All posts by scottmet99

The Umbrellas of Cherbourg-1964

The Umbrellas of Cherbourg-1964

Director Jacques Demy

Starring Catherine Deneuve, Nino Castelnuovo

Scott’s Review #911

Reviewed June 17, 2019

Grade: A

The Umbrellas of Cherbourg (1964), translated in French as Les Parapluies de Cherbourg, is a daring film. It is unique in that all dialogue is sung recitatively, like an opera or a stage musical.

But wait, there’s more.

The film has colorful and dazzling set designs that enrich the entire experience amid the lovely French culture and atmosphere. Interspersing a melody, the result is a stoic treasure.

The film received an Oscar nomination for Best Foreign Language Film and several other nominations.

The film is divided into three parts and progresses chronologically over six years. Part One is The Departure; Part Two is The Absence and Part Three is The Return, each representing a meaningful part of the story.

Madame Emery (Anne Vernon) and her sixteen-year-old daughter Genevieve (Deneuve) own a struggling umbrella boutique in Cherbourg, France. Genevieve falls in love with Guy (Castelnuovo), a local mechanic, and they have sex the night before he is drafted to war, resulting in an unexpected pregnancy.

Madame Emery and Genevieve must decide what options are best when she is courted by wealthy jeweler Roland (Marc Michel), unaware of her pregnancy. Genevieve and Guy continue to write letters to each other as she softens towards Roland and makes a decision.

An injured Guy returns from the war, and events kick into high gear as the love birds face an uncertain future amid surrounding barriers to their happiness.

To embrace the flavor and pacing of the film takes a few minutes of patience- like some viewers becoming accustomed to sub-titles in general, which the film also possesses, the singing is initially quite jarring but before long is to be embraced and appreciated for its unique nature.

To stress the point, the film is not a standard musical. Songs are mixed in with conventional dialogue, and each line is sung.

With this role, Deneuve gained wider recognition beyond a French audience already familiar with her work. She shines brightly in the lead role and never looks lovelier. The young lady, hardly appearing to be just sixteen (in truth, she was twenty-one), carries the film with a chic and sophisticated style, ideally in tune with the 1960s.

Her magnificent grace and elegance make her the primary reason to tune in. She sings her lines flawlessly and with unforced precision.

The story is unequivocally a basic one of a girl meets a boy, the boy is drafted into the army, the girl becomes pregnant, the girl meets another suitor, and the boy returns home as conflict arises.

The magic is what director Jacques Demy does with the piece.

Everyday life is presented in situational scenes, adding substance and commonalities. Genevieve and Guy are in love and face external and internal obstacles. At the same time, Madeleine (Ellen Farner), a quiet young woman who looks after Guy’s aunt, is secretly in love with Guy, as she adds a secret weapon to the film.

The audience cares for the characters, especially Genevieve and Guy, but the supporting characters add a robust quality worthy of mention.

Anne Vernon is pivotal as Madame Emery. She is stylish and lavish, concerned for her daughter’s well-being, and slyly sees opportunities to save her boutique. Guy’s sickly Aunt Elise provides security and love to those who heed her advice.

Actress Mireille Perrey plays her.

The vivid colors and sets make The Umbrellas of Cherbourg challenging to forget. Stark and florescent painted pinks, greens, and blues, mainly on the walls, provide zest and flavor, a grand style all its own.

The bright, crisp designs evoke a lavish Hollywood musical with a cultured French twist. The result is perfect, and one can easily immerse themselves in the singing and the artistry.

The recurring main song “I Will Wait for You” (the central theme, also known as “Devant le garage”) is delicious and emotional as it appears in many poignant scenes.

Those seeking a charismatic and distinctive experience with nuances and a hint of experimentation will undoubtedly enjoy this fruity and tasty treat.

With a French atmosphere for miles, the film encompasses all that is good and cultured about French cinema.

The Umbrellas of Cherbourg (1964) will entertain and unabashedly knock your socks off with something grand and sizzling flavor.

Oscar Nominations: Best Foreign Language Film, Best Story and Screenplay Written Directly for the Screen, Best Song-“I Will Wait for You,” Best Music Score-Substantially Original, Best Scoring of Music-Adaptation or Treatment

12 Angry Men-1957

12 Angry Men-1957

Director Sidney Lumet

Starring Henry Fonda, Lee J. Cobb

Scott’s Review #910

Reviewed June 14, 2019

Grade: A

A fond memory of Junior High School was reading the play and then being treated to a viewing of the film version of 12 Angry Men (1957), a bristling and suffocating film that infuses progressive thought and thinking for oneself in animosity.

A valuable lesson for a teenager to learn, or anyone else, the film is essential, providing life lessons and tremendous drama, holding up well and still brimming with texture.

The film begins as the audience is introduced to twelve men as they deliberate the conviction or acquittal of a defendant based on reasonable doubt. The defendant is an eighteen-year-old Puerto Rican male living in a poor neighborhood, accused of fatally stabbing his father.

The witnesses are an older man and a lady who lives across the street. The juror’s instructions are evident; if there is any reasonable doubt, they return a verdict of not guilty. If found guilty, the accused will receive a death sentence.

Henry Fonda plays Juror # Eight, who initially is the only juror to vote “not guilty” when the others assuredly vote “guilty.” He adamantly questions how reliable the two witnesses are and disagrees with the argument that the knife used in the death is an obscure brand as he produces an identical knife of his own.

Juror # Eight can convince one juror to change his vote, allowing discussions and analysis to reconvene, much to the chagrin of a few men, especially Juror # 3 (Lee J. Cobb), the main antagonist.

Director Sidney Lumet provides a dynamic atmosphere in his debut film with astounding results. The black and white cinematography is brilliantly mixed with the humidity of a scorching New York summer day as the one set used is claustrophobic, bringing the audience into the action and suffocating along with the men.

As tensions mount and one juror attempts to kill another juror out of rage, a thunderstorm erupts outside, breaking the heat and changing the momentum in the jury room as the tide slowly turns in a different direction.

The story is wonderfully written as each juror’s backstory is slowly revealed, providing insight into why each man may think the way he does or perhaps have preconceived notions about the accused instead of giving him a fair shake.

Juror #3 is a bully estranged from his son, while Juror # 7 mistrusts “foreigners.” Some of the others “go with the flow,” intimidated by conflicts, and afraid to ruffle feathers.

12 Angry Men teaches the utmost importance of the power of change against all odds. By standing by his convictions, Juror # 8 influenced the other jurors to see what they were either unable to see or refused to see.

He forces them to question their morals and values.

By the time the film has concluded, the audience is smacked across the face with tremendous impact, perhaps questioning their views.

This is an example of the power of cinema.

Like the stage version, the plot requires the audience to think and determine along with the characters, the power of reason, and intense dialogue.

The fact that all the jurors are white males is never lost on me, but neither does it detract from my enjoyment. This is how things were done decades ago.

Fonda is charismatic and brilliant in the lead role.

12 Angry Men (1957) is a timeless story told and retold wonderfully on the live stage. Lumet brings the production to the big screen powerfully and effectively by using cinematic elements to produce the proper emotions from his audience.

The film holds up very well as, sadly, many of the stereotypes and beliefs that the jurors possess are still held by many Americans.

On the more positive scale, people with strong and empathetic wills, like Juror # 8, also exist and unquestionably influence more than they lose.

Oscar Nominations: Best Motion Picture, Best Director-Sidney Lumet, Best Screenplay Based on Material from Another Medium

Midnight Lace-1960

Midnight Lace-1960

Director David Miller

Starring Doris Day, Rex Harrison

Scott’s Review #909

Reviewed June 13, 2019

Grade: B+

Midnight Lace (1960) is a straightforward psychological thriller made in cinematic history when the genre increased in popularity.

The film was influenced by the Alfred Hitchcock craze, which was front and center at this time, and a robust departure for its lead, Doris Day, who until this time mainly was nestled securely in the romantic comedy domain.

The film is a good watch and a challenging role for Day, who proves she has the acting chops to carry the movie.

Day portrays Kit, an American heiress, newly married to British financier Tony (Rex Harrison), residing together in London. When she is terrorized by an odd voice in a London park one misty night, her panic is dismissed as rubbish, and pranksters have their way with her.

When the threats return and escalate with telephone calls, Tony alerts the authorities, who question whether Kit may be imagining things or creating a panic to gain attention from her husband.

Tony, in turn, begins to ask the same questions.

Day, an American sweetheart and forever good girl was brave enough to tackle a role that was left of center for her. Despite her acceptable acting and impressive range during scenes of peril, Doris Day is still Doris Day, and it is tough to shake the image of her playing herself.

Attractive, Day is not the sexpot type, so a few scenes of her being flirty by attempting to seduce Tony with sexy nighties do not work so well. Day has never looked lovelier than she does in this picture.

The plot rolls along with fantastic glossy production values, and I never found myself tuning out or wondering when the film would end.

The drama heightens minute by minute, turning into a whodunit, while the film wisely never disqualifies whether Kit could be staging the shenanigans herself.

Did she fall into a bus, or was she pushed? Why did she hire someone to call her? Is the menacing voice disguised? The questions become more frequent as the film progresses, which is what good thrillers should do.

I figured out only half of the big reveal, but the other half caught me off guard, and the finale was climactic and satisfying.

The film belongs to Day, but the additions of Harrison and the legendary Myrna Loy add class and flavor to a movie that could have been dismissed as only cliched in lesser hands.

Harrison is effective as the concerned but stoic husband, and the audience wonders if Tony is involved in Kit’s stalking or if he is a caring man.

Does the subplot of a discovered embezzler in Tony’s company have anything to do with it? If so, how are the stories connected?

Handsome John Gavin, a Rock Hudson type who became famous for Psycho (1960), is a welcome addition as contractor Brian. He shows up at the right time to save Kit, making him a prime suspect.

Loy plays Kit’s Aunt Bea, who comes to town for a visit; the part is nothing special, but seeing the actress in whatever role she tackles is lovely.

Finally, Malcolm Stanley (Roddy McDowell) adds drama as a money-hungry man and son of Kit’s maid.

Characters are added to the story as potential suspects.

The viewer is treated to their share of exterior shots of London, which provides the film with enough British flavor, almost to forget that Day is American. With the additions of Scotland Yard and an Inspector, the British culture is firmly placed, adding a wonderful British element.

Tony and Kit are rich, so their lavish home and exclusive neighborhood are finely placed on display.

The film’s title is represented in a cute scene when Kit seductively holds up a sexy outfit she purchased for Tony. The scene seems straight out of the 1980s slick television movie thriller genre and is primed for the Lifetime television network.

This is not a criticism because the title works well and holds tantalizing darkness.

Midnight Lace (1960) is a nearly forgotten film that is a fine watch and a lovely tribute to Doris Day’s talents. She makes the film her own and is the main reason to watch it.

