All posts by scottmet99

Bohemian Rhapsody-2018

Bohemian Rhapsody-2018

Director-Dexter Fletcher, Bryan Singer

Starring-Rami Malek

Scott’s Review #836

Reviewed December 3, 2018

Grade: A-

Crafting a biography of a performer with the personality the size of Freddie Mercury is a tough feat to accomplish- successfully anyway.

The filmmakers of Bohemian Rhapsody (2018) opt to go in a decidedly mainstream direction and this proves a wise choice as the film becomes an enthralling foot-stomping crowd-pleaser.

That nitpicking about accurate timelines and rigid facts may be disappointing, but others content to sit back and enjoy a heartfelt biopic will certainly love the film.

Rami Malek gives a flawless performance as Mercury, the legendary singer of the British rock band, Queen. I will go out on a limb and state that this could be the young actor’s crowning achievement and his “role of a lifetime”.

The film wisely chronicles the singer’s initial struggles finding his band-mates and the band’s subsequent rise to fame and fortune during the 1970s and the 1980’s.

Predictably, as with many rock bands, in-fighting, drug use, and jealousies reared their ugly heads.

Other points of interest featured are Mercury’s personal life and his HIV diagnosis culminating in his ultimate death in 1991 at the tender age of forty-five.

Less so a biography of the band, Mercury takes center stage as the point of the film. With his four-octave vocal range and his operatic sensibilities, the star was a force to be reckoned with, nobody who would back down from either studio executives or pesky reporters eager for a scoop about his personal life and preference for male companions.

Malek sinks his teeth into an enormous role undoubtedly intimidating for most actors and an unbelievable challenge for the casting department. With boldness and charisma for miles what actor could ever fill this challenging role?

Malek completely shines as he dons dentures to emulate Mercury’s famous overbite, a fact that the film nearly over exaggerates.

With wounded eyes and clever dialogue Malek delivers witty one-liners and comical comebacks with a smirk, a hand wave, or a retort of “my dear”. The actor is careful though to perfect the dramatic and emotional scenes flawlessly and portray the singer as a lonely and isolated being.

To the delight of most classic rock fans, Bohemian Rhapsody features many songs in the Queen catalog. “Killer Queen”, “Hammer to Fall”, “Another One Bites the Dust”, “We Will Rock You/We Are the Champions”, and the game-changing “Bohemian Rhapsody” complete with the histories and stories behind many of these legendary hits are featured.

Perhaps the loveliest tune “Love of My Life”, which Mercury wrote for his fiance Mary Austin, is prominently featured.

The film concludes with the band’s fantastic performance at Wembley Stadium in London for the Live Aid event in 1985. A breathtaking finale, this final sequence is jaw-dropping with emotion, heart, and entertainment and is the film’s finest moment.

As the story reaches its climax at this point with Mercury’s HIV diagnosis (a death sentence for gay men in the 1980’s) and revelation to his bandmates, the lengthy scene will not leave a dry eye in the house.

A weakening Mercury powered through his illness to deliver a dynamic performance.

The numerous historical inaccuracies of Bohemian Rhapsody (2018) as well as the incorrect timeline of the events have been called into question.

Also, the fact that two members of Queen (Brian May and Roger Taylor) had a staggering amount of creative control is cause for alarm.

Additionally, in further reading, the characters of Mary and Mercury’s manager Paul may have not been as good or bad as they were respectively written. These points may be valid, but as a source of good entertainment, the film is a major champion.

Oscar Nominations: Best Picture, Best Actor-Rami Malek (won), Best Sound Editing (won), Best Sound Mixing (won), Best Film Editing (won)

Beautiful Boy-2018

Beautiful Boy-2018

Director-Felix Van Groeningen

Starring-Steve Carrell, Timothee Chalamet

Scott’s Review #835

Reviewed November 23, 2018

Grade: A-

Beautiful Boy (2018) tells a humanistic and important story about the ravages of drug addiction and how the issue affects not only the addict but the entire family unit. Nestled within the powerful writing is a lovely father/son relationship and the trials and tribulations the duo faces over the years.

The film feels pure and honest with rich story-telling and a plethora of good acting performances.

Beginning in present times, David Sheff (Steve Carell) realizes that his son Nic (Timothee Chalamet) has been missing for two days. When Nic finally shows up at the Sheff household he is strung out and sick.

David suspects Nic has been abusing drugs and all parties agree that Nic needs professional help and a stint in a rehab facility. However, nobody realizes the depths of Nic’s addiction.

When Nic checks out early and goes on a bender the film begins to segue back and forth between periods of Nic’s recovery and his many relapses, also presenting scenes of David and Nic’s relationship during childhood years.

