rapists and killers, and once the truth is known, the once-sweet parents are out for brutal revenge. The young boy of the trio is guilt-ridden and physically sick from the circumstances.

Is the family’s revenge justified or should they (as good Christians) forgive? This is the moral point of the story.

The conclusion of the film is powerful as the father begs God for forgiveness. He questions his actions. But is he a changed man?

Bergman uniquely and intelligently shoots these scenes with only the father’s back in view as he throws his hands to go. We, the viewer, become one with the father in these moments, which makes for powerful storytelling.

Influential to many subsequent films, The Virgin Spring (1960) is a powerful tale, reminiscent of a fairy tale, that makes the viewer think about the ending.

Subdued yet horrifying, it is meant to be viewed and analyzed.

Oscar Nominations: 1 win-Best Foreign Language Film (won), Best Costume Design, Black-and-White

Pulp Fiction-1994

Pulp Fiction-1994

Director Quentin Tarantino

Starring John Travolta, Samuel L. Jackson, Uma Thurman

Top 100 Films #22

Scott’s Review #242

880640

Reviewed May 12, 2015

Grade: A

Pulp Fiction (1994) is one of the most influential films of the 1990s and single-handedly kicked the film industry in the ass. It led an entire generation of filmmakers, who were starved and determined to make more creative work after the largely dull decade of the 1980s.

The success of the film, both creatively and critically, helped ensure that edgier and more meaningful artistic expression would continue to occur.

The leader of the charge, of course, was director, Quentin Tarantino.

With Pulp Fiction, a black comedy crime film, Tarantino mixes violence, witty dialogue, and a 1970’s cartoonish feel to achieve a filmmaking masterpiece.

The plot is non-linear and the story contains three main focuses that intersect- a new style of filmmaking that has become commonplace in commonplace in modern cinema, but at the time was a novel adventure.

Set in Los Angeles, Samuel L. Jackson and John Travolta portray hitmen named Jules and Vincent, who work for a powerful gangster, Marsellus Wallace, played by Ving Rhames. We get to know them as they interrogate four college-aged youths who double-crossed Marsellus, all the while discussing fast-food hamburgers and adventures in Europe.

On another front, Butch (Bruce Willis) is hired by Marsellus to lose a fight to another boxer. Later, Marcellus instructs Vincent to take his wife Mia (Uma Thurmon), a former unsuccessful television actress, out for dinner and a night on the town.

Finally, we meet Pumpkin and Honey Bunny (Tim Roth and Amanda Plumber), two small-town robbers plotting a heist at a local diner. As the film develops these plots relate to each other in unique ways.

The film is quite stylistic, resembling a 1970s film production in the way it looks, and the use of 1970s style sets- the diner, in particular, looks very of that time, and an automobile where a death occurs, is a 1970s, Chevy Nova.

The film, however, is set in present times.

The dialogue throughout Pulp Fiction is immensely impressive to me. Long dialogues occur between characters, usually sitting over a meal, discussing the meaning of life, religion, fast-food burgers, and other wonderfully real conversations.

I love the many food references- from Butch’s girlfriend salivating over an impending meal of blueberry pancakes to the French version of the Big Mac being discussed, to the price of a shake, these make the conversations between the characters rich and unique and oh so creative.

My favorite sequence is the one between Vincent and Mia, mostly taking place at a trendy 1950s-themed diner named Jack Rabbit Slim’s, where the staff dresses up in costume impersonating their favorite stars of the day, such as Marilyn Monroe.

After winning a dance contest (and a possible homage to Saturday Night Fever) the two go back to Mia’s place where she accidentally overdoses on heroin thought to be cocaine.

The song “Girl, You’ll Be a Woman Soon” by Neil Diamond, is both integral and haunting to the scene.

An intense and shocking scene of male gay rape is extremely violent and the hillbillies involved could be straight out of Deliverance from 1972 despite being in Los Angeles.

This scene is disturbing yet mesmerizing at the same time, and might I say even comedic in a dark way?

Pulp Fiction is not a mainstream affair and has its share of detractors and plain old non-fans, but for film-goers seeking a fun, entertaining, cleverly delicious work of art, influential to Hollywood and Independent filmmakers alike, Pulp Fiction (1994) is a film to watch over and over again and admire its style and creativity.

Oscar Nominations: 1 win-Best Picture, Best Director-Quentin Tarantino, Best Actor-John Travolta, Best Supporting Actor-Samuel L. Jackson, Best Supporting Actress-Uma Thurman, Best Screenplay Written Directly for the Screen (won), Best Film Editing

Independent Spirit Award Nominations: 4 wins-Best Feature (won), Best Director-Quentin Tarantino (won), Best Male Lead-Samuel L. Jackson (won), Best Supporting Male-Eric Stoltz, Best Screenplay (won)

Into the Woods-2014

Into the Woods-2014

Director-Rob Marshall

Starring Emily Blunt, Meryl Streep

Scott’s Review #241

70305948

Reviewed May 8, 2015

Grade: B

Based on the stage production of the same name, Into the Woods is a feature-length Disney film that incorporates several different fairy tales into the main story.

The film is a fantasy musical with numerous songs performed by the cast, featuring a large ensemble of seasoned actors within its ranks.

The classic fairy tales are modern versions of Little Red Riding Hood, Rapunzel, Jack and the Beanstalk, and Cinderella.

The action mainly revolves around a baker and his wife (James Cordon and Emily Blunt) who are sad and lonely because they are unable to conceive a child due to a long-ago curse put upon the baker’s family by a witch- played by Meryl Streep.

Circumstances surrounding the baker’s father caused the once beautiful witch to be turned ugly. The witch offers a bargain to the baker and his wife- if they bring her four items (a white cow, a red cape, yellow hair, and a gold slipper) for a special potion, she will lift the curse, enabling them to conceive a child and live happily ever after.

This prompts the couple to venture into the dark forest to obtain the requested items. From this point in the film, the couple intersects with other characters from the fairy tales as all question various aspects of their lives.

Certainly, there are subsequent stories- the witch is Rapunzel’s adoptive mother and keeps her locked in a tower to prevent her from being hurt by the world.

Cinderella (Anna Kendrick) escapes her taunting stepsisters and attends a ball only to flee when noticed by the handsome prince (Chris Pine)- Jack attempts to sell beans to provide food for his mother- and Little Red Riding Hood attempts to bring sweets to her Grandmother, but is confronted by the Big, Bad, Wolf (Johnny Depp), and there is a strange Woman Giant stomping through the forest searching for Jack, but all of these stories revolve around the baker and his wife’s efforts to retrieve the witches requests.