Though she does not sing or play the girl next door, she does turn in an above-average performance, showing her range as an actress. The rest of the film’s trimmings, especially the locale and the supporting actors, benefit the viewing pleasure the film possesses.

Oscar Nominations: Best Costume Design, Color

The Bridge on the River Kwai- 1957

The Bridge on the River Kwai- 1957

Director David Lean

Starring William Holden, Alec Guinness 

Scott’s Review #908

Reviewed June 11, 2019

Grade: A

The Bridge on the River Kwai (1957) is a war film that is an example of character-driven storytelling from each person’s perspective.

Films of this genre frequently do not steer too far from the straight and narrow, showcasing the war event perspective. This often becomes larger than the humanity piece. A key point is the American, British, and Japanese points of view, which turn the grand epic experience into a more personal one.

The film was awarded numerous Oscar nominations, culminating with the Best Picture of the Year victory.

The time is early 1943 amid the powerful and destructive World War II when a group of British prisoners of war (POW) arrives at a Japanese camp. Colonel Saito (Sessue Hayakawa) commands all prisoners, regardless of rank, to begin work on a railway bridge that will connect Bangkok with Rangoon.

Lieutenant Colonel Nicholson (Alec Guinness), the British commanding officer, refuses manual labor, and a battle of wills erupts between the two men. Meanwhile, Commander Shears (William Holden), an American also being held at the same camp, vows to destroy the bridge to avoid a court martial.

The complexities of the relationships between the men are the main draw and an aspect that can be discussed at length. Each possesses a firm motivation, but the emotions teeter back and forth as they face various conflicts.

Each of the three principles is an analytical juggernaut in the human spirit, ranging from courageous, cowardly, and even evil. We are supposed to root for Shears and supposed to not root for Saito, but why is that not so cut and dry?

Is Shears too revenge-minded? We cheer Nicholson’s resilience, but is he too stubborn for his own good?

The film’s whistling work theme nearly became famous when the film was initially released in 1957. Ominous and peppered with a macabre depression, the prisoners go about their work in a near ode to Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs’ cheerier “Whistle While You Work” anthem.

As they continue to build the bridge dutifully, the audience feels a sense of dread and a foreboding atmosphere. What will ultimately happen? When two prisoners are shot dead while attempting to escape, the film takes a different turn.

Given that David Lean, responsible for such epic masterpieces as Lawrence of Arabia (1962) and A Passage to India (1984), directs The Bridge on the River Kwai, should be telling as far as the sweeping exterior landscape treats in store for the viewer.

The lavish Asian landscape, so picturesque and beautiful, is peaceful amid the chaos and vile treatment of the prisoners. This imbalance is wonderfully rich and poignant against the robust storytelling.

The climax is bombastic (literally!) and a nail-biting experience resulting in a stabbing, an explosion, and a heap of tension. A train carrying important dignitaries and soldiers is racing towards the newly constructed bridge as one man is intent on detonating a bomb and destroying another race against time to prevent the bloodbath.

The suspense, action, and cinematic skill are front and center during the final act.

Deserving of each one of the accolades reaped on The Bridge on the River Kwai (1957), the film is the thinking man’s war film.

Layered with an underlying humanistic approach and little violence given the subject matter, one can sink into empathy for each point of view presented instead of being force-fed a one-dimensional message film.

Fine acting and gorgeous cinematography make this film one to be forever remembered.

Oscar Nominations: 7 wins-Best Motion Picture (won), Best Director-David Lean (won), Best Actor-Alec Guinness (won), Best Supporting Actor-Sessue Hayakawa, Best Screenplay Based on Material from Another Medium (won), Best Scoring (won), Best Cinematography (won), Best Film Editing (won)

Pillow Talk-1959

Pillow Talk-1959

Director Michael Gordon

Starring Rock Hudson, Doris Day

Scott’s Review #907

Reviewed June 6, 2019

Grade: B+

Pillow Talk (1959) is the ultimate in romantic comedies from the age of innocence in cinema.

In 1959, pictures were still wholesome and safe, providing happy stories and charming characters. The film is a lovely and enchanting experience with intelligent characters and fantastic chemistry among its leads.

Combined with a good romance and comic elements, it makes for a fun watch that still feels fresh and bright decades later.

Doris Day and Rock Hudson smolder as singles living in Manhattan, New York City. Day plays Jan Morrow, a perky, independent interior decorator who dates frequently but has not yet found love. Hudson plays Brad Allen, a talented, creative Broadway composer and playboy who lives in a nearby apartment building.

Jan is frustrated by a party line that allows her to hear Brad’s endless phone conversations with the women in his life. He is annoyed by her prim and proper, holier-than-thou attitude. They bicker on the phone but have not met.

Through their mutual, yet unknown to them, acquaintance Jonathan Forbes (Tony Randall), Brad realizes who Jan is, which leads to hilarity as he fakes a Texan accent and invents a new persona: Rex Stetson, a wealthy Texas rancher.

He succeeds in wooing Jan, who falls madly in love with him while unaware of his identity. Events culminate in the inevitable big reveal when the couple vacations at Jonathan’s cabin in nearby Connecticut.

Rock Hudson oozes masculinity and charisma, and nearly every woman he meets falls madly in love with him. Hudson’s sexual preferences are hidden from the public but well-known within the film industry, so one wonders if a few comical situations were added as an inside joke.

One can speculate if these additions were made with or without the star’s knowledge; rumors abound that Hudson reportedly carried on an affair with actor Nick Adams (Tony) during filming.

A recurring theme involves Brad mistakenly walking into an obstetrician’s office (twice!) and the doctor and nurse assuming he may be the first man to become pregnant as they attempt to locate Brad when he continues to disappear.

Later, Brad attempts to trick Jan into believing Rex might be a homosexual because of his love for effeminate things.

The supporting players bring wit to Pillow Talk and are key to the film’s enjoyment. Randall, as Jonathan, is not quite the nice guy but not entirely the foil. As he has designs for Jan, he warns Brad to keep away.

His intention, which fails, is to woo her with money, but Jan seeks true love.

Thelma Ritter’s performance as Alma, Jan’s boozy housekeeper, is delicious. She adds necessary comic timing and sardonic humor. We crackle with delight when she ultimately finds love with the elevator operator.

The lavish set design is flawless. It brightens the film while adding the luxurious style and sophistication that only New York City apartment living can bring. The combined sets of Brad’s and Jan’s apartments are gorgeous.

With bright colors and 1950s-style furniture, one can easily imagine how beautiful it would be to live in an apartment of this brilliance—I know this viewer did!

A Doris Day film would not be complete without several songs that the singer/actress performs. “Pillow Talk” during the opening credits, “Roly Poly” in the piano bar with Blackwell and Hudson, and “Possess Me” on the drive up to Jonathan’s cabin.

Pillow Talk (1959) is an example of a rich romantic comedy with significant elements. It is a bit fantasy and silly but contains style, sophistication, and humor.

The film was an enormous success and was deemed “the feel-good film of the year” in many circles. Following the film, Hudson’s career was relaunched after a snag years earlier.

Oscar Nominations: 1 win-Best Actress-Doris Day, Best Supporting Actress-Thelma Ritter, Best Story and Screenplay Written Directly for the Screen (won), Best Scoring of a Dramatic or Comedy Picture, Best Art Direction, Color

Rocketman-2019

Rocketman-2019

Director-Dexter Fletcher

Starring-Taron Egerton

Scott’s Review #906

Reviewed June 5, 2019

Grade: A

Following in the footsteps of the unexpected success of 2018’s rock biography Bohemian Rhapsody comes the similar-themed Rocketman (2019).

This time the subject at hand is Elton John rather than Freddie Mercury, but both storied figures contain unquestionable comparisons as their successes, failures, and struggles are well documented.

Both films take their name from popular title songs and both have the same director in the mix, Dexter Fletcher.

Freddie Mercury and Elton John are both larger than life onstage personas while both reportedly suffered from shyness, creating characters to portray to ease difficulties.

Rocketman gets the slight edge over Bohemian Rhapsody when comparing the two, with experimental and psychedelic sequences making the experience more left of center than the latter and lacking a hefty feel-good component.

I would venture to assess that Rocketman has darker overtones.

The film opens impressively as an adult, successful Elton John (Taron Egerton) is in rehab, begrudgingly attending a support group therapy session- this scene will reoccur throughout the film as John slowly reveals more to the group about his childhood, rise to fame, and struggles with numerous demons.

This is key to the enjoyment of the film as it backtracks in time frequently and we see John’s development as both a musician and on a personal level.

Many scenes play out like a Broadway play which is an ingenious approach, not only a treat for fans of John’s huge catalog of songs but immensely creative from a cinematic perspective. At the high point of the film, the scenes are not only showy but catapult the direction of the film instead of slowing down the events.

Fantastic are offerings of hit songs like “Tiny Dancer”, as shown during John’s first trip to Los Angeles, as he is forced to witness the then crush Bernie Taupin (Jamie Bell) take up with a supermodel at an LSD infused Hollywood party.

The musical numbers offer glimpses into the mind and heart of Elton, and other characters, through song. A teary number occurs early on when a pained, boyish Elton is learning piano, facing struggles at home.

When the song begins it is Elton’s tune to carry but then his father sings a few lines, then his mother, then his grandmother. Each person offers his or her perspective based on the lyric they are singing. The beauty of this scene is powerful and sets the tone of the scenes to follow.

Rocketman is an emotional film, triggering laughter and tears throughout its duration. Thanks to Egerton who carries the film, the audience cares for him as a human being instead of a larger-than-life rock star.

We feel his pain, cry his tears, and smile during rare moments when he is content. He faces insecurity, sex addiction, drug and alcohol addiction, and an eating disorder. Through Egerton, we face the battles alongside him.

Elton John serves as Executive Producer of the film providing a measure of truth and honesty in storytelling, something Bohemian Rhapsody was accused of not containing. John’s parents are portrayed accurately and decidedly, and both mother and father are dastardly, nearly ruining Elton’s self-esteem for life.

Dallas Bryce-Howard as his mother is happy to capitalize financially on his fame but sticks a dagger in his heart when she professes he will never be loved since he is a gay man.

His father is nearly as bad. Abandoning his loveless marriage to Elton’s mother, he eventually finds happiness with another woman and produces two boys. He can never love his eldest son despite Elton’s efforts to reconnect.

To add insult to injury, his father asks him to cross out the words “to Dad” on an album autograph, instead requesting it go to a colleague. Elton is devastated.

Events are not all dire and dreary as with his parents and a major suicide attempt. Happier times are shown and his grandmother (wonderfully played by Gemma Jones) remains an ardent supporter.

His relationship with Taupin is one of the most benevolent and life-long causes of trust and respect, and once his act is cleaned up Elton can appreciate the finer things in life more completely.