The best parts are the conversations and moments between father and son and the enduring love they share. In the mix are David’s second wife Karen (Maura Tierney) and Nic’s mother Vicki (Amy Ryan).

The screenplay is based on memoirs written by David and Nic Sheff. The chronicles of their journey include triumph and heartbreak over many years as recovery and relapse become frequent parts of their lives threatening to tear them apart or result in Nic’s ultimate death.

The road to recovery is not an easy path.

The primary characters David and Nic are wonderfully portrayed by Carell and Chalamet. The fact that the actors do not resemble each other is quickly forgotten as their dynamic is emotional and palpable, sharing easy chemistry. Carell is a strong actor, capable of infusing his character with strength and calm while slowly falling apart at the seams.

He loves his son and wants him to recover, but finally accepts that he needs to let his son go. This moving realization is Carell’s best scene.

Chalamet, boyish and innocent-looking is perfectly cast. With kind blue eyes and a mop of raven hair the actor could easily pass for twelve years old, this only enhances the tragedy of youth ravaged by drug abuse.

These qualities are mirrored by those of his girlfriend Lauren (Kaitlyn Dever). She also possesses a fresh-faced, clean look, which strengthens the message.

Mention must be made of Ryan’s and Tierney’s performances in what could easily be throwaway “wife roles”.

For a while, I thought Tierney was in a marginal role until she finally has a wonderful scene where her frustration reaches a boiling point. Fuming with rage she attempts a car chase with Nic only to finally crumble into tears, realizing how the mess has changed her as a person.

Ryan also sinks her teeth into a teary role almost blaming herself for Nic’s problems.

The film wisely presents statistics to further hit home, mainly the low percentage recovery rate of most crystal meth users. A single-digit success rate on this note is frightening, the user requiring more and more substance just to feel anything close to the first high they experienced.

A pivotal scene occurs at the end of the film as we see David and Karen attend a support group. As they tearfully listen to a woman’s story of the recent death of her addict sister we are left to wonder if Nick has also died. Kudos to a powerful cameo performance by actress Lisa Gay Hamilton.

The sunny California setting is a benefit to the film and starkly contrasts the darkness of New York City where Nic attends school. With multiple exterior shots of San Francisco and Los Angeles, the metropolitan scope is vast and cruel for drug users.

Easily accessible to anyone with the motivation to obtain drugs, the streets of San Francisco are portrayed as hard and drug-infused, especially when David drives around desperately looking for Nic.

Featuring a story told before but rarely from the family perspective, Beautiful Boy (2018) does what it sets out to do and does it splendidly.

Careful not to soften the challenges and sufferings of the addict, the devastation they bring to their loved ones is also showcased. The sound and emotional father/son relationship may be the best part of the film.

Boy Erased-2018

Boy Erased-2018

Director-Joel Edgerton

Starring-Lucas Hedges, Nicole Kidman, Russell Crowe

Scott’s Review #834

Reviewed November 22, 2018

Grade: A

Before I ventured to the movie theater to view Boy Erased (2018) I heard from more than a few folks who decided not to see the film due to the difficult subject matter.

While parts of the film are admittedly tough to watch and the true story stifling, the overall message is poignant and hopeful, the central character one to be championed.

In other words, while a serious matter, director Joel Edgerton (who also co-stars) is careful not to make the overall experience dour or wholly downtrodden.

Based on Garrard Conley’s 2016 memoir of the same name and taking place as frighteningly recent as 2004, the setting is rural Arkansas.

Our main character is a handsome, popular young man, renamed Jared (Lucas Hedges) for the film.  Interspersed with numerous flashbacks then back to present times, we see Jared as a high school kid and blossoming as a freshman college student, interested in writing.

He is expected to follow the word of god since his father, Marshall (Russell Crowe), is a respected preacher at their local church, and his mother, Nancy (Nicole Kidman), is a housewife.

Jared’s college experiences are both good and bad. He befriends fellow runner Henry, who ultimately rapes him, and embarks on an enlightening friendship with Xavier, who challenges Jared’s belief in god.

These scenes are preceded by the point of the film, in which Jared admits his thoughts about men to his parents and is sent to a Love In Action gay conversion therapy program. His experiences there are chronicled.

Many scenes involve the treatment the school provides the students (or rather makes the students endure) and Jared’s realization that he is gay and cannot change.

He ultimately questions and challenges the school. The chief therapist, Victor Sykes (Joel Edgerton), teaches that God will not love anyone who is homosexual. In a bit of rich irony, the film later reveals that Victor finally denounced his teachings and married a man.