The production and art direction in the film is great. I love the dark, gloomy forest, which translates so well on the screen and gives the magical effect of a mysterious, secret forest to the viewer.

I enjoyed the songs quite a bit- especially the catchy finale “Into the Woods”. However, some of the songs are quite one-dimensional and bland and not discernible from each other, let alone memorable.

The duet of the Prince’s, “Agony” is silly with, useless to the plot, gyrations, and silly dance moves.

Meryl Streep- dynamic in anything she appears in again steals the show as the vile witch turned beautiful in the latter stages of the film. She has a fantastic solo number mid-story, entitled “Stay with me”.

One drawback I found with the film is, at times it drags a bit and I was not sold on the casting of Anna Kendrick as Cinderella- something about her performance was lacking- perhaps she was not as sympathetic or convincing as another actress might have been.

Also, I would have enjoyed seeing Johnny Depp as the Wolf be more prominently featured as well as a larger role for the Woman Giant. As integral as she is to the plot, it was tough to even get a clear glimpse of her face let alone anything more substantial.

An entertaining feast of fairy tales immersed in one film, Into the Woods has some compelling moments but has a dull note to it and some lost opportunities that bring it far from the reaches of a masterpiece level.

A good film, but not a great film.

Oscar Nominations: Best Supporting Actress-Meryl Streep, Best Production Design, Best Costume Design

Carrie-1952

Carrie-1952

Director William Wyler

Starring Jennifer Jones, Laurence Olivier

Scott’s Review #240

60011689

Reviewed May 3, 2015

Grade: B

Carrie, not to be confused with the Brian DePalma horror classic from 1976, is a drama from 1952 starring Laurence Olivier and Jennifer Jones- two big Hollywood stars of the time.

Shot in black and white, the film tells the story of the self-titled ingénue (Jones) of mid-western upbringing, who travels to Chicago to make her fortune.

Attempting to launch her career, Carrie becomes immersed in a love triangle with Olivier- who is unhappily married and runs a restaurant, and salesman, Charles Drouet, played by Eddie Albert.

Directed by William Wyler, the film has a melancholy tone to it as one of the characters sinks into a world of despair.

The highlight of this film is the performance of Laurence Olivier. He is excellent, as his character of George Hurstwood goes from a successful restaurant manager with an affluent existence to a poverty-stricken, lonely, broken old man.

Olivier is so effortless and believable in his performance as he always was.

I felt, however, that Jennifer Jones was miscast. Attractive, yes, I did not feel that every man would lust after her on sight alone, as was needed for the character of Carrie. Her acting, while okay, is not on the level of either Albert or especially Olivier, with she shares much screen time.

Perhaps Vivian Leigh, Teresa Wright, or Kim Novak might have been wiser choices.

The story itself is compelling and interesting. Here we have a woman- at the turn of the twentieth century- forging ahead in an attempt to make it on her own- almost unthinkable for a woman at that time, taking menial jobs as a sewing worker in a factory to scrape by.

Carrie resists the urge to become a rich husband-seeking gal and believes in marriage and true love. That is why she is devastated when she learns that George is indeed married.

Will true love win out for them? This seems to be the main aspect of the film.

Behind-the-scenes issues may have contributed to the problems that appear onscreen- Wyler reportedly did not want to cast Jones, Olivier did not like Jones, Olivier was injured during much of the filming, and the ending of the film was changed to provide a “happier” ending.

Originally, George was to commit suicide, which might have successfully made the film more shocking and heartbreaking.

Containing beautiful costumes and interesting cinematography, Carrie has positives but might have been much better than the final product ended up being, but for poor casting and real-life dramas that hurt the film.

Oscar Nominations: Best Art Direction, Black-and-White, Best Costume Design, Black-and-White

A Most Violent Year-2014

A Most Violent Year-2014

Director-J.C. Chandor

Starring-Oscar Isaac, Jessica Chastain

Scott’s Review #239

_A_Most_Violent_Year__Theatrical_Poster

Reviewed May 1, 2015

Grade: B

Taking place in New York City, throughout the notoriously violent year of 1981 and influenced, at least in part, by The Godfather and, in my opinion, similar in texture to the elite HBO series The Sopranos, A Most Violent Year is an attempt at weaving a tale of a “good guy” mixed up with the mafia and attempting to remain upstanding throughout the adversity and corruption that he encounters.

Oscar Isaac and Jessica Chastain portray Abel and Anna Morales, who owned Standard Oil, an upstart business that they are attempting to successfully launch.

Due to the violent nature of the times, several trucks are hijacked, resulting in robberies and severe beatings. In desperate need of funds to expand their business and stay ahead of competitors, Abel and Anna are forced to take out loans, leading them into a world where crime and violence run rampant.

In the midst of all of this, they are under investigation for apparent price fixing and tax evasion activity by the Assistant District Attorney.

The main theme of this film is the conflict and guilt that Abel feels towards violence and the constant temptation to join the ranks of the crime world to protect his business ventures.

Abel faces pressure from Anna, who herself has mob ties (her father is an influential mafia boss known around town) and is all for fighting fire with fire. Abel refuses and is determined to lead a straight and narrow life. When circumstances spin out of control, his morals are questioned.

A Most Violent Year is an interesting film yet I think I was expecting a bit more than I was given.

For starters, it certainly is not in the same league as the aforementioned works of art that I compared it to. It is tough to put my finger on what exactly is the issue, but there is a certain quality that is missing from the film making it lack a compelling edge.

The plot moves slowly, for sure, but the film is successful as the character study that it is, however, I was left wanting more depth to the characters and a broader vision of the film itself.

I did not find myself truly vested in either character of Abel or Anna.

Chastain received heaps of praise for her performance, which I found to be adequate, but hardly a marvel. Nominated for several awards, but deemed “snubbed” for not receiving an Oscar nomination, I find this to be untrue.

Her performance is not brilliant and Oscar Isaac’s is superior.

This is not to say that I did not enjoy the film overall. It takes some risks, has a rich character complexity, and is shot very well, and looks great. It has a smooth look and I completely bought the 1981 time period, rather than it appearing to be dressed up for the era. There is certainly an authenticity to it.

A mob film not on the level of The Godfather or Goodfellas, A Most Violent Year is a decent contribution to the crime-thriller era. It just does not live up to the critical acclaim heaped upon it.

Independent Spirit Award Nominations: Best Supporting Female-Jessica Chastain, Best Screenplay, Best Editing

Ida-2014

Ida-2014

Director-Pawel Pawlikowsi

Starring-Agata Kulesza

Scott’s Review #238

70293721

Reviewed April 24, 2015

Grade: A

Ida, the winner of several Best Foreign Language statuettes, including the first-ever Best Foreign Language Oscar for Poland, is a black and white film, containing beautiful cinematography, with a fascinating story that is both moving, sad, and very character-driven and centers around not one, but two compelling characters.