Egerton performs beautifully in acting as well as singing capabilities but lacks the singing chops that Elton Jon has. The decision was made not to have Egerton lip-sync which deserves its measure of praise.

Interesting to wonder what the opposite choice would have resulted in, like with Bohemian Rhapsody, we are left with a brilliant portrayal of John by Egerton.

Watched in tandem with Bohemian Rhapsody, a great idea given the back-to-back releases is one recommendation for comparison sake. Offering a more creative experience- again the musical numbers are superb, and both switching through the back and forth timelines, Rocketman (2019) squeaks out the victory for me, and doesn’t the victor go the spoils?

If Rami Malek won the coveted Best Actor Oscar statuette what will that mean for the tremendous turn that Egerton gives?

Oscar Nominations: Best Original Song-“(I’m Gonna) Love Me Again (won)

Tully-2018

Tully-2018

Director-Jason Reitman

Starring-Charlize Theron, Mackenzie Davis

Scott’s Review #905

Reviewed June 2, 2019

Grade: B

Tully, a 2018 film release, was awarded wide recognition largely because of a Golden Globe nomination for Best Actress- Comedy achieved by its star, Charlize Theron.

The actress does carry the film and delivers a wonderful performance in an example of great casting.

The film is targeted for a specific audience, that of females with newborn babies, a mother of a child with behavioral issues, or women who have experienced something similar during their lifetime.

As such, the perspective is clearly from the female point of view and men may not find much, if anything, to relate to. Nonetheless, the film is a worthy watch though not sure I’d classify it firmly in the comedy category, this may have more to do with who directed it.

Jason Reitman, famous for his creations Juno (2007) and Young Adult (2011) is known for coming-of-age films with dark edges. Nonetheless, I’d carefully teeter the film more into the drama genre than straight comedy.

We meet a very pregnant Marlo (Theron) as she is about to give birth to her third child, the implication being that it is an unplanned pregnancy. She is already frazzled by her other two children, one of whom is Jonah, who has a developmental disorder causing stress.

Her world consists of battles with Jonah’s school, her absent-minded husband Drew (Ron Livingston), and her brother Craig (Mark Duplass), who has married an affluent woman and tries to help Marlo. Chris offers to pay for a night nanny which would allow Marlo quiet, and she finally accepts, meeting the bizarre Tully (Mackenzie Davis) who slowly changes her life.

Theron reportedly gained over fifty pounds in preparation for the role and completely immerses herself in the part. Ordinarily a gorgeous woman as well as an astounding actor, she is convincing as the tired and unfulfilled suburban mother.

Haggard, going through her day-to-day routines, it is revealed that she yearns to be young again, and finally revisits her old stomping grounds in Brooklyn where her passion is awakened, New York.

Theron not only transforms her appearance but portrays an enormous amount of emotion teetering between a responsible mother and a flighty middle-aged woman.

To say that Tully is a “woman’s film”, a phrase I dislike, is not entirely fair, but women will relate to the film most of all. Men are not written especially well; we witness Drew meandering around the house mostly holing up in the bedroom, oblivious to his surroundings.

He is somewhat aware that a night nanny exists but is more concerned with playing video games or traveling for work than with who is raising his child. He loves his family yet is somewhat only half there and his motivations and feelings are never explored very well.

The writing of this character perplexed me, or rather I wondered why the character was written this way, to begin with.

As events progress Tully serves up a brilliant twist ending, blurring the lines between fantasy and reality daringly.

The character of Tully becomes a godsend for Marlo. Suddenly, she is inspired by the younger woman who has her whole life ahead of her. Could Marlo be a bit jealous of the young and thin nanny? Tully inspires Marlo, but could she not be all that she seems? The final reveal leaves questions dangling over the viewer.

Is Tully all in Marlo’s head? Is it merely a coincidence that Marlo’s maiden name is Tully or the reason for the nanny in the first place?

Tully (2018) plays like a female-centered coming-of-age story perfectly suited for women over the age of thirty. It can be enjoyed by others as the story has layers and borders on a character study, but the target audience is clear.

The surprise ending is tremendous and rises the film way above mediocrity, otherwise being a traditional genre film.

The performance by Theron also adds an immeasurable amount to the film.

Witchfinder General-1968

Witchfinder General-1968

Director Michael Reeves

Starring Vincent Price, Ian Ogilvy, Hilary Dwyer

Scott’s Review #904

Reviewed May 31, 2019

Grade: B+

Witchfinder General (1968) is a macabre horror film that provides an enormous atmosphere amid a gruesome story centering around the theme of witch-hunting.

By the late 1960’s violence and bloodletting in cinema had become more lenient and acceptable so the film takes full advantage of the timing with an unusual amount of torture, cruelty, and brutality.

The mid-seventeenth-century English period is highly effective as is the ghastly religious angle, making for effective film making.

Vincent Price is delicious in any film he appears in, having amassed over one-hundred cinematic credits alone, to say nothing of his television appearances.

Practically trademarking his over-the-top comic wittiness and campy performances, his role in Witchfinder General may be his best yet as he plays the character straight and deadly serious.

This succeeds in making his character chilling and maybe the best role of his career despite numerous disputes with the director, Michael Reeves, over motivation.

During the English Civil War, Mathew Hopkins (Price) took advantage of the unrest in the land, profiting from witch-hunting. He travels from town to town accusing the unfortunate of witchcraft until they are mercilessly executed after which he is paid handsomely.

Matthew is assisted in the accusations and torments by John Stearne (Robert Russell) a man his equal in brutality. The knowledge that these two men were real-life historical figures makes the action even more difficult to watch.

When he arrests and tortures Father Lowes (Rupert Davies), Lowes’s niece’s fiancé (Ian Ogilvy) decides to put an end to Hopkins’s sleazy practices and goes on a quest to seek vengeance.

The mixture of a romantic love story as Richard Marshall (Ogilvy) and Sara (Hilary Dwyer) marry and a revenge tale as Marshall vows to destroy Hopkins is a nice combination as are the numerous outdoor scenes.

Witchfinder General has much going on and the pieces all come together.

The most horrific moments of the film come during the death scenes as the victims, who logical viewers can ascertain are innocent. The characters are merely perceived as peculiar, therefore deemed to be up to witchcraft, and do not stand much of a chance despite their endless pleas and cries.

Before they are murdered they are typically tortured until they ultimately confess to crimes out of desperation and perceived relief. The common mode of death is either hanging or burning to death.

In one sickening scene, victims are assumed to be witches if they can swim and then are subsequently burned at the stake; if they drown they are innocent, but of course die anyway.

One unfortunate victim has her hands and legs bound and drowns, followed by one of the witch hunters professing how her death was unfortunate because she was innocent all along.

In horror films, the most frightening situations are the ones that can conceivably occur in real-life whether it be a home-invasion, a psycho with a knife, or burning at the stake in the 1600s.

The fact that witch-hunting did happen is shocking and resoundingly makes Witchfinder General creepier especially given that most scenes take place in the daytime. Anyone can create a studio monster, but the realism of the events is the key to the film’s power.

As an aside, while watching the film I was keen to keep in mind how many countries still treat certain classes and groups of people differently, or even oppress them in the name of God.

Food for thought and an additional component that makes Witchfinder General relevant.

The story and the screenplay are not brilliant, nor do they necessarily need to be given the treasures existing among the elements. The writing is your basic villains getting their comeuppance with a love story thrown in- standard fare and adequate.

While pointing out some negatives is “Witchfinder General” the best title that Reeves could come up with, or anyone else for that matter? The title does not exactly roll off the tongue nor does the renamed United States release, The Conqueror Worm sound much better.

Witchfinder General (1968) is not an easy watch and the faint of heart may want to avoid this one, but the realism and the rich atmosphere make it a success.

The lit candles, an old castle, potent red and blue costumes, and one of the greatest horror legends of all time make this a must-watch among horror fans.

South Pacific-1958

South Pacific-1958

Director Joshua Logan

Starring Rossano Brazzi, Mitzi Gaynor

Scott’s Review #903

Reviewed May 29, 2019

Grade: A-

South Pacific (1958) contains a magical and romantic aura that will mesmerize the dreamy viewer seeking exotic paradise and cinematic escapism.

Marveling at distinctive and experimental color hues to shift from sequence to sequence, usually from romantic to ordinary scenes, the film has otherworldly appeal and lavish locale sequences, some actual, others studio manipulations.

The surrounding war story is relevant, the interracial relationship is more progressive than the times were, and the two leads share tremendous chemistry.

Combined with catchy songs, these qualities make the film a darling watch, providing tremendous enjoyment and an impassioned payoff.

The film may not be the best of all musicals, but there is little to criticize.

Attractive Navy nurse Nellie (Mitzy Gaynor) falls head over heels for suave French plantation officer Emile (Rosanno Brazzi) as the pair enjoy an excellent date amidst the gorgeous beach landscape. The feeling is mutual, and Nellie and Emile seem destined for happiness.

He confides to her that he once killed a man in his native France, causing him to flee his country, never to return. The Navy requests Nellie spy on Emile to utilize him against their hated Japanese enemy.

In a separate but just as romantic story, Tonkinese trader Bloody Mary (Juanita Hall) is determined to marry her beautiful, dark-skinned daughter Liat (France Nuyen) to handsome Lt. Joseph Cable (John Kerr). However, he refuses to marry her due to prejudicial feelings, throwing away a chance at lasting happiness.

Despite his best efforts, he cannot get her out of his mind, and the couple reunites briefly before tragedy strikes.

The World War II backdrop plays heavily into the story, and atmospheric elements make the film ooze with sensuality and sunny desire. The result is good, escapist fun, with brazen musical numbers added to set the perfect tone.

They contrast the island where most events occur with foreboding military airplanes flying overhead, some manned by the main characters dangerously, with a hint of foreshadowing.

South Pacific has much to be treasured for, especially with its songs.

For one thing, all of Rodgers & Hammerstein’s immortal songs from the stage productions “Some Enchanted Evening,” “Bali Hai,” “There Is Nothing Like a Dame,” “I’m in Love With a Wonderful Guy,” “Younger Than Springtime” is retained, and, as a bonus, a song cut from the original stage production, “My Girl Back Home,” is revived herein.

The songs are integral to the plot and hold up well, especially the robust “I’m Gonna Wash That Man Right Outa My Hair,” which is naughty as Nellie sings it from the shower.

After the successful release of the film version of Oklahoma! (1955) Rodgers & Hammerstein decided to tackle the South Pacific as their next big project. The stakes were high due to the success achieved by the former, but the latter did not measure up.

Some thought Gaynor was miscast, but I personally like her just fine.

Nonetheless, the production is gorgeous and entirely on par with Oklahoma! Because the films were produced by the same people and were released close together, many similarities can be ascertained between them.