Fellow students’ lives are featured, one suffers a terrible fate as he cannot come to terms with his sexuality nor can he change.

A comparison to the popular film Love, Simon (2018) is fun to draw.

Both were released during the same year and both feature a young, popular coming-of-age character who struggles with the repercussions of revealing their sexual preference.

Boy Erased is the heavier of the two as Love, Simon has many comic elements, but worth noting is that both are mainstream films garnering large audiences- a win for the LGBT community.

The acting in Boy Erased is flawless and perfectly cast all around.

With Hedges, Kidman, and Crowe in the mix, we know the performances will be outstanding, and all three characters possess their share of empathy.

Jared is the most to be concerned with and Marshall and Nancy are support players, but the film does not portray either as bad people, which is interesting. They are nurturing towards Jared and want him to be happy.

While Nancy is more instrumental in rescuing Jared, Marshall does also come around in the end as his son’s sexuality is tougher for him to accept.

The main song used in the film is appropriately named “Revelation” by Troye Sivan. The singer also appears in the film as Gary, a student made to be “cleansed” of his sexuality.  The tune is sentimental, smoky, and acoustic, perfect for the southern setting.

Heartfelt and fraught with meaning, it encompasses Jared’s struggles and strong will to question the school’s motivations, powering through the toxic approach the school has.

As with many recent biographical films telling stories of real-life people, Boy Erased features a young Jared in homemade video clips as the film begins. This immediately triggers a rooting value for the character as we see the child, cute, happy, and full of life, without a care in the world.

Additionally, the conclusion shows the real adult Jared, Marshall, and Nancy.

Boy Erased (2018) is an important film firmly nestled in a time-period crucial for the LGBT community. As LGBT awareness is now commonplace in cinema, this film does not necessarily go the route of sharing a gay character’s “coming out” story but rather depicts a brilliant story of how perilous and repressive being gay can still be for some people.

Jared is the main character who will undoubtedly be a hero to many young people wrestling with their identity.

Goodnight Mommy-2015

Goodnight Mommy-2015

Director Severin Fiala, Veronika Franz

Starring Susanne Wuest, Lukas Schwarz, Elias Schwarz

Scott’s Review #833

Reviewed November 21, 2018

Grade: B

Goodnight Mommy (2015) is an Austrian film not for the faint of heart nor the squeamish. Being a seasoned viewer of diverse, bizarre, and otherwise unpleasant cinematic experiences, the film was a tough watch.

Universally lauded and even submitted as Austria’s Foreign Language entry for the Academy Awards, the film is rather pointless and gratuitous in its torture scenes. Still, the film stayed with me days later, always a positive.

In a peculiar and unclear story opening, we witness a mother (Severin Fiala) and nine-year-old twin sons (Lukas and Elias Schwarz), residing in a remote lakeside location surrounded by cornfields and nature.

The mother (character unnamed) is disfigured and wrapped in bandages with only her eyes and mouth revealed, a haunting and grotesque image.

The twins, Elias and Lukas, are disturbed by her appearance and concerned when she begins acting strangely, ignoring Lukas entirely and chastising Elias repeatedly.

Through a game that the mother and twins play, the audience learns that the woman is a television personality- has she had a facelift of her choosing, or has she been in an accident? As she acts cruelly and selfishly towards the twins they begin to question whether the woman is their mother or a fake.

They become determined to find out at all costs, turning the tables on the mother, and resorting to torturous methods to get the truth out of her.

A few positives for me in Goodnight Mommy are as follows. The Austrian setting and language are huge strengths in adding to the mystique of the overall film.

The unfamiliar (to me) speech and the remote modern home that the mother uses as a sanctuary work very well.  Loneliness and isolation are infused into the film giving a measure of dread. The way the plot unfolds and the circumstances are slowly revealed is good.

The hows and the whys of the mother’s surgery come to fruition and allegiances switch from the boys to the mothers throughout the film, which I found interesting.

The major negatives are the motivations of the twins and the big reveal at the end of the film- a reveal easily figured out within the first portion of the running time.

Though not shocking, the revelation only complicates said motivations, and questions abound. Is one of the twins just plain crazy? Who is the woman in the photo with the mother dressed exactly like her?

If this is a red herring, no wonder the twins think this woman is impersonating their mother. The mother not being able to escape the twins’ clutches is a bit hard to swallow- remember they are only nine years old!

The torture scenes are brutal for the audience to endure. As Elias and Lukas tie their mother to her bedpost and demand she reveal she is not their mother the methods they resort to are devious and cringe-worthy.

Prolonged in nature so that the viewer feels they are also being tortured when the twins burn her face with a magnifying glass, the process is slow and excruciating.