Certainly, ravages and after-effects of war have been explored in film before, but Ida brings a fresh spin to the subject matter.

The film takes place sometime in the 1960s, years after the ravages of World War II and the brutality of the holocaust occurred, but the film explores the long-lasting pain and sadness that the incredible time in history left on the survivors, both mentally and physically.

The story’s focus is on Anna, a young nun about to take her coveted vows and begin a life serving the Lord. Quite beautiful, she was left as a toddler at a convent. Before she takes her vows she is instructed to spend time with her only known relative, her Aunt Wanda.

Wanda is a former judge who battles depression and alcoholism. Her brother, Anna’s father, was murdered along with Wanda’s young son, so she is a tortured soul. As Anna (real name Ida and Jewish) and Wanda begin a road trip to find the whereabouts of their deceased family’s bodies, they both face personal demons.

What struck me most about Ida is the cinematography- the black and white is lovely, beautiful, and especially when Ida and Wanda travel across the Polish countryside, exquisite to look at.

The farms, land, and roads are so crisp and perfectly lit that it is easy to fall in love with.

Many scenes resemble paintings giving the film an artistic quality. Ida is simply elegant and peaceful in style.

The story itself of Ida is wonderful. Ida- the title character young nun is torn. She knows no other life than the church that, presumably, literally saved her life. But she is a gorgeous young woman filled with desires. She sees her promiscuous aunt flaunt over men and dress to the nines in flashy outfits and makeup.

Ida, almost always dressed in her nun’s garb, secretly dresses in Wanda’s dresses and makeup and is transformed. When she meets a handsome saxophone player, her desires begin to brim over and her conflict increases especially as the truth about her heritage unfolds.

As interesting a character study as Ida is, the character of Wanda is equally, if not more so, interesting. Damaged, hurt, and depressed she needs men to feel good about herself.

An alcoholic she has not gotten over the death of her young son and has become a bitter woman. In a way, Ida is about loss.

Visually and creatively enticing, Ida is as good as they get. It deserves the many awards that were bestowed upon it.

Oscar Nominations: Best Foreign Language Film (won), Best Cinematography

Independent Spirit Award Nominations: Best International Film (won)

Only Lovers Left Alive-2014

Only Lovers Left Alive-2014

Director-Jim Jarmusch

Starring-Tilda Swinton, Tom Hiddleston

Scott’s Review #237

Only_Lovers_Left_Alive_English_film_poster

Reviewed April 24, 2015

Grade: B

Only Lovers Left Alive is a bizarre trip into the strange and unusual world of vampires.

The film, moving slowly, becomes hypnotic, grabbing me into the plot, though the plot itself seems almost secondary to the gothic mood and dark ambiance of the film.

Thanks in large part to the wonderful Tilda Swinton, who I find mesmerizing in every film role she appears in, the methodical film never completely bored me and, at times, even fascinated me.

Set in present times, Swinton and Tom Hiddleston play vampires named Adam and Eve, who are lovers separated geographically. Adam is a musician living in a vast Victorian house in Detroit and Eve resides in Tangier.

Realizing that Adam is lonely and suicidal, Eve makes the international trek to the United States to be with her love. While they begin enjoying a quiet existence immersed in music and thoughts, Eve’s rebellious sister Ava (Mia Wasikowska) shows up from Los Angeles and adds havoc to their lives.

Also, cast in the film is John Hurt, who plays Marlowe, an ancient vampire assisting Adam and Eve, but who succumbs to sickness due to tainted blood.

The film is a creative, atmospheric offering from edgy independent film director Jim Jarmusch, known for such left-of-center fare as Broken Flowers and Coffee and Cigarettes, which are visual and visceral achievements.

While not completely loving this film, feeling that the actual story is the weakest area, the magical and beautiful arrangements almost make up for any shortcomings.

Set entirely at night (when vampires are awake) and featuring several shots of Adam and Eve posed naked or almost naked in lovely, artistic angles, I think the film is going for a “look” as much as for storytelling and not completely centering on the plot.

It is also a lovely romantic film, though not in the typical sense of silly misunderstandings, comical moments, but rather in romantic artistry, as Adam and Eve connect spiritually.

Married hundreds of years ago, Adam and Eve have been inexplicably separated by thousands of miles and coasts, though the reason is not explained.

Why are they the few remaining vampires alive? Does the human race know they are vampires or simply think they are odd-looking people? They both have money to burn and pay a high cost for being vampires as they either pay a contact to steal blood from hospitals to survive or obtain the blood elsewhere.

They are tempted to bite humans but resist those urges. The film does not explain why they are two of the very few vampires left in the world nor other questions. Adam, supposedly a famous musician, is wealthy beyond words and lives in a haunted-looking mansion surrounded by music and musical instruments.

The plot holes, of course, are secondary to me. None of them matter.

The film has beautiful moments- it is musically centered and Adam and Eve on more than one occasion engage in beautiful, tender dances and the film is a pure love story, but a very left-of-center one.

I admire the film’s creativity and going where most filmmakers do not dare to go- Jarmusch dares to be different and that deserves much praise.

The negative for me was the extremely slow pacing of the film- the story almost does not matter as the film feels more like an experience in art than a “mainstream” film containing strong plot points and focus.

Only Lovers Left Alive is a different type of film and one worth admiring.

Independent Spirit Award Nominations: Best Female Lead-Tilda Swinton, Best Screenplay

Jezebel-1938

Jezebel-1938

Director William Wyler

Starring Bette Davis

Scott’s Review #236

220px-Jesebel_movieposter

Reviewed April 18, 2015

Grade: B+

A wonderful showcase for the young and lovely Bette Davis, Jezebel (1938) is a very early film role for Davis that has many similarities to Gone with the Wind, a film that Davis reportedly lost out to Vivian Leigh.

One wonders how she would have made the character of Scarlett O’Hara her own and Jezebel is a journey exploring that possibility.

Directed by acclaimed director William Wyler, Jezebel is set in 1852 (pre-Civil War) in New Orleans. Davis plays spoiled southern belle, Julie Marsden. Julie is engaged to wealthy banker Preston Dillard, played by Henry Fonda.

After a dispute in which Julie selfishly feels her needs are not being catered to, she shockingly wears a red dress to a sophisticated ball where unmarried women are expected to wear white. This causes a scandal that results in Preston dumping Julie and leaving town.

Cocky Julie expects Preston to return to town and grovel for her forgiveness, but when he does return with a life-changing twist, the drama unfolds. Circumstances include a savage duel, longing for love, and atonement.