Although the South Pacific may be a far cry from the midwestern USA, both films have an outdoorsy feel. Numerous scenes use luscious natural landscapes to add beauty to the big screen.

A key point to remember is that the South Pacific is far from fluff despite the tendency for comic scenes or light-sounding numbers.

The film distinguishes itself quite well with a strong anti-war slant as Emile decries killing and promotes harmony in more than one scene, almost like the film encourages us to learn from a French man rather than an American.

To this end, the critical subject of racism is brought up not only in the Liat/Cable story but also when Nellie struggles with the notion of raising two children of a different race.

Although not revisited as often as unforgettable genre contemporaries like West Side Story (1960) or The Sound of Music (1965) and justifiably not as dynamic, South Pacific (1958) is a lovely film with impressive key production values, a worthy story, and enough sing-along tunes to keep one humming for days.

The picture never feels dated and exists as a timeless member of the stage productions magically brought to the big screen club.

Oscar Nominations: 1 win-Best Scoring of a Musical Picture, Best Sound (won), Best Cinematography, Color

The Wrong Man-1956

The Wrong Man-1956

Director Alfred Hitchcock

Starring Henry Fonda, Vera Miles

Scott’s Review #902

Reviewed May 24, 2019

Grade: A-

The Wrong Man (1956) is not an Alfred Hitchcock film typically mentioned when lists of the greatest of all the director’s works are in conversation.

Although it flies completely under the radar and is absent from most “Best of” collections, the film is a lovely gem ready to be dusted off and appreciated for its worth.

It features the legendary Henry Fonda, perfectly cast in a story point frequently used in Hitchcock films: that of the wrongly accused man.

Set in New York City, Manny Balestrero (Fonda) is a struggling musician who requires three hundred dollars for dental work that his wife Rose (Vera Miles) needs. Determined not to let his wife suffer, he decides to obtain the money by borrowing against her insurance policy.

The life insurance employees mistake Manny for another man who recently held them up. He is arrested and forced to perform a test for the police, which he fails, leading them to assume he is their man.

Attorney Frank O’Connor (Anthony Quayle) sets out to prove that Manny is not guilty since he has perfect alibis for the nights of both holdups. However, complications erupt during his trial as proper witnesses either cannot be found or have died, leaving Manny in dire straits.

Meanwhile, Rose teeters towards the brink of insanity as she suffers from severe depression.

The Wrong Man differs from many Hitchcock films in that its story is based on a real-life quandary one man faced. As such, viewers can relate to the story immensely and imagine themselves in Manny’s shoes.

I often wonder, “What would I do if this were me?” as one could find the story implausible, one could just as easily find it plausible. Mistaken identity can happen, and proving one’s innocence may not be as easy as it may seem.

Mainly set on location is another tidbit unique to many Hitchcock productions as the man cringed at the thought of any scene that studio luxuries could not manipulate. The New York City locales are splendid and provide an artistic and genuine element.

Many scenes were filmed in Jackson Heights, where Manny lived when he was accused. Most of the prison scenes were filmed among the convicts in a New York City prison in Queens. The courthouse was at the corner of Catalpa Avenue and 64th Street in Ridgewood.

Careful not to be too dissimilar to standard Hitchcock fare, the use of every man being falsely accused is every day in some of his films.

Other films like North by Northwest (1958) and The 39 Steps (1935) delivered the same elements with a man being mistakenly accused of murder. While the others were more of “chase stories” involving flight, The Wrong Man stays firmly planted in one city.

The film has some jazz elements, representing Fonda’s appearance as a musician in the nightclub scenes. These elements add sophistication to the film’s overall tone, especially as we see Manny as worldly yet kind.

He is a performer but comes home to his wife and adores her, doing anything he needs to for her comfort. The music and the black-and-white cinematography exude harshness and coldness but also good style.

Fans of either the police force or the justice system may be in for a challenging ride watching The Wrong Man, as neither group is written very sympathetically. The police are the worst offenders as they go to unethical methods to accuse a man of a crime and seem not to care who is convicted, only that someone is.

The one detraction to The Wrong Man is the chemistry between Fonda and Miles. The passion is underwhelming but not terrible, either. Instead, the main point is the false accusations instead of the romance. A bit more of the latter might have made the film more unique.

With suspenseful and dramatic elements and a charismatic leading man, The Wrong Man (1956) perhaps lacks the flair of other well-known Hitchcock films. Still, it is a solid achievement that deserves more acclaim than traditionally given.

Yes, it’s sullen, but it’s also poignant, frightening, and a terrific effort. Henry Fonda carries the film and provides compassion and realism.

Taste of Fear-1961

Taste of Fear-1961

Director Seth Holt

Starring Susan Strasberg, Ronald Lewis

Scott’s Review #901

Reviewed May 21, 2019

Grade: A-

Though Taste of Fear (1961) is a Hammer Production, a British film company known for its heavy horror offerings, it plays more like an intense and chilling thriller with a Gothic, ghostly feel than a full-throttled horror display.

The title was changed for US marketing purposes to Scream of Fear, and neither the US nor the UK title quite works, lacking the appropriate pizzazz that the film warrants.

The result is a razor-edged spellbinder with marvelous cinematography and more than a few surprise twists.

The action gets off to an exciting start as a female body is suddenly discovered in the waters of coastal Italy; a young woman has taken her own life by drowning.

Soon after, a heiress who uses a wheelchair, Penny Appleby (Susan Strasberg), arrives at her father’s estate in the lavish French Riviera to bond with her new stepmother, Jane (Ann Todd), and await her father’s return from vacation.

It is explained that the deceased woman was a close friend of Penny’s.

Penny distrusts her stepmother immensely but is unsure why since the woman is more than accommodating during her stay.

Immediately, strange events begin to occur at a rapid rate, most notably seeing her father’s corpse in odd places around the house and the grounds. The body disappears when Penny calls for help, leaving the household members questioning her sanity and Penny starting to agree.

She befriends the handsome family chauffeur, Robert (Ronald Lewis), and the pair are determined to figure out what is happening.

Cleverly, the audience knows something is amiss but not what the entire puzzle will add to, which is an excellent part of the viewing pleasure. Director Seth Holt enjoys toying with his viewers, keeping them guessing at every dark turn.

The biggest questions are these: If Penny’s father is dead, where is the body being hidden? Who is responsible and why? Why does Jane leave the house for drives every night? What does the family doctor (Christopher Lee) do with the story?

The best visual aspect of Taste of Fear is the black-and-white cinematography, which adds foreboding and brooding elements throughout the film’s short running time of eighty minutes.

The grand estate with creepy nooks and crannies provides plenty of prop potential. A grand piano that seems to play by itself is pivotal to the story, as is a murky pool, shockingly deep and unkempt for such a residence. Finally, the mansion boathouse that may or may not contain lit candles takes center stage during the film.

The storytelling is quick-paced and robust, never dragging. Layers unfold as the story progresses, but the developments are necessary instead of overkill as the conclusion comes into view.

Assumptions about which character’s motivations are devious begin to unravel. The illustrious dialogue crackles with spunk, and by the time we figure out what is going on, we scratch our heads in disbelief, finally surrendering to the film’s manipulations.

Taste of Fear falters slightly when an attempt to make the story ultimately add up is pondered. Liberties must be taken happily so, as what could be deemed silly or superfluous instead results in thrilling fun.

Once or twice, I thought the setup was too contrived, but I just as quickly tabled the inquisition instead of choosing to revel in the story.

The more than adequate cast performs their roles with professionalism and energy, always careful to make the unbelievable believable. Any film starring the legendary Christopher Lee is worthy of praise, even if the actor only has a supporting role.

Justice is eventually served, though, as his character becomes central to the plot.

A fun fact is that Lee said, “Taste of Fear was the best film I was in that Hammer ever made. It had the best director, the best cast, and the best story.” Given the actor’s catalog of treasures, this is not to be easily dismissed.

A forgotten delight, Taste of Fear (1961), is a prime example of a film that does everything correctly.

It is an excellent story, Gothic gloominess, and a foray for Hammer Production company into the new psychological thriller genre. The piece is never over-the-top and is a production sure to impress Hitchcock himself.

Never Take Sweets from a Stranger-1960

Never Take Sweets from a Stranger-1960

Director Cyril Frankel

Starring Patrick Allen, Gwen Watford

Scott’s Review #900

Reviewed May 17, 2019

Grade: A

Never Take Sweets from a Stranger (modified to Never Take Candy from a Stranger in the US for marketing purposes) is a 1960 British film directed by Cyril Frankel and released by Hammer Film Productions.

The film contains brilliant cinematography and cerebral quality, and it is pretty daring for the time it was made. It combines a story of pedophilia with manipulations of the legal system, allowing those to get away with this most heinous crime because of their status.

Despite the production company name being marketed as a horror film, the film is more left-of-center than a traditional horror film.

The locale is a small, sleepy lakefront Canadian town that seems like an everyday US town. The Carter family (Peter, Sally, and their 9-year-old daughter Jean) has just moved there to give Peter a fantastic job opportunity as the school principal.

Jean confides to her parents that while playing in the woods, she and her friend Lucille went into the house of an elderly man. The man asked them to remove their clothes and dance naked for him in return for some candy, which they did.

Peter and Sally are appalled and decide to file a complaint. The elderly man is one of the wealthiest and most influential in the town, the respected Clarence Olderberry, Sr.

Jean’s experience is downplayed, and the town largely shuns the Carter family. As a trial against Olderberry commences, Jean is ridiculed on the stand and her story ripped to shreds by attorneys.

After Olderberry is acquitted, he pursues Jean and Lucille in the woods, eventually catching the girls during a harrowing lakefront chase and murdering Lucille. Jean escapes, and the truth is revealed to the shocked and devastated town.

Although the cast of Never Take Sweets from a Stranger is not a household name, each performs well.

As the parents, Patrick Allen and Gwen Watford are well-cast and believable. They are upstanding strangers in the town, wanting to protect their daughter without smothering.

As old man Olderberry, Felix Aylmer plays the role not as menacing but by providing glimpses of pain and sympathy. The audience is unclear whether the man has dementia or Alzheimer’s disease, perhaps not even knowing what he has done.

The black-and-white cinematography is gorgeous, surreal, and tremendously effective.

With ghostly tones, the film gets off to a mysterious and prominent start as we see Jean and Lucille casually playing in the woods, startled to glance up at a menacing mansion (perfect for a Hammer production) to see elderly Olderberry leering at them with binoculars.

The lakefront sequences and the chase through the woods are among the best at providing superior camera angles.

As Lucille talks Jean into entering Oldberry’s house, we presume she has done this before. She knows Oldberry will provide the girls with candy, but does she understand this comes at a price?

Immediately, there is a shred of doubt about the children’s innocence—ever so quickly. The film’s decision and Oldberry’s representation are pivotal in casting even the slightest doubt on the motivations or decisions of the main characters.