Later, they decide to superglue her mouth shut and when they realize she cannot eat, they sever the glue with scissors leading to a bloody mess.

These scenes are tough to take.

The point of Goodnight Mommy (2015) seems rather, well, pointless. Torture for the sake of torture and many plot holes or story-dictated plot devices- who did not think that the Red Cross would fail in rescuing the mother?

Nonetheless, the film does contain a mystique and an unnerving, haunting quality.  The viewer will undoubtedly be kept thinking about the subject matter and the ending, specifically the final still-frame.

Ingrid Goes West-2017

Ingrid Goes West-2017

Director-Matt Spicer

Starring-Aubrey Plaza, Elizabeth Olsen

Scott’s Review #832

Reviewed November 16, 2018

Grade: A-

Ingrid Goes West (2017) is a deliciously wicked black comedy and a bold statement about the current obsession with social media.

Combined with a dynamite performance by young actress Aubrey Plaza and smart writing, the small independent film provides a summertime treasure and two Spirit Award nominations for good measure.

The film is a breath of fresh air and a fine achievement by new director Matt Spicer.

The film immediately catapults the audience into the action as we are treated to a closeup of a sobbing Ingrid Thorburn (Plaza).

We immediately know that she is not right as she fumes with the realization that she has not been invited to her Instagram friend’s wedding and proceeds to interrupt the reception and attack the bride with pepper spray. Ingrid is carted off to a mental hospital for analysis and recovery.

Once released we learn that Ingrid’s mother has recently died leaving her a tidy sum of money as an inheritance. Ingrid suddenly becomes obsessed with Taylor Sloane (Elizabeth Olsen), a popular and narcissistic young woman who Ingrid follows on Instagram.

Taylor becomes Ingrid’s idol as she decides to move to Los Angeles and insinuates herself into Taylor’s life. She stalks Taylor and steals her dog only to pretend she rescued it, thereby becoming a close friend of hers.

Gradually, Ingrid’s actions become more and more psychotic as Taylor catches wind of Ingrid’s antics.

Aubrey Plaza is perfectly cast as the unstable, manipulative title character. She possesses such strong comic timing, and with her wide eyes, nervous mannerisms, and determination to get what she wants, the audience roots for and falls in love with her.

On paper, we should dislike the character as she takes advantage of nearly everyone in her path, but Plaza embodies her with empathy and smarts. Delightful to watch is how she gets out of scrape after a scrape with her quick thinking- Plaza truly excels in the role.

Bold and calculating are words to be used to describe Olsen’s performance as the selfish Taylor, and this may very well be why it is easy to root for Ingrid.

The character is so plastic and conniving that it is intensely satisfying to see her as the foil. Olsen usually plays good girl roles and possesses a girl next door quality, but in this part, she nestles nicely into a bitch role. Olsen also contains great timing with her character’s dialogue delivery, so much so that Olsen and Plaza had me in stitches during their one on one scenes.

I adore the Los Angeles setting, beyond appropriate for a film about phoniness, obsession, and plastic personas.

Beneath the sunny veneer lies darkness and tomfoolery in every direction and besides Ingrid’s landlord/somewhat boyfriend, Dan (O’Shea Jackson Jr.), there are not many likable characters.

Attending party after party and lavish club, restaurant, or get-away, being involved in the “scene”, the City of Angels is the perfect backdrop.

One gripe that knocks Ingrid Goes West down a rung for me is how the character of Taylor’s artist husband Ezra (Wyatt Russell) is written.

Ingrid realizes as she has a poolside heart to heart with the depressed Ezra, in one of the more authentic scenes, that his wife is not the girl he knew when she moved to L.A. He and Ingrid seem to connect, but shortly after it is as if the conversation never happened and he is ferociously taking his wife’s side again.

A nicer approach, and one I was hoping for, is that Ingrid and Ezra would ride off into the sunset, but the film misses this opportunity.

The entire film is a clever piece of work. From the performances, the dark humor, and the witty dialogue, Ingrid Goes West (2018) succeeds on nearly all levels.

A modern-day Single White Female (1992) with a social media slant, the film goes for the gusto and gets there. I cannot wait to see more from up-and-coming star Aubrey Plaza as the actress has the comic and dramatic chops to go very far.

Independent Spirit Award Nominations: Best First Screenplay, Best First Feature (won)

Isle of Dogs-2018

Isle of Dogs-2018

Director-Wes Anderson

Voices-Bryan Cranston, Edward Norton

Scott’s Review #831

Reviewed November 15, 2018

Grade: B+

Anybody familiar with a Wes Anderson production knows what they are in store for and Isle of Dogs (2018) is par for the course.