Fans of Davis will love Jezebel for the sheer excellence that she brings to the screen. Mesmerizing with those soulful, big eyes, and wonderful mannerisms, she exudes confidence and sophistication. Admittedly this is my earliest Davis experience and she shimmers on-screen.

Bette Davis is perfectly cast. Interesting to note are the innocent qualities early Davis possessed. Later afflicted with a hoarse, deep voice and ravaged beauty after years of alcohol and cigarette abuse, Davis in Jezebel is virginal and debutante-looking.

Interesting to me is Julie’s wardrobe choices- her horseback riding outfit, the vixen-like red dress, the virginal white dress, and the dark raven cape at the climax of the film, and various lighting techniques that Wyler used to showcase Davis’s face- almost look like candlelight.

The film itself has several similarities to Gone with the Wind (which is preceded by a year). Julie, like Scarlett, is a rich, selfish girl who likes to manipulate men and both films feature a love triangle prevalent in the story as well as broken hearts. The slaves in both films resemble each other though are a bit more glamorous in Jezebel.

The introduction of the yellow fever storyline and the sick and weak lying around in droves is similar to the wounded and dying soldier scene in Gone with the Wind where the sick and dying lie in pain. The periods, triangle, and southern charms all heavily play in both. It is impossible not to compare the two films.

Melodrama did very well, Jezebel (1938) is to be admired as it is a film featuring a strong female character something lacking in the film then (1938) and shamefully still lacking in film today! Jezebel is a true “ambitious woman’s movie”.

Oscar Nominations: 2 wins- Outstanding Production, Best Actress-Bette Davis (won), Best Supporting Actress-Fay Bainter (won), Best Scoring, Best Cinematography

The Captive-2014

The Captive-2014

Director-Atom Egoyan

Starring-Ryan Reynolds

Scott’s Review #235

80013547

Reviewed April 18, 2015

Grade: C-

The Captive is a 2014 thriller that reminds me quite a bit of a 2013 thriller, Prisoners, which certainly must have been an influence.

A similar plot involving a blue-collar, working-class family attempting to track down a missing child as the father takes matters into his own hands and is also considered a prime suspect in the crime by detectives, is used.

Set in snowy upstate New York, the film tells the tale of Matthew (Ryan Reynolds) and Tina Lane (Mireille Enos), a struggling young couple whose 9-year-old daughter, Cassandra, is snatched out of Matthew’s truck while he runs into a store to buy her a pie.

Told using flashbacks, the story picks up several years later as the defeated couple is periodically taunted by Cassandra’s abductors, who leave clues to indicate she may still be alive. Via video cameras, the abductors watch the parent’s emotional reactions to the clues and sell this “entertainment” to subscribers.

As the film moves along we learn of a major crime syndicate involved in the kidnapping of Cassandra and other similar-aged girls.

At times the plot of The Captive is compelling with a few nice twists and turns and surprises- other times the plot moves quite slowly and plods too much.

The film sets the story in a cold, wintry season which successfully emits a tone of darkness, loss, and harshness. The cinematography is beautiful and deserves major recognition for the mood.

The major problem with the film, though, is the extreme plot holes throughout and the ludicrous nature of the story- I still do not understand the pivotal childhood ice-skating message at the end.

As the film progresses the plot becomes tough to follow and many questions resonate. Who is paying to watch parents emotionally tortured? How can Cassandra seemingly come and go as she pleases and remain a prisoner? Why, years later, is Matthew still a suspect?

These points seem way too plot-driven for my taste and seem to be simply created to further the plot. The main villain- Mika- is a weird guy for sure, but what is his motivation? Why is he part of the kidnapping syndicate? What is anyone’s motivation besides Matthew and Tina striving to get their daughter back? This is not explained.

The casting of some of the actors is problematic- I had difficulty buying Enos working as a maid in a small town- she is way too glamorous a woman for that to be believed.

Similarly, the casting of Rosario Dawson and Scott Speedman as central detectives in the case seems unrealistic. The film is pure fantasy- these actors are too good-looking to be believable as upstate New York, small-town, detectives.

While very handsome, Ryan Reynolds is the only actor I bought as a grizzled, broken father with a glimmer of hope that his daughter is still alive.

All in all, besides some interesting turns, The Captive is too unrealistic and convoluted to follow closely. A bit of a mess.

For this type of film (kidnapping thriller?), I would recommend the superior Prisoners, though the plot holes are prevalent in that film too.

Teorema-1968

Teorema-1968

Director Pier Paolo Pasolini

Starring Terence Stamp, Silvana Mangano

Scott’s Review #234

70039263

Reviewed April 10, 2015

Grade: A-

Teorema is a 1968 Italian art film directed by Pier Paolo Pasolini, who later would go on to direct the dark and disturbing 1975 masterpiece, Salo- 120 Days of Sodom.

If one is looking for a concise, mainstream plot with a fixed, to-the-point, beginning and ending, one will be disappointed. Rather, Teorema is an exhibition in artistic style and interpretation and succeeds in mesmerizing this viewer in thought and contemplation.

A mysterious stranger, simply known as “the visitor”, suddenly arrives to stay with an affluent, Italian family in their sprawling estate. The family consists of a father, mother, son, daughter, and maid, all with issues of loneliness, boredom, fear, rage, or repression.

The handsome stranger successfully beds all members of the family and just as suddenly as he arrives, he then disappears from the household leaving the family members with different thoughts, feelings, and actions upon his departure.

The film is highly interpretive and every character can be analyzed.

All of the characters are seduced by the stranger and the family’s wealth can be studied. Is Teorema (which translates to the theorem in Italian) a commentary on the bourgeois society? The father, Paolo, owns a factory and appears to be in turmoil- is he a repressed homosexual?

The conclusion of the father’s story is very interesting as he turns his factory over to the workers, strips naked, and roars with anger and frustration.

Is the mother simply a wealthy, bored housewife or much more than that? This character might have been explored more thoroughly.

The maid, devoutly religious, becomes suicidal after her tryst with the stranger. The others confide in the stranger about how they feel about themselves and, at times, the film is like watching a therapy session as each character delves more into their personal feelings.

Only the maid is a bit different than the others, but could this be because she is of working-class and the others affluent?

The daughter, Odessa, approximately, sixteen years old, becomes depressed after her liaison. The frightened, weak son appears to have a crisis and is consoled by the stranger in a loving, tender fashion.

Interestingly, the film at the time was resoundingly denounced by the Vatican, which took offense at the controversial tone of the film and its focus on “obscenity”.

Could this be because of some people’s interpretation of “the visitor” as being a Christ-like figure? One must argue the difference between “obscenity” and “art” after viewing this groundbreaking and visionary film. I viewed Teorema as a thought-provoking experience and did not feel as if the film was going for shock value. The film is lightweight in this regard compared to the hauntingly brutal Salo, which followed years later.