Comparisons to the brilliant The Night of the Hunter (1955) are rapid. Themes of child abuse, young children in front and center roles, a creepy lake with a prominent boat, and macabre adults are prevalent, at least to some degree, in both films.

Additionally, both films were shunned at the time of release, misunderstood, and later rediscovered, subsequently seen as treasures of brilliant filmmaking.  Measuring both films as tragedies is also apparent; each results in pain and sadness for the children involved.

Never Take Sweets from a Stranger (1960) was released decades ago. It took years for its brilliance to be recognized and appreciated, as it added admirable and thought-provoking nuances to the viewer.

The subtle qualities make this film a world of its own. Sadly, the best movies are often overlooked, marinating the flavorful juices rather than a sudden bombastic reaction.

1960, the world was not ready for this film, but it is remembered as a brave, disturbing, and relevant film offering.

Scream and Scream Again-1969

Scream and Scream Again-1969

Director Gordon Hessler

Starring Vincent Price, Christopher Lee, Peter Cushing

Scott’s Review #899

Reviewed May 16, 2019

Grade: B+

Any film that features horror heavyweights and great actors like Vincent Price, Christopher Lee, and Peter Cushing is well worth the price of admission for the name status alone. Each is a mainstay attraction in his own right and combined, results in an orgy of riches.

Scream and Scream Again (1969) sputters by limiting the on-screen interaction between the actors but after a reflective pause, I realize the picture is to be revered for its creativity and use of intersecting plotlines into a thrashing crescendo of a surprise ending.

The audience is offered three segments of the story, each periodically revisited as stand-alone segments that culminate into overlapping components.

An athletic runner trots along the streets of London suddenly suffering from an attack only to awaken in the hospital with no legs.

Elsewhere, a deadly intelligence operative reports back to his repressed Eastern European country only to murder his commanding officer with a deadly paralyzing hold.

Finally, a London detective investigates the brutal deaths of several young women in metropolitan nightclubs.

Cushing, reduced to merely a cameo-sized role as the ill-fated officer, is barely worth mentioning and adds little to the film besides appearing in it.

Lee, like Fremont, the head of Britain’s intelligence agency, plays a straight role with not much zest.

Price, with the meatiest role as a mysterious doctor specializing in limb replacement, can give anyone the creeps with his scowling and eerie mannerisms, but the film strikes out by wasting the talents of the other legendary actors.

The film is not at all what a fan of Hammer horror would expect especially based on the horror familiar cast and the gory-sounding title.

Heaping buckets of blood or ghoulish vampires are what was on the anticipated menu but that does not mean the film fails to deliver. It may not please a fan of traditional horror films since the genres of political espionage and science-fiction come heavily into play.

However, the fantastic and peculiar nightclub serial killer storyline will satisfy fans eager for a good kill or two.

My initial reaction to Scream and Scream Again was that of over-complicated writing and too much going on simultaneously, especially for a film of the said horror genre.

After the film concludes and the surprise ending is revealed I realized that the numerous tidbits are necessary to achieve the desired result and events will make the viewer ponder when the film ends.

Not to ruin the big reveal but the filmmakers borrow a healthy dose of Invasion of the Body Snatchers (1956) in a more macabre way, naturally.

Fans of the 1960s British television series The Avengers will be pleased with Scream and Scream Again as a similar tone exists with both.

The distinctive musical soundtrack, trendy for the 1960s period works well, and the nightclub sequences and some of the detectives feel reminiscent of the show.

The feel of the film is not limited to an episodic television story but contains a similar style.

High British 1960s fashion is also prevalent and pleasing to the eye.

A couple of supporting characters strike a fascination in small and almost entirely non-verbal performances.

A sexy red-headed hospital nurse with superhuman powers and a penchant for removing limbs, combined with a brooding and mysterious serial killer provides dubious intrigue as to who the true characters are.

What is their motivation? Do they work for someone or something sinister? Questions like these will keep the viewer occupied and thirsty for an explanation.

Bizarrely, British film and television director Gordon Hessler crafts an implausible yet fascinating story that keeps the viewer guessing.

Featuring horror superstars Price, Cushing, and Lee would seem like an assured horror masterpiece but the star’s limited time on-screen brings the overall project down a notch.

Scream and Scream Again (1969) still achieves a good measure of worthy entertainment.

Giant-1956

Giant-1956

Director George Stevens

Starring Rock Hudson, Elizabeth Taylor, James Dean

Scott’s Review #898

Reviewed May 14, 2019

Grade: A

Giant (1956) is a sweeping epic firmly ensconced in both the Western genre and the dramatic field of play. The film is a flawless Hollywood production featuring three of the most recognizable stars of the time and a slew of powerful supporting actors offering rich performances and good characterizations.

The thunderous melodrama plays out over decades with the dry and dusty locale and the superb cinematography, among the finest aspects of the film experience.

Dashing and wealthy Texas rancher Jordan Bick Benedict Jr. (Rock Hudson) falls in love with and marries socialite Leslie Lynnton (Elizabeth Taylor) after a whirlwind romance in Maryland.

The pair begin their married life on Bick’s immaculate Texas ranch, but not before two central figures thwart their happiness. Jett Rink (James Dean) falls obsessively in love with Leslie while Bick’s sister, Luz Benedict (Mercedes McCambridge) despises Leslie, taking out her vengeance on Leslie’s horse.

The trials and tribulations continue as the characters age through the years.

The trifecta of talents Taylor, Hudson, and Dean make Giant the ultimate in treats as one fawn over the good looks of each (or all!) over the long three hours and eleven minutes of illustrious screen time.

Making for more powerful poignancy is that the film is Dean’s final appearance on-screen before his tragic death in a car accident, his death occurring before it was even released to the public.

Dean plays Jett to the hilt as a surly ranch hand, jealous of Bick’s riches and wanting to take Bick’s woman for himself. Jett is an unsympathetic character and the one I find the most interesting. Decades-long rivals, Jett and Bick’s lives overlap continuously as Jett finally becomes rich and dates Bick and Leslie’s daughter, much to their chagrin.

Jett is a racist, which was common in the early to mid-1900s, especially in southwestern Texas. Sadly, he never finds happiness, which is the central part of his depth.

The screenplay is peppered with meaningful and relevant social issues that provide sophistication and a humanistic approach. The film inches towards a liberal slant as the plot progresses, the most famous example occurring in the final act as Benedict’s stop at a roadside diner with a racist sign, implying the restaurant will not serve Mexicans.

Bick takes a dramatic stance and shows heart as his family, now multi-racial, needs his help. Culminating in a fight, the scene reveals the enduring love that Bick and Leslie share for one another.

Criticisms of the films’ enormous length and scope are wrong as these aspects deepen and the components I find the most appealing.

Director George Stevens never rushes through a scene or makes superfluous edits to limit running time. Instead, he allows each scene to marinate and graze like real life. Lengthy scenes play out with honest conversations and slow build-up, allowing the characters’ opinions and motivations to take shape slowly.

On the surface, a drama and western, the film can be peeled back like an onion to reveal deeper nuances. The racism, love story, and class structure ideals are mesmerizing, especially given the true-to-life humanitarian that Taylor was.

One can sit back and revel in the knowledge that she must have been enjoying the rich character.

Along with great epics like Gone with the Wind (1939), Lawrence of Arabia (1963), and The Godfather (1972) sits a film that is rarely mentioned with the other stalwarts, and that is a shame. With magnificent shot after shot of the vast Texas land and with enough gorgeous stars to rival the landscape, Giant (1956) is a must-see.

A Western soap opera with terrific writing, rife with racism, prosperity, and fortitude, the film deserves more praise than it’s given.

Oscar Nominations: 1 win-Best Motion Picture, Best Director-George Stevens (won), Best Actor-James Dean, Rock Hudson, Best Supporting Actress-Mercedes McCambridge, Best Screenplay-Adapted, Best Music Score of a Dramatic or Comedy Picture, Best Art Direction-Color, Best Costume Design-Color, Best Film Editing

The Sandpiper-1965

The Sandpiper-1965

Director Vincente Minnelli

Starring Richard Burton, Elizabeth Taylor, Eva Marie Saint

Scott’s Review #897

Reviewed May 12, 2019

Grade: B+

The Sandpiper (1965) is a film that stars Elizabeth Taylor and Richard Burton, released at the very height of their fame.

It capitalized on their notoriety as one of the world’s most famous couples and their well-known romantic tribulations. Although they portrayed adulterous lovers, they were married shortly before filming began.

The film’s theme of adultery closely mirrored their own lives at the time, as each very publicly conducted an affair with each other while married to spouses.

The film is a lavish and sweeping production. It is one of the few major studio pictures ever filmed in Big Sur, and the story is expressly set there.

Big Sur is a rugged and mountainous section of the Central Coast of California between where the Santa Lucia Mountains rise abruptly from the Pacific Ocean. It is frequently praised for its dramatic scenery and is the perfect location for a film with romance.

The Sandpiper (1965) is a romantic drama featuring the two stars’ chemistry. It is a pure case of art mimicking real life, at least in some way. Watching the actors work off one another is fascinating and wonderful. It makes me wonder what life would have been like on the set amidst the dreamlike and steamy locale and the fresh romance.

The story is not dynamic but quite theatrical, the actors being the main reason for watching.

Taylor plays Laura Reynolds, a bohemian, free-spirited single mother who lives in Big Sur, California, with her young son, Danny. Laura makes a living as an artist while homeschooling her son, who has gotten into trouble with the law.

When Danny is sent to an Episcopal boarding school, Laura meets the headmaster, Dr. Edward Hewitt (Burton). The duo falls madly in love despite Edward marrying teacher Claire (Eva Marie Saint).

The melodrama only escalates as those close to the pair catch on to their infidelity.

The gorgeous locale of Big Sur is second to none and exudes romance and sexual tension with the crashing waves against the mountainous terrain, symbolic of a passionate love affair. As the characters capitulate to each other, the lavish weather only infuses the titillating experience.

Taylor is lovely to look at throughout the film, and the erotic nude chest of the character plays a significant role. I wondered if the inclusion had the desired effect or resulted in unintended humor, as the endowed sculpture is quite busty.

The film belongs to Taylor and Burton, but the supporting cast deserves mention for creating robust characters that add flavor.

Eva Marie Saint plays the amiable wife, distraught by her husband’s infidelity but later coming to an understanding. Charles Bronson plays Cos Erickson, Laura’s protective friend, who despises Edward’s hypocrisy.

Finally, Robert Webber is effective as Ward Hendricks, a former beau of Laura’s, eager for another chance with the violet-eyed bombshell.

The film’s title represents a sandpiper with a broken wing that Laura nurses as Edward looks on. The bird lives in her home until healed and then flies free, though it returns occasionally.

This sandpiper is a central symbol in the movie, illustrating the themes of growth and freedom. Its sweetness is appropriate for the love story between Laura and Edward.

The Sandpiper is an entertaining film but not a great one. It suffers from mediocre writing and cliched storytelling but is a vehicle for Taylor and Burton.

The fascination is watching the actors, not for a great cinematic experience; the film is not very well remembered but for fans of the supercouple.

The film was made one year before the dreary yet brilliant Who’s Afraid of Virginia Woolf? (1966) starring the same husband and wife duo as does The Sandpiper (1965).

Laura and Edward are worlds apart from George and Martha, and when watched in close sequence, one can marvel at the acting chops of each star.

The film won the Academy Award for Best Original Song for the sentimental “The Shadow of Your Smile.”

Oscar Nominations: 1 win-Best Song-“The Shadow of Your Smile” (won)

The Sword in the Stone-1963

The Sword in the Stone-1963

Director Wolfgang Reitherman

Voices Sebastian Cabot, Rickie Sorensen, Karl Swenson

Scott’s Review #896

Reviewed May 10, 2019

Grade: B

The 1960s, while not known as the best of decades for Walt Disney productions, offers a small gem of a film in The Sword in the Stone (1963).

Flying marginally under the radar, the film is not typically well-remembered but is a solid offering. It mixes elements of magic and royalty within a cute story.

The production has the dubious honor of being the final Disney animated film released before Walt Disney’s death.

While the film is not great, neither is it bad.

Engaging and innocent, it does not offer the ravaging tragedy of Bambi (1942), the emotion of Dumbo (1941), or the beauty of Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs (1937).

The Sword in the Stone offers an adventure with an appealing lead character, mildly entertaining supporting characters, and a host of fun antics surrounding education.

Set in ancient times, the King of England has died, leaving no heir to the throne. This situation elicits peril and worries, as the country is doomed to war with no successor.

One day, a miracle occurs, and an odd “Sword in the Stone” appears inside a sturdy anvil in London. The anvil’s inscription proclaims that whoever removes it will be the new king.

Despite many attempts, no strong citizens succeeded, and England was reduced to the Dark Ages, leaving the sword and the stone forgotten.

One day, a twelve-year-old boy named Arthur appears. He teams up with his tutor, Merlin the wizard, and the adventures commence.

Inevitably, Arthur can remove the sword from the stone and lead the Knights of the Round Table, accomplishing many amazing feats and becoming one of the most famous figures in history- King Arthur.

The Sword in the Stone entertains and pleases the eyes in many regards, with vibrant colors and an array of bells and whistles creatively interspersed throughout many scenes.

The main villain, Madam Mim, is Merlin’s main nemesis. Haggard and dripping with black magic powers, she can turn from a pink elephant into a queen with the flick of her wrist as she giggles and prances about.

Despite being dastardly, she is also fun and zany and delights in her brief screen time.

The whimsical antics of Merlin are the best aspects of The Sword in the Stone as the senior gentleman bursts and bumbles from one oddity to another in earnest attempts to aid Arthur.

Thanks to clever writing, an educational angle is robustly incorporated into the story. Merlin can see into the future, such as knowing that the world is round, not flat.

What a great learning tool the film provides for young kids to discover.

The story risks playing juvenile in some parts where I can see children under age twelve enthralled but adults finding the film too childish to take seriously.

Despite my efforts to stay tuned, I noticed tidbits of the film that seemed too cute.

When Merlin and Arthur are turned into squirrels and strike the fancy of adorable but clueless female squirrels, the scene seems best catered to very young audiences.

What would give the film some excitement would be a good, solid theme song or a powerful love story. Both aspects, which can solidify a hit for Disney, are glaringly missing.

Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs contain the lovely “Someday My Prince Will Come,” while Snow White and the Prince offer a rich love story.

While sound, The Sword in the Stone can only reach the second tier of Disney classics, missing the upper echelon with its only so-so musical offerings.

A slight miss is how Arthur’s voice changes back and forth between a child and a teenager going through puberty. This is drastically noticeable.

When analyzed, the reason is somewhat perplexing because three different actors were used to play Arthur, resulting in some consistency issues.

Why not just use one actor or age the character slowly and gradually deepen his voice? The back and forth feels sloppy.

The criticisms targeted at The Sword in the Stone (1963) are minor and forgivable as the film plays above average graded on its terms.

The film has a lovely message for children about the importance of education and is a delight best enjoyed by the whole family.

Oscar Nominations: Best Scoring of Music-Adaptation or Treatment

Invasion of the Body Snatchers-1956

Invasion of the Body Snatchers-1956

Director Don Siegel

Starring Kevin McCarthy, Dana Wynter

Scott’s Review #895

Reviewed May 8, 2019

Grade: B+

Invasion of the Body Snatchers (1956), released during the mid-1950s, a time of post-War World II unity and prosperity in America where neighborhoods snuggled cheerily by the fireplaces with nary a care in the world, sought to make the public paranoid, and it worked.

Thanks to a foreboding premise, audiences got to ponder the possibilities of pod people cloning human beings and invading the planet, scaring the daylights out of the masses, and resonating with critics.

Playing like an extended episode of The Twilight Zone, and to the film’s credit, it preceded the television series. The film successfully achieves thought-provoking post-film dialogue at a brief one-hour and twenty-minute running time. It has been crowned with cult-classic status and similar creepy-themed genre films that blossomed during the 1950s.

Set in the fictional sunny California town of Santa Mira, the film gets off to an exciting start as we witness a screaming man in an emergency room attempting to be calmed by staff. The harried man claims to be a doctor and recounts, via flashbacks, the events leading up to the present day.

Our main character, Dr. Miles Bennell (Kevin McCarthy), and his ex-girlfriend Becky (Dana Wynter) team up after several patients report relatives acting robotic and strange.

When half-created bodies in pods are soon discovered, Miles and Becky know something is amiss in their town and race to figure out the mystery of the “pod people” while others turn into emotionless human-like beings.

The epidemic is caused by extraterrestrial life. The intention is for humanity to lose all emotions and a sense of individuality, creating a simplistic, stress-free world.

An interesting facet of Invasion of the Body Snatchers is how time has changed the reaction to the film. In 1956, the thought of aliens taking over the world seemed plausible and frightening since the man had not yet walked on the moon, and astronomy was a new venture.

The peaceful tranquility of the United States of America was in danger of being overtaken, the film exclaimed, and viewers fell for the scare tactics.

The film was created to be a political allegory, and boy did this sure work.

Decades later, the United States’ vibe is more integrated and flourishes with more diversity and acceptance of other cultures and beings. The country is also more chaotic, so the invasion of the “pod people” is less scary and perhaps even more embraced by those living in Malcontent.

Invasion of the Body Snatchers suffers from poor aging and a message rethink and teeters on feeling dated.

The acting is marginally good, if not spectacular, but it does not need to be Oscar-worthy to have the desired effect. The actors deliver their lines with dramatic gusto, successfully conveying suburban Americans’ troubled paranoia to audiences who will surely be on the edge of their seats as the drama unfolds.

The characters never think outside the box, only in straightforward terms, so the motivations are earnest.

The black and white cinematography is palpable yet subdued, and the lack of colors provides substance. While the 1950s was a wonderful time for film, it was also a less edgy time for cinema.

The 1960s brought fewer restrictions and more shocking elements, but Invasion of the Body Snatchers is compartmentalized, feeling more like a long episodic television thriller.

Double-billed with the equally frightening The Day the Earth Stood Still (1951) would make for delicious 1950s science-fiction viewing.

I remain partial to the stunning, vibrantly colored 1978 remake, which features superior filmmaking and more layered production values. The original Invasion of the Body Snatchers (1956) holds its own and is a recommended watch.

Lady and the Tramp-1955

Lady and the Tramp-1955

Director Clyde Geronimi

Voices Peggy Lee, Barbara Luddy, Larry Roberts

Scott’s Review #894

Reviewed May 5, 2019

Grade: A-

Released midway through a decade of prosperity, Lady and the Tramp (1955) is a lovely production that represents an innocent time and still holds up well decades later.

The Walt Disney film’s story, animations, and characters are charming, with a wholesome yet sophisticated vibrancy. A year in the life of its main character (Lady) has never been more richly created, providing adventure, romance, and fun for the entire family.

At the turn of the twentieth century, John Dear, presumed to be somewhere in the midwestern part of the United States, gives his wife Darling a Cocker Spaniel puppy that she names Lady.

The couple is immediately smitten with Lady, who provides her with all the comforts of warm and lavish country living.

After months, the Dears become pregnant, causing Lady to feel left out. When the baby arrives and the Dear’s go on a trip, their dog-hating and incompetent Aunt Sarah arrives, leaving poor Lady at risk for her life.

Meanwhile, a stray mixed-breed named Tramp prowls the streets, protecting his friends and avoiding the dog catcher. He dines on Italian leftovers at Tony’s and lives his idyllic life, proud not to be owned and able to live on his terms.

He befriends Lady through mutual acquaintances Jock and Trusty, who reside nearby.

When Lady faces peril, the duo embarks on an exciting escapade that leads them to a dog shelter and a farm. They fall in love, resulting in a candlelit dinner for two at Tony’s, which is the highlight.

All the animals are treasures and voiced appropriately, giving Lady and the Tramp life and zest. Tramp is gruff yet lovable, with a “footloose and collar-free” outlook. He is charming and bold in his determination.

Lady’s voice is the polar opposite—demure, feminine, and proper. It is cultured without being too snobbish.

In supporting roles, Tramp’s fellow strays Peg (a Pekingese) and Bull (a bulldog) possess a New York street-savvy, perfect for their characters.

Besides Aunt Sarah, the dog catcher, and a hungry rat, Lady and the Tramp contain no villains, and each character is somewhat justified in their motivations. The rat wants to eat, the dog catcher is doing his job, and Aunt Sarah, a cat lover with two Siamese pets, is foolhardier and more clueless.

She can be forgiven for wanting Lady to have a muzzle because she misunderstands Lady’s intentions toward the newborn baby. These characters are more comical than deadly, and Si and Am add mischievous shenanigans to further the plot.

The heart belongs to the sweet romance between Lady and Tramp. The two dogs immediately appeal to the audience with instant chemistry.

The “Footloose and Collar-Free / A Night at the Restaurant / Bella Notte” medley is the best arrangement of the songs, as the duo shares a delicious plate of spaghetti and meatballs.

In the film’s most iconic and recognizable scene, the pair lovingly munches on the same spaghetti noodle—if that is not love, what is?

Lady and the Tramp (1955) is a charmer containing innocence, vivid colors, and a rich, welcoming story.

Beginning on Christmas and ending precisely a year later, Lady and Tramp’s incredible journey is topsy-turvy but culminates in the birth of a litter of puppies cheerily celebrating life.