Teorema delves into the psychological abyss and portrays an Italian family as more than wealthy- they are people with emotions, fears, desires, and complexities.

Not for mainstream audiences, but meant for lovers of interpretive film, it can be debated and discussed for ages to come.

Madhouse-1974

Madhouse-1974

Director Jim Clark

Starring Vincent Price, Peter Cushing

Scott’s Review #233

220px-Madhouseposter[1]

Reviewed April 3, 2015

Grade: B-

Madhouse, a 1974 British horror film, stars horror icon Vincent Price who portrays a sympathetic Hollywood actor who is unsure of his sanity after the grisly murder of his trophy fiancé whom he may or may not have been responsible for murdering.

Mainly set in London, Madhouse also stars famed British actors in the latter stages of their careers, such as Peter Cushing, and is a treat for classic British horror fans.

The look of the film is stylistic and effective in the mood- the story, while silly, is also fun.

Paul Toombes (Price) is a famed actor notorious for his character of Dr. Death in a successful film franchise. He seemingly has it all and is the envy of his contemporaries- wealth, notoriety, and a glamorous blonde fiancé named Ellen.

After Ellen is murdered by someone dressed as Dr. Death, Paul is unable to remember the circumstances or his whereabouts during the murder.

After spending years in a mental institution in a confused state he is summoned to London to mount an acting comeback of sorts, reprising his Dr. Death alter-ego.

As the bodies begin to pile up, a whodunit commences- is Paul Toombes the killer, or is someone impersonating him?

The film itself is quite pleasing to a horror fan like me. The deaths, while silly, are fun and campy.

Mostly all female victims, a comical aspect is how the victims, when cornered by the killer, simply scream and stand there waiting to be sliced.

Wouldn’t they fight back in real life?

This film is certainly not realism at its finest but is a fun horror film. It is a bit exaggerated and over-the-top in a campy way but is also true to the 1970s style with the point of view scenes from the killer’s perspective.

A wonderful aspect of this film is real clips of old Vincent Price films (The Raven, The Pit and the Pendulum, and House of Usher) to name a few, featuring deceased horror god Boris Karloff and Basil Rathbone.

Since the plot involves Price’s character being a former horror actor this is a wonderful opportunity to showcase long-ago classic horror films and it works perfectly.

I enjoyed the television scenes within the film plot as Paul revives his career and shoots a series for the BBC- the film chooses interesting, haunting sets and Cushing’s character of Herbert Flay and his zany wife reside in a spooky, vast mansion with eerie spiders that the wife is obsessed with.

The set pieces are great and very Halloween-like. And the spider-eating-flesh scene is excellent!

The tag team of Price and Cushing is fun to watch- both horror stalwarts connect well and both actors play off of each other successfully.

They had a ball while making this film.

Towards the end of the film, the plot becomes confusing and the big reveal as to the killer’s identity and the motivations surrounding is a disappointment.

The conclusion to the film is silly and makes little sense, although that is secondary to a film of this genre that borders on camp.

Madhouse (1974) is an enjoyable midnight flick starring two of the top classic horror icons.

Dawn of the Planet of the Apes-2014

Dawn of the Planet of the Apes-2014

Director-Matt Reeves

Starring-Andy Serkis, Gary Oldman

Scott’s Review #232

70300076

Reviewed March 29, 2015

Grade: C+

Dawn of the Planet of the Apes is a summer blockbuster hit that knocks it out of the park from a visual perspective- it is magnificent to look at with creative sets and realistic images, but the story is mediocre and predictable.

I think the filmmaker’s true intent was to focus on the look of this film, which is a splendid feature. The film is a slightly better than average big-screen adventure with more style than substance.

Set in San Francisco- or what was once San Francisco- the film is set in futuristic times and the apes have forged a new civilization after the deadly virus has eliminated 90% of the human population.

The apes are highly intelligent and manage a happy, unified existence. Then, one day, a human is encountered and, scared, shoots one of the apes. This leads to a peaceful resolution between Caesar- leader of the apes- and the humans, to each stay in their respective territories.

However, humans need access to a dam in the Apes area to provide electricity for themselves. Mutual distrust leads to tension, but the civilized apes and humans reach a truce. Naturally, there is further conflict as sinister humans and apes vow revenge on each other. This leads to a waging war while the peaceful apes and humans strive to work things out.

A further angle of the story is the hunger for power within the ranks of the Apes which is reminiscent of Lord of the Flies. The human protagonists of the film- Malcolm and Ellie- played by Jason Clarke and Keri Russell- are a wholesome, decent couple.

Dawn of the Planet of the Apes is a far cry from the original 1968 masterpiece, Planet of the Apes, starring Charlton Heston. To compare the two is unfair since, sadly, this one has nothing to do with the original. It is simply the same franchise tag.

However, Dawn of the Planet of the Apes is weaker than its predecessor- 2010’s Rise of the Planet of the Apes. In that one, we have a charismatic star- James Franco- and an interesting story- the apes are experimented on and their intelligence is a strong angle.

With the sequel, the story is rather one-note and has a machismo, us against them angle, that is not unique.

The main drawback to this film is the story limitations. All of the characters are portrayed as a) the good and sympathetic humans, b) the evil and destructive humans, c) the good and heroic apes, or finally, d) the evil, bad apes.

Everyone is clearly defined for the audience and there is no ambiguity or complexities within the characters. This is a bit limiting. The evil ape Koba is purely bad and the drunken, gun-happy, humans are also purely bad.

This is not to say that Dawn of the Planet of the Apes is not enjoyable- it is. It is a fun, entertaining flick. For what it is, it is fine and there is a somewhat message in the film, that there is a way to find peace and love between different species and types of people.

Hopefully, the audience gets that message.

The film is a summer blockbuster action/sci-fi flick that many will enjoy, however, it is a plot-driven extravaganza that could have been superior had it contained more layers to the story and more shape to some of the characters.

It is worth seeing as a visual cinema treat, but scarcely more than that.

Oscar Nominations: Best Visual Effects

Annie-2014

Annie-2014

Director-Will Gluck

Starring-Quvenzhane Wallis, Jamie Foxx

Scott’s Review #231

220px-Annie2014Poster

Reviewed March 25, 2015

Grade: D-

The latest remake of the film version of Annie- the last film production having taken place in 1982- though at least one variation in television exists- and all based on the Broadway hit of the same name- is a saccharin-laden mess of a film.