The happy ending is a perfect bow on a Disney film that is enchanting, harmless, and inspiring.

The quintessential American love story between the pampered heiress and the spontaneous, fun-loving pup from the wrong side of the tracks — has rarely been more elegantly and entertainingly told.

Song of the South-1946

Song of the South-1946

Director Harve Foster, Wilfred Jackson

Starring James Baskett, Billy Driscoll

Scott’s Review #893

Reviewed May 4, 2019

Grade: B+

Song of the South (1946) is a Walt Disney film buried in the chambers of cinema history, reportedly an embarrassment never too soon forgotten by the legendary producer and his company.

The reason for the ruckus is the numerous overtones of racism that emerge throughout an otherwise darling film.

Admittedly, the film contains a racial cheeriness that cannot be interpreted as anything other than condescension to black folk, and numerous stereotypes abound.

The mysterious appeal of the film during modern times is undoubted because of the surrounding controversies that hopefully can be put aside in favor of a resoundingly positive message and glimmering childlike innocence that resonates throughout the film.

The hybrid choice of live-action and animation is superlative, eliciting a new progressive experience. Given the surrounding controversies, it would be shameful to spoil it.

The film takes place during the Reformation Era in Georgia, the United States of America, a period of American history shortly after the end of the Civil War and the abolition of slavery. It has a pretty Southern flavor and feel.

Seven-year-old Johnny (Bobby Driscoll) is excited to visit his grandmother’s (Lucile Watson) lavish plantation outside of Atlanta along with his mother, Sally (Ruth Warrick), and father (Erik Rolf). He is soon devastated to learn that his father will return to Atlanta for business, leaving Johnny behind.

Johnny plots to run away from the plantation and return to Atlanta but develops a special friendship with kindly Uncle Remus (James Baskett). Uncle Remus enchants the young boy with sentimental lesson stories about Br’er Rabbit and his foils, Br’er Fox and Br’er Bear.

Drama ensues when Johnny feuds with two poor neighbor boys and develops friendships with their sister, Ginny. He also bonds with Toby, a young black boy who lives on the plantation.

Thunderous applause must go to the creative minds who thought of mixing the animations with the live-action drama, resulting in positive and compelling effects.

As Uncle Remus repeatedly embarks on a new story for Johnny to listen to, the audience knows they will be transported into a magical land of make-believe as a precise lesson results from these stories.

Uncle Remus is an inspiring character- it is rare to find a black character written this way in 1946. Often, black characters were reduced to maids, butlers, farmhands, or other servant roles.

While the film does not stray from the course by casting many of these roles, including Uncle Remus himself, his character is different because he is beloved by little Johnny, respected by the grandmother, and treated as part of the family. His opinion counts for something and is not merely dismissed as rubbish.

The musical soundtrack to Song of the South is particularly cheery and easy to hum along to. The most recognizable song is “Zip-a-Dee-Doo-Dah,” which recurs several times throughout the feature. The best rendition is at the end, when the mix of live-action and animation culminates with the sing-along.

My favorite appearance is when the “bluebird” referenced in the lyric comes into play, resting on one character’s shoulder, true to the lyrical content.

The accusations of racism are justified as keen viewers will understand the condescension towards blacks in several scenes.

More than once, a parade of black people is seen traipsing through the plantation, singing songs, not precisely cheerfully but not despondent.

The scenes have eerie slavery overtones- despite the black character’s all presumably being free to come and go, the reality is they all work for white folk. The black plight and struggle are completely sugar-coated and dismissed.

The animated characters are voiced by strong ethnic voices and are presumed to be ridiculous. The usage of a Tar-Baby character, ultimately enshrined in black tar, seems offensive, almost teetering on the implication of promoting a blackface minstrel show moment as the character, once white, is then turned black because of the tar.

Song of the South is not the only film of its time to face racist accusations- the enormous Gone with the Wind (1939) and Jezebel (1938) faced similar heat.

Song of the South (1946) is recommended for those who recognize the existing racism and appreciate the film’s artistic merits. Wise and resounding friendships between white and black characters are evident, and it is a lovely story about determination, fairness, and respect.

The film should be treasured for its lovely moments and scolded for racist overtones.

Oscar Nominations: 1 win-Best Original Song-“Zip-a-Dee-Doo-Dah” (won)

Welcome to Marwen-2018

Welcome to Marwen-2018

Director-Robert Zemeckis

Starring-Steve Carell, Leslie Mann

Scott’s Review #892

Reviewed May 1, 2019

Grade: B

Welcome to Marwen (2018) is a feature film that flew under the radar at the time of release suffering from mostly poor if not scathing reviews.

Having debuted in the last quarter of the year the anticipation was assuredly for Oscar love, but this was not to be as the film was a box-office and critical disappointment.

Despite a marvelous and sympathetic portrayal by Steve Carell and bold creativity in the animation, the film lags and misfires in the story-telling, never completely coming together despite a heartfelt effort.

Based on a powerful true story chronicled much better in documentary form, the film follows Mark Hogancamp (Carell), a man struggling with post-traumatic stress syndrome after being physically assaulted.

He creates a fictional village to deal with his violent trauma as a form of escapism. Mark teeters between fantasy and reality as his various action figures mirror both himself and other people in his life from the benevolent- his pretty new next-door neighbor, Nicol (Leslie Mann), to the malicious- his attackers.

Director Zemeckis is no stranger to cool and innovative visual effects. Having created such unique film treats as Back to the Future (1985), Death Becomes Her (1992), and Forrest Gump (1994) his track record is proven.

Though far from a masterpiece, Welcome to Marwen’s greatest achievement is that of its look, with stunning and realistic figurines coming to life with splendid effect.

The modified fashion dolls are morphed into action heroes livening the film and making it a spectacle versus the morose everyday life that Mark lives in.

As Mark frequently escapes into his soothing and self-created fantasy world named Marwen, the mostly female characters are strong, resilient, and protective of Mark. He even embarks on a fantasy romance with Nicol and faces both sweet moments with her as well as a peril from Nazis.

The negative to the fantasy sequences are in the climax as Zemeckis teeters too broadly towards a full-fledged action film with over-the-top segments and an overly lengthy battle scene.

The real-life scenes do not work so well as Mark’s small-town residence is glum and depressed providing little interest. Presumed to be two hours outside of New York City the reason Nicol moves to the town is never explained and her true intentions remain mysterious.

The presence of her aggressive ex-boyfriend seems forced and the romantic interest that Mark harbors for her becomes awkward. The main detraction is a lack of romantic chemistry between Carell and Mann thus resulting in little reason to root for the pair to be together.

The film contains an admirable progressive slant as Mark, while straight in his sexuality, is enamored with women’s shoes and collects hundreds of sensible and erotic pairs.

The key to his attack as briefly shown via flashback is his boasting to redneck types while inebriated, his love of the shoes. This plot point is important to the film yet not fleshed out well. What do we know about his attackers? Did they assume Mark was gay prompting the attack?

Since the attack is deemed a hate crime we can only assume the answer is yes, but I had hoped for a bit more depth and more about Mark’s backstory.

Based on the superior 2010 documentary Marwencol, Welcome to Marwen (2018) is a production that asks the viewer to revel in a wonderful fantasy world and marvel at the resulting creativity, escaping into a life-like, adventure zone.

The story remains uneven with a bandied about romance that never comes together, uneven storytelling, and a mediocre conclusion. While I admire Welcome to Marwen’s intentions the film ultimately fails to deliver.

The Great Lie-1941

The Great Lie-1941

Director Edmund Goulding

Starring Bette Davis, Mary Astor

Scott’s Review #891

Reviewed April 28, 2019

Grade: B+

Breezing into her heyday of films at this point, Hollywood starlet Bette Davis had become an expert at portraying tarts and bitches in most of her movies. Desiring to turn left of center and play a more sympathetic character, the actress jumped at the chance to play an ingenue.

The Great Lie (1941) is the perfect showcase for her talents in a gripping, dramatic film that is purely predictable soap opera, but lovely escapism did well.

Maggie Patterson (Davis) is a demure and sensitive southern socialite vying for the affections of former beau, aviator Peter Van Allen (George Brent). Peter impulsively married sophisticated concert pianist Sandra Kovak (Mary Astor), and both were startled to learn that their marriage was invalid.

Confused, Peter decides to marry Maggie and is quickly sent off to Brazil on business when his airplane crashes into the jungle, leaving him presumed dead.

When Sandra realizes she is pregnant, Maggie proposes that she be allowed to raise the child independently in exchange for financially caring for Sandra. The two women go to Arizona to await the birth, and Sandra delivers a boy named after his father.

When Peter shows up alive and well, the women face a quandary. Sandra bitterly announces to Maggie that she intends to ride off into the sunset with Peter and her son. For the remainder of the picture, the women metaphorically scratch and claw at each other.

Despite being melodramatic and stellar for an afternoon daytime drama, the storyline is engaging and never suffers from too much contrivance.

Both Maggie and Sandra have appeal, and both women are likable—or at least the film does its best not to make one woman the clear villain. Sandra, dripping with gorgeous fashion and sturdy poise, is confident, pairing well with Maggie’s southern charm and sensibilities—to say nothing of her wealth. Peter would do well with either woman, and I found my allegiances shifting throughout the film.

Mary Astor’s terrific performance as Sandra nearly upstages Davis. The women are the reason for The Great Lie’s grit and gusto. They play the hell out of their roles, and according to legend, both hated the script and vowed to turn the project into gold together.

They nearly succeed as the best sequence is when the women travel to deserted Arizona to spend the remainder of Sandra’s pregnancy. They cooped up together. Seeing Davis’ Maggie play caretaker to a whiny and spoiled Sandra was delicious. Typically, Davis would play Sandra’s character, so the scenes are a treat.

Suspension of disbelief must be achieved as the film’s primary plot is jarring in incomprehension. Maggie offers to provide Sandra with a large sum of money to ensure her security. I did not buy this point as Sandra appears well-off, touring the world with incredible success and living a lavish lifestyle, including a staff of servants and a gorgeous apartment in New York City.

The character hardly appears to need a handout despite the incorporated dialogue of Sandra’s success predicted to wane as she ages.

Another oddity is the location of Maggie’s estate. Although Maryland is hardly a southern mecca, the area has all the trimmings of the deep South, perhaps Mississippi. With an all-black staff, magnolia trees, and southern-style cuisine, the Maryland backdrop is quite perplexing and a misfire.

More relevant would have been if the location were Mississippi, Louisiana, or Alabama. Finally, remiss would it be not to mention appearances by Hattie McDaniel and brother Sam as Violet and Jefferson, employed by Maggie, always a treat.

With high drama and terrific acting, The Great Lie (1941) offers tremendous chemistry between the female leads, resulting in a deserved Best Supporting Actress Oscar for Astor.