Annie stars Quvenzhane Wallis, Jamie Foxx, and Cameron Diaz as Annie, William Sparks (changed from Daddy Warbucks), and Miss Hannigan, respectively, and features Rose Byrne and Bobby Cannavale in supporting roles.

Let me begin with the one redeeming quality of the film- though admittedly a bit of a stretch, I found the musical numbers okay- not great, but certainly far from the worst parts of the film.

The numbers are remixed into hip-hop-type songs with a trendy approach- presumably to add a modern element. While not great, some songs are catchy and not dreadful, especially “It’s A Hard Knock Life” over the closing credits.

Whether the actors sing their songs is another question, which I might not want to know the answer to.

The rest of Annie is terrible.

The casting is poor. Wallis, very believable in Beasts of the Southern Wild, portrays Annie as a precocious, social-climbing child and I sensed awkwardness to the part- regardless it did not work for me.

I did not buy her in the role and how she was awarded a Golden Globe nomination for Best Actress in a Musical Comedy speaks volumes for the limited choices that year.

Jamie Foxx completely phones in his performance as Cell-phone technical mogul, running for mayor, William Sparks. Why the film felt the need to change the character from Daddy Warbucks is a mystery. He is unbelievable as a germaphobe, aggressive yet sensitive, powerful man who amazingly develops a soft spot for Annie.

Cameron Diaz completely overacts and turns Miss Hannigan into an obnoxious, hysterical shrew, who towards the end of the movie somehow “turns good”, with no real motivation for doing so.

Rose Byrne and Bobby Cannavale give uninteresting, very one-note performances in their respective roles of Sparks’s assistant and love interest, and his right-hand man.

The film chose to change so many aspects of the original stage version of Annie, that it is barely recognizable.

It takes place in present times rather than the Depression-era 1930s, Annie is no longer an orphan but is in foster care. Miss Hannigan’s first name is changed to Colleen instead of Agatha and is now a former pop performer whose career subsequently died. Hannigan’s brother Rooster and his girlfriend Lily are not featured in this film version.

The story has zero interest and zero believability.

But the worst part of the film is the over-sentimental, corniness to it. It is so overwrought with contrived scenes that it is tough to take seriously.

At a Mayoral function, Annie (an untrained singer) suddenly leaps onstage and belts out a perfectly sung, choreographed number suddenly melting the hearts of the wealthy powerhouses in attendance.

The film is pure fantasy with no realism to speak of.

Take for example the fact that Miss Hannigan fosters an apartment full of children whom she hates, to collect $150 a week, but her apartment is pretty damned spacious and beautiful for Manhattan standards.

The film contains one inconsistency after another and is a horrendous modern take of a long-loved treasure, the 2014 version of Annie should be seen once, snarled at, and put back on the shelf, and forgotten for good.

Theatre of Blood-1973

Theatre of Blood-1973

Director Douglas Hickox

Starring Vincent Price, Diana Rigg

Scott’s Review #230

220px-Theatreofbloodposter

Reviewed March 23, 2015

Grade: B

Theatre of Blood (1973) stars Vincent Price, a long-time fixture in the classic/campy horror scene, as a demented Shakespearean theatre actor who enacts revenge on the critics who fail to recognize him with a coveted award that he cherishes.

Price, as always frighteningly good, delivers a campy, but not ridiculous, turn as the crazed actor.

Price’s appearance alone- tall, wiry, with sinister facial expressions, poises him perfectly to believability in any dastardly role he portrayed in his heyday and the performance he gives as Edward Lionheart is no exception.

Not solely a campy, melodramatic horror film, Theatre of Blood rises above that categorization with humorous tributes to Shakespeare and a unique chronicle of the Shakespearean works used to systematically off the critics one by one about the Shakespearean story- quite frankly in a comical and witty way.

Price eerily dresses in many different elaborate costumes to commit the murders- a wine-tasting expert, and a television host, among other interesting characters, and oftentimes, taunts his victims before permanently dispensing them.

The film is quite British in tone and humor and done in a tongue-in-cheek manner so that the murders are not to be taken at all too seriously.

The critics themselves- seven or eight of them- are deliciously fun. One is a loud boisterous fat man who always has his beloved poodles at his side.

What happens to him and the dogs is better left unsaid.

Another is an uptight, sophisticated woman (played by Price’s real-life wife Coral Browne). Several of the critics are created as comic villains so their demises are not all too devastating for the audience as they are rather unlikeable characters, to begin with.

I found myself rooting for Lionheart and looking forward to the next murder!

One criticism involves Diana Rigg, who plays Price’s daughter Edwina, accomplice to his dirty deeds. Well known for her starring role in On Her Majesty’s Secret Service and the 1960s Avengers series, Rigg has little substance to do in Theatre of Blood.

Perhaps by 1973, her film career was on the downturn and she was not winning the coveted roles any longer. I would have loved to see her sink her teeth into a meatier role.

A side-kick, Edwina could have done much more.

The film belongs to Price and the unique storytelling of Shakespearean works made only possible by this great actor.

Not overly serious and played for some laughs, Theatre of Blood (1973) is successful in its telling of an interesting British horror story.

It’s a nice late-night treat for fans of the British horror genre especially.

Neighbors-2014

Neighbors-2014

Director-Nicholas Stoller

Starring-Zac Efron, Seth Rogan

Scott’s Review #229

70297085

Reviewed March 15, 2015

Grade: F

By far one of the worst movies I have seen in some time, Neighbors is a silly, redundant, nonsensical, and plain old bad film. Whoever thought this film was a good idea and green-lit it must have their head examined.

Successful comedies- even raunchy, slapstick comedy, contain perfect comic timing and likable characters that the audience roots for, and at least a shred of creativity and originality- Neighbors has none of these qualities.

Bridesmaids is an example of a modern raunchy comedy that works and is hysterical- sadly, Neighbors is a far cry from Bridesmaids.

Neighbors star Seth Rogan, a familiar face in the slapstick comedy genre, along with Rose Byrne as Mac and Kelly Radner, a married couple in their thirties with a newborn baby named Stella.

Former party animals in their college days, the two live in a college town and attempt to peacefully bring up their daughter in a great neighborhood.

One day, Delta Psi Beta, a fraternity known to be one of the rowdiest of frats, moves into the house next door to the Radner’s and immediately begins causing chaos with their never-ending, rambunctious parties. The frat is led by Teddy, played by Zac Efron.

Initially striking up mutual respect, the Radner’s relationship with Teddy is ruined due to a misunderstanding involving the police being called one night. The remainder of the film focuses on Mac and Kelly’s attempts at getting the fraternity to move out of their house by sabotaging parties and pitting various frat brothers against each other, causing hijinks to ensue and war to develop between parents and college kids.

If Neighbors is an attempt to harken back to the days of delicious college comedies such as Animal House or American Pie, the film fails on every level- it is simply not funny.

It contains a plot that is so unoriginal and the jokes featured to death in similar films (bathroom humor, frat jokes, drug jokes, male and female anatomy jokes) and by this point, if you have seen one Seth Rogan film you have seen them all- he is a one-trick pony and has become what Adam Sandler became- tired and dull.

Rose Byrne’s annoying character had me believing the actress was using a poor Australian accent only to realize that the actress is Australian. This is not a testament to Ms. Byrne’s acting ability by the way.

The protagonists are quite irritating and not likable at all. What is the rooting value? Mac and Kelly are irresponsible parents. They presumably leave Stella at home to visit the frat house and wind up getting drunk and high, stay out late, wake up early the next day when Kelly attempts to feed Stella using tainted breast milk, which leads us to an unfunny scene between Mac and Kelly focusing on Kelly’s vein-popping breasts, which makes no sense anyway.

Other suspensions of disbelief and logic pop up left and right- Why would the police reveal to the fraternity the names of who had called to complain about them and after catching the Radner’s in a lie, tell them never to call the police again?

How unrealistic. Mac and Kelly live in a college town, the risk of a fraternity or sorority being close by never occurred to them? They acted surprised that college students existed at all.

The wonderful Lisa Kudrow is cast in a ridiculous role as the college Dean but is completely wasted in a hysterical, bubble-headed, dumb role.

If I had to give a positive to Neighbors, it would be that Zac Efron does a halfway decent job portraying his character Teddy and Efron does possess a good deal of acting talent (think-The Paperboy), but I am being quite generous and looking for a bright side to a train wreck.

The film is poor.

The Killing of Sister George-1968

The Killing of Sister George-1968

Director Robert Aldrich

Starring Beryl Reid, Susannah York

Scott’s Review #228

220px-Original_movie_poster_for_the_film_The_Killing_of_Sister_George

Reviewed March 13, 2015

Grade: A-

The Killing of Sister George is a British film drama, adapted from a 1964 stage production that was a risky subject matter to tackle for the times- lesbianism- in the late 1960s.

Directed by Robert Aldrich, well known for directing Whatever Happened to Baby Jane, The Killing of Sister George is a similarly dark tale of loneliness, desperation, and an actress falling from former grace and success to despair, confusion, and anguish.

It also has some witty, crackling, comedic moments to avoid being a true downer.

Sister George is a successful, well-regarded actress on a popular soap opera named Applehurst. Her character is the wholesome presence in a town fraught with manipulation and drama. She is the moral focal point of the show.

In real life, however, George (interestingly called by her character’s name), is troubled.

She is bitter, angry, an alcoholic, and frequently berates and even abuses her partner, Childie, played by Susannah York. A third central character in the film is TV Producer Mercy Croft, who is powerful and confused about her sexuality.

When the soap opera powers-that-be decide to kill off the beloved Sister George, the real George’s life begins to spiral out of control.

As interesting a film as it is and certainly featuring the competent talents of Beryl Reid in the title role, I cannot help but ponder and fantasize how wonderful the casting of Bette Davis- reportedly considered for the role and inexplicably not cast- would have been.

Davis, famous for playing grizzled, mean, unsympathetic characters, would have knocked this role out of the park and, sadly, she did not have the chance.

At its core, the film is a sad character study of one woman’s pain and anguish at being discarded. Presumably unable to be hired anywhere else, her soap opera character is her life.

She loves Childie but is not completely fulfilled by her either, and that relationship is threatened by the vibrant and polished Mercy.

This is an interesting triangle as George does not always treat Childie well, but loves her all the same. Childie is a simple character, childlike, and needs a strong mate to counter-balance the way she is- someone to take care of her.

Without a job or prospects, this would be difficult for George. Does Childie love George or simply want a meal ticket?

The film is understandably rated X for content, presumably for a very explicit sex scene between Mercy and Childie and when a drunken George molests two nuns in the back seat of a London taxi cab.

These scenes are both cutting-edge and admirable in their risk-taking.

The scene set at the real-life London lesbian club (the Gateway Club) and featuring mostly real-life lesbians is great and provides a real-life glimpse into the gay/lesbian world and lifestyle during the period.

A brave, groundbreaking, risk-taking film with and bravura direction from Aldrich, The Killing of Sister George (1968) is a forgotten gem that needs to be rediscovered by film fans everywhere and is an early journey into gay and lesbian cinema.

Peau d’Ane (Donkey Skin)-1970

Peau d’Ane (Donkey Skin)-1970

Director Jacques Demy

Starring Catherine Deneuve

Scott’s Review #227

70032096

Reviewed March 11, 2015

Grade: B

Peau d’Ane (English-Donkey Skin) is a 1970 French musical film that is a fairy tale for adults- seemingly happy, but very dark beneath the surface.

To say this film is bizarre would be an understatement. The film is a strange retelling of the classic story of Cinderella.

The film is set in a peculiar medieval world and centers on a dying Queen, her husband The King, and the heroine of the story, the beautiful Princess.

The Queen is dying. Her last wish is for The King to marry the most beautiful woman in the land. Coincidentally, that is their daughter The Princess! Eager to produce an heir to the throne, he is determined to marry and reproduce with his daughter.

The Princess, wanting none of it, turns herself into an ugly creature, by way of wearing the skin of a donkey and moves to a neighboring kingdom to exist in a life of exclusion and revulsion, farming pigs and being berated by those around her.

A handsome Prince decides to pursue the woman who has baked him a delicious cake, but knows not who she is. Ironically enough it is the Princess.

I found the film to be quite interesting, albeit in a warped way. Unusual and tough to analyze, one must watch with an open mind.

Certainly, Donkey Skin delves headfirst into the icky world of incest and makes no apologies for its controversial nature all the while interspersing the film with cheery tunes with singing roses and hatching chicks.

The donkey skin that the Princess wears is fake and unbelievably laughable and how nobody is aware that there is a beautiful Princess underneath is silly.

And yet the film somehow works. I was transported into a magical world where nothing is normal and one surprise after another ensues.

A couple of oddities worth mentioning- some of the music from the film is a piece of contemporary, upbeat music. Also, strangely, the final scene involves a helicopter, which is completely implausible given the period.

I get the sense that this film is going for absurd and unique and succeeds on both counts.

Visually the film is gorgeous- bright and cheerful with loads of colors. The film has awe-inspiring art direction as the set pieces within the castle are odd, interesting, and colorful. I especially enjoyed the Prince’s bedroom set.

As eccentric and seemingly dark as the film is, often a character will burst into a cheerful song as evidenced by the Princess singing a happy tune while making a meal, all the while dressed in her donkey skin, almost like a scene out of Mary Poppins or My Fair Lady or any other wholesome musical.