The dialogue may be silly and superfluous with plot gimmicks and obvious setups, but the film does work. Viewers can let loose and enjoy a sudsy drama with enjoyable trimmings.

Oscar Nominations: 1 win-Best Supporting Actress-Mary Astor (won)

LBJ-2017

LBJ-2017

Director-Rob Reiner

Starring-Woody Harrelson, Jennifer Jason Leigh

Scott’s Review #890

Reviewed April 27, 2019

Grade: B-

LBJ (2017) provides small glimpses of historical interest with a biography about a United States President perhaps underrepresented in cinema history as compared to other presidents but the production never catches fire and falls flat with an overproduced film lacking bombast.

The film can easily be viewed once, never to be thought of again, nor providing the need for analysis or discussion.

Director Rob Reiner creates a glossy, mainstream Hollywood production with questionable casting choices and a muddled feel.

To its credit, the film gets off to a good start introducing the fateful day of November 22, 1963, into the story. As then-Vice President Johnson (LBJ), played by Woody Harrelson and wife Lady Bird (Jennifer Jason Leigh) deplane and embarks on a motorcade procession through downtown Dallas, Texas, dire events will follow.

As the violent assassination of President John F. Kennedy (Jeffrey Donovan) soon arrives the film portrays the initial foreshadowing well then backtracks to 1960 when the Democratic nominee was up for grabs with both JFK and Johnson in contention.

The film traverses back and forth from pre to post JFK assassination as LBJ took over the presidency amid the controversial Civil Rights Bill and a still shocked United States public.

A character study develops as the gruff and grizzled man takes center stage to lead the country into the future. The attempt is to show LBJ, the man, at his best and worst personally and professionally facing pressure from his cabinet.

Reiner portrays LBJ as complex, brooding, and vulgar, but also as a person whose heart is ultimately in the right place. A man we love to hate? Or hate to love?

From a historical drama perspective, and a genre that has many in the cinematic chambers, the film fails.

A powerful political drama is supposed to be compelling but LBJ just feels dull, run-of-the-mill, and extremely forgettable. Some examples of exceptional political film projects are Lincoln (2012), JFK (1991), and Vice (2018). Each has flare, flavor, and a twist or otherwise unusual story construction that LBJ glaringly lacks.

Simply put, the experience feels plain and unimpressive.

Having regrettably not seen the HBO film version entitled All the Way starring Bryan Cranston as LBJ, I cannot compare the two other than from word of mouth that Cranston gives the superior portrayal.

Based on trailers I would agree with the overall assessment. Harrelson’s version of LBJ is adequate if not sensational. His mannerisms President may be effective, but he does not resemble the man too well.

With a waxy, heavily made-up face, Harrelson the actor is unrecognizable and feels staged rather than authentic.

Jennifer Jason Leigh suffers the same fate as Harrelson in the important role of First Lady, Lady Bird Johnson. The actress is successful at emulating the appropriate characteristics specifically facially but also appears too made up like a wax figure in a museum sprung to life.

As Harrelson and Jason Leigh daftly teeter from scene to scene the result is marginally comical but LBJ the film is not a comedy nor a satire, played instead for the heavy drama.

LBJ (2017) is of mild interest but limited as a successful film adaptation of an important figure in United States history. Glimpses of political education for those not alive to experience the tumultuous 1960’s are good but much more was expected from this film than was provided.

Better studies exist and hopefully will be created in the future than what adds up too little more than a snore-fest.

Dumbo-2019

Dumbo-2019

Director-Tim Burton

Starring-Colin Farrell, Danny DeVito, Eva Green

Scott’s Review #889

Reviewed April 24, 2019

Grade: C+

Dumbo (2019), the live-action remake of the charming and emotionally charged animated original from 1941 contains some positives but ultimately underwhelms coming up with less than a stacked deck.

The problematic and gnawing element that persisted throughout the Disney film was too much of a cute or child-leaning quality for my taste. Assuredly though for an afternoon at the theater with young children under the age of twelve the film is a recommended fun activity and utterly appropriate.

My expectation, knowing that Tim Burton was at the director’s helm, was for a darker, perhaps murkier interpretation given some in his catalog of films.

After all, Beetlejuice (1988) and Dark Shadows (2012) though flawed contain some wicked charm and naughty humor Dumbo is considerably soft as the director chooses a safe, more accessible path.

To be fair, creating magic from nearly eighty years ago is a tough task for anyone to achieve.

World War I veteran and amputee, Holt Farrier (Colin Farrell) returns from the war to rejoin the financially problematic traveling circus owned by Max  Medici (Danny DeVito).

A widower, reunited with his two children Holt is assigned to oversee the pregnant elephant, Mrs. Jumbo as she gives birth to an unusual-looking elephant with giant ears who comes to be known as Dumbo.

The children discover that Dumbo can fly when aided by a feather as the evil V.A. Vandevere (Michael Keaton) attempts to profit from Dumbo’s talents at any cost as he adds to his fabulous creation, Dreamland.

The art direction and the look of the film are where Burton succeeds.

With dark-looking creations and windy, spider-like sets, especially in Dreamland, the film has the director’s signature stamp.  The costumes and styles are to be complimented given the year 1919 and the wardrobe and hairstyles are in match with the times.

The circus stars and characters from the fat lady to the exotic jugglers are well-cast adding good texture and multi-cultural flavor to the production.

The standout musical number is the poignant and sentimental “Baby Mine” wisely featured twice during the film. Since the song is so lovely this proves a bold move and my favorite part of an otherwise mediocre experience.

Sharon Rooney sings the version featured during a touching and painful scene between separated elephants Dumbo and Mrs. Jumbo, and the rock band Arcade Fire performs a different rendition over the end credits.

Anyone needing a good cry would be advised to check out the emotionally charged song.

While the acting among Farrell, DeVito, and Eva Green as Colette, the French trapeze artist who falls for the sexy Holt, all play their roles admirably, two performances left me with critical fire. Keaton, typically a standout performer goes full-throttle with an over-the-top and one-note performance as the villainous Vandevere.

Cartoon-like with herky-jerky head snaps and tic-like movements, the actor appears silly and ineffectual at creating any sort of robust character. Young actress, Nico Parker as Milly, Holt’s daughter, gives a dreadfully wooden performance in what could have been the film’s most likable character.

Besides one or two tender scenes the film largely goes for a cutesy vibe, not feeling fresh nor especially genuine. A Disney production, the film feels quite mainstream, lacking edginess, like the producers had dollar signs and major success on their minds over artistic merit or staying true to the original.

Other than a quick shot of the number “41” on the front of a train, a clear tribute to the animated original’s year of release, the remake strays very far from the first Dumbo with a few new characters and sadly no gossipy female elephants anywhere.

A disappointing offering, the live-action Dumbo (2019), the year’s first in a series of five expected Disney releases (Aladdin, The Lion King, Maleficent: Mistress of Evil, and Lady and the Tramp being the others) lacks much more than a couple of sweet scenes, an adorable elephant, and admirable sets, feeling utterly ordinary in flavor.

This is a misfire compared to the legendary, teary 1941 version of Dumbo.

Colette-2018

Colette-2018

Director-Wash Westmoreland

Starring-Keira Knightley, Dominic West

Scott’s Review #888

Reviewed April 20, 2019

Grade: B+

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Guys and Dolls-1955

Guys and Dolls-1955

Director Joseph L. Mankiewicz

Starring Marlon Brando, Frank Sinatra

Scott’s Review #887

Reviewed April 19, 2019

Grade: B+

The interesting pairing of Marlon Brando and Frank Sinatra in the playful musical Guys and Dolls (1955) provides enough bombast and playboy inclinations to make the music lively and entertaining.

Though not one of my all-time favorites in the genre, the film keeps pace with a nice flow and hearty musical numbers, successfully transferring the Broadway show to the big screen with an endearing production.

Nathan Detroit (Sinatra) is a full-fledged gambler who lives and breathes the sport. Although he is commonly criticized for his deeds, the police are clamping down on the shenanigans around town. He is desperate to obtain a deposit for the use of a secret venue that allows gambling.

Spotting acquaintance and fellow gambler Sky Masterson (Brando) the duo embark on a ridiculous and hilarious bet involving Sky’s invitation to dinner in Havana, Cuba with Sarah Brown (Jean Simmons) a devout religious figure and non-gambler.

Predictably, events spiral out of control with romance, misunderstandings, and charming musical numbers.

The setup is plot-driven but forgivable, given the fun involved. We are sure Masterson will fall head-over-heels for missionary and seemingly unobtainable Sarah.

Will he get the girl? Will she forgive him when she realizes what Masterson and Nathan have hatched at her expense? Of course, the fun is in the revelations as the film goes along.

Naturally, Nathan has his antics. He must marry his years-long intended, Adelaide (Vivian Blaine), because he lost a different bet.

The premise, plot, and conclusion all feel rather frivolous and chauvinistic in the modern world, as do many 1950s productions.

The film clearly shows a naughty guy meeting a good girl. The guy pursues the girl, gets her, and then rides into the sunset. The overall production is not cutting-edge or particularly progressive but is okay because of the fun and good chemistry among the characters.

Brando and Sinatra possess as much chemistry together as Brando and Simmons do.

The conclusion is satisfying and wrapped neatly like a tidy Christmas bow. To no one’s surprise, both couples tie the knot in beautiful style as all the misfires and misunderstandings end with a double wedding in Times Square, with Sky marrying Sarah and Nathan marrying Adelaide.

A perfect climax and a way to show the bright and bustling New York City amid a romantic backdrop can forgive any other weaknesses the film may contain.

What makes the film rise above standard fare or mediocrity as an overall piece is the wonderfully adorable tunes and Sinatra and Brando as a duo. The actor-turned-singer Brando and the singer-turned-actor Sinatra crackle with harmony as they play off each other in style.

The clap-along “Sit Down You’re Rockin’ the Boat” never fails to get any audience on its feet, and the clever “Luck Be a Lady,” a classic Sinatra standard, still resonates today.

The art direction, cinematography, costumes, and music all wrap the film together nicely, allowing the film a tight and well-muscled extravagant feel with maturity and richness that is perfect for the decade the film was released.

Guys and Dolls sits beside other musicals with a style all its own. A handful of Oscar nominations followed though none were for the top honors of Picture of any acting nominations.

The 1960s brought a decidedly darker texture to cinema, leaving many 1950s films feeling dated or superfluous compared to more essential story directions.

While this is the case with Guys and Dolls (1955), there also exists an innocence in watching the pure and charming character relationships and the resulting fun and frolicking.

A lively musical score, the bright lights of New York City, and the unusual locale of Cuba make the film lovely entertainment.

Oscar Nominations: Best Scoring of a Musical Picture, Best Art Direction, Color, Best Cinematography, Color, Best Costume Design, Color