To be sure a unique film, Donkey Skin is eccentric, lively, and interestingly perverse with a French flair. Fantasy for adults and a journey into the weird.

101 Dalmatians-1961

101 Dalmatians-1961

Directors Wolfgang Reitherman, Hamilton Luske, Clyde Geronimi

Scott’s Review #226

205524

Reviewed March 8, 2015

Grade: A-

101 Dalmatians (1961) is a darling Walt Disney film that encompasses wholesomeness, love, and devotion.

Set in London, which adds a level of sophistication to the film, it tells the story of a lonely songwriter named Roger Radcliffe, who lives in a flat with his faithful and devoted Dalmatian, Pongo. Theirs is a happy existence, but something is missing.

Pongo, voiced by Rod Taylor (of The Birds fame), is determined to find a mate for both himself and Roger and sets about to do just that by watching ladies and their dogs walk the streets in front of their homes.

He is successful in finding the perfect match for both (Anita for Roger, Perdita for him) and the four of them look forward to years of happiness together until a sinister friend of Anita’s, Cruella De Vil, enters the story.

Cruella sees profit in the Dalmatians and attempts to steal and destroy them.

Cruella De Vil is a delicious villain, and certainly one of the most entertaining in animated film history, but more than that, she is comically devious. Her maniacal laugh and witty language make her a perfect foil for a wholesome couple and wonderful, cute little pups.

The audience does not root for her, but there is something wicked and fun about her over-the-top character.

The film, made in 1961, has a wonderful artistic direction that animation today does not have- the scenes look like beautiful drawings and there is a Mad Men quality to the design.

The “look” is very different from current animation in that it is sleek and constructed skillfully and not loud, fast, and bombastic.

I love how the film is from the point of view of the Dalmatians Pongo and Perdita and not from the perspective of human beings. They simply tell the story about their dogs- this adds to the level of empathy felt for the animals since they are the central characters and we see their attempts at rescuing all of the stolen dogs.

Also wonderful is how all of the dogs of London (and various other species of animals) band together in rescue. They work as a team to save and protect their own that are being mistreated and sent to their slaughter.

An enjoyable scene involves the climactic car chase between Cruella’s gaudy, luxury car, and a furniture van. As the pups are using the van as a means to escape, a cat-and-mouse game ensues providing comedy and dramatic flair.

As the vehicles wiz along with dirt and back roads toward London, the scene is among the most suspenseful of the film.

In addition to this riveting scene are others involving the dogs tiptoeing past their captives as we cross our fingers they will not be heard and subsequently caught, and an adorable scene showcasing the dog’s cleverness at covering their spots with soot to escape.

A heartwarming, inspirational film for the entire family to enjoy many times over, 101 Dalmatians (1961) will leave you smiling and humming.

It is a truthful, wonderful film about love for animals.

Nightcrawler-2014

Nightcrawler-2014

Director-Dan Gilroy

Starring-Jake Gyllenhaal, Rene Russo

Scott’s Review #225

70295182

Reviewed March 1, 2015

Grade: B+

Nightcrawler is best described as an intense crime-thriller set in Los Angeles featuring a wonderful performance by Jake Gyllenhaal as an unstable thief named Lou, who cons and manipulates his way to success videotaping accident scenes and selling them to news stations.

The film is the directorial debut of Dan Gilroy, who could become a household name in the future. Nightcrawler was deservedly awarded the Best Screenplay and the Best First Feature Independent Spirit award honors.

The film is set mainly at night as Lou courses the city in search of accidents, crimes, and violence- the bloodier the better. Later, he is told by Nina Romina, successfully played by Rene Russo that violent crimes in affluent neighborhoods are the best, as they garner the highest ratings.

Lou sells his video footage of the crimes to the highest bidder and Nina becomes his main customer. Lou is eventually assisted by Rick Carey, a desperate accomplice in need of money, played by Riz Ahmed.

The interesting thing for me about Nightcrawler is its moody setting and dim lighting. It reminds me of the 2004 film Collateral, starring Jamie Foxx and Tom Cruise, also set in Los Angeles.

Mostly set at night time and heavily set on the actual streets of L.A., I found this mood excellent and a compelling aspect of the film.

It makes Nightcrawler look great.

Gyllenhaal deserves heaps of praise for his role of Lou and is largely responsible for the success of the film- he was co-producer.

From an acting standpoint, he is excellent and reminiscent of the frightening performance that Robert DeNiro gave in Taxi Driver. With an angular face and eyes that seemingly never blink, the character is intense and driven on every level- he is a sociopath.

When he quietly threatens Nina and Rick on separate occasions one can tell he means business. Why Lou has become a thief desperate for money is never explained- does he have a family? Is he a convict? He seems highly educated, but is he? How did he land in this predicament and resorts to the life that he does?

As Lou becomes more manipulative and resorts to adjusting crime scenes to make them all the more shocking, he seems to teeter over the edge of sanity. In one scene he sneaks into a victim’s home and videotapes photos of the victims from their refrigerator to promote an empathetic angle and therefore make more money from them.

This is a brilliant performance by Gyllenhaal.

Another fascinating performance I admired is that of Rene Russo- absent from films for what seems like years, Nightcrawler is a nice return for her. Her character also has a little backstory.

We know that she is a driven newswoman who has trouble maintaining success at individual news stations and moves around a lot. Nina is a cut-throat news director eager for violent stories and determined to keep her existing job. She also becomes begrudgingly fascinated and enamored with Lou. Does she like bad boys or does she admire his talent?

The third major character is Riz Ahmed’s Rick. Rick comes across as a sweet, yet gullible guy strapped for cash. Like Lou, we do not know why he is broke, but it is hinted at that he may do or have done some male prostitution- he is desperate.

As the film goes along the character develops tough skin and inquisitiveness takes over he is attracted to this new lifestyle and excitement, but will not be bullied by Lou.

On a social level, the film presents an interesting, albeit disturbing take on the relationship between the media and the viewers. What will news channels do for a good story? How bloodthirsty are news audiences? How often is a positive news story presented? It makes the audience reflect and ponder.

Nightcrawler is a dark thriller, independently made, which deservedly garnered an Oscar nomination for Best Screenplay and a slew of Independent Spirit Awards. Intense, rich, visually appealing, it is one of the success stories of 2014 cinema.

Oscar Nominations: Best Original Screenplay

Independent Spirit Award Nominations: Best Male Lead-Jake Gyllenhaal, Best Supporting Male-Riz Ahmed, Best Screenplay (won), Best First Feature (won), Best Editing

Welcome to my blog! 1,400 + 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.