With zany narratives and fantastic art direction, the film has a familiar stamp. Most resembling his other notable stop-motion film, Fantastic Mr. Fox (2009), Isle of Dogs offers what is to be expected- an intelligent and odd project by a visionary creative mind.

Anderson provides the film with a timely, corrupt Government type message that strongly resonates in 2018. In this way Isle of Dogs, while animated, is so much more than a cookie-cutter story or a wholesome film for kids.

This is a show of bravery by the director to focus on corruption prevalent in today’s world and the fight for justice by ordinary people living under authoritarian control.

Set in dystopian Japan, a recent outbreak of canine flu causes corrupt Mayor Kobayashi to banish all dogs from society to the vast wasteland of Trash Island where they will live out their days with other ostracized canines.

A brave twelve-year-old boy named Atari, who happens to be the mayor’s nephew, steals a plane and crash lands on the island to rescue his beloved dog, Spots.

With help from a pack of dogs led by a former stray named Chief, the group sets out to find Spots and ultimately expose the government conspiracy. Obstacles abound as the mayor has sent a robot dog to return Atari and make mincemeat of any dog in its path.

Meanwhile, a professor is on the cusp of discovering a serum as an outspoken American exchange student, Tracy Walker, investigates the conspiracy.

Isle of Dogs is incredibly original and offers bravura visuals. From the lush and bright Japanese culture to the tired and haggard look of many of the dogs living on the island, the film is a treat for the eyes. The shimmering richness of the city is elegant and feels alive and powerful.

What I admire most about the film is the creativity and the blast of left-of-center story-telling, blowing away most animated offerings of today.

Many contain a robust helping of “cute”, which can turn off a mature viewer. With a target audience of the tween age, what is in it for adults? To sit there with a youngster and pretend to be jovial?

Isle of Dogs is not the crowd-pleaser, it is better than that. Anderson crafts a serious and timely message begging to be absorbed by the careful viewer.

Assuredly, Anderson cannot escape providing a subtle allegory on an evil leader stirring the pot against the most helpless in our society. This point, especially in the tumultuous United States is timely and well thought out. Could this be why an American character (Tracy) was added?

As dynamic as Anderson’s creativity is, the story in Isle of Dogs does not always embrace the viewer and the jarring dialogue is tough to follow.

Standard in his films, the pacing is strange, the conversations between characters are odd, and the film lacks a truly welcoming or warm quality.

Therefore, the film is not an easy watch. And the dogs all speaking English rather than Japanese, with American accents, simply must be overlooked.

Critics and detractors of Wes Anderson need not see Isle of Dogs (2018) as they will be in store for typical Anderson fare. In addition, those seeking a standard mainstream animated feature will be disappointed.

Those with a more open-minded approach to cinema will revel in the stunning look the film achieves and the powerful message bubbling under the surface.

Oscar Nominations: Best Animated Feature Film, Best Original Score

The Long Goodbye-1973

The Long Goodbye-1973

Director Robert Altman

Starring Elliott Gould

Scott’s Review #830

Reviewed November 14, 2018

Grade: A

Nearly a full-fledged character study of one man’s moral fiber, The Long Goodbye (1973) is an edgy piece of direction by famous mastermind Robert Altman.

The setting of the Los Angeles underbelly is fabulous and effective as is dim lighting and excellent camera work prevalent throughout. The film is not cheery and rather bleak which suits me just fine given the smart locale.

Perhaps a more obscure Altman offering, but the film sizzles with zest and authenticity.

The film is based on a story written by Raymond Chandler in 1953.

Altman, however, opts to change the setting from 1950 to present times- 1970s Los Angeles and present a film noir experience involving deceit and shenanigans where all is not as it seems.

I think this is a wise move and I could not help but draw many comparisons (mainly the overall story) to Chinatown (1974), released the year after The Long Goodbye, but a film much better remembered.

Elliott Gould is wonderful as Phillip Marlowe, a struggling private investigator, and insomniac. He is asked by a friend, Terry Lennox, for a ride to the Mexico border one night and agrees to do the favor.

This leads to a mystery involving police, gangsters, and Eileen and Roger Wade after Phillip is questioned regarding his connection to Terry, who is accused of murdering his wife Sylvia.

The seedy side and complexities of several characters are revealed as the story unfolds and the plot gradually thickens.

My favorite aspects of The Long Goodbye are not necessarily the primary storytelling, though the writing is filled with tension.

As the film opens an extended sequence featuring a “conversation” between Phillip and his cat is both odd and humorous. The finicky feline refuses to eat anything other than one brand of cat food. As Phillip tries reasoning with the cat through talking and meowing, he is forced to venture out in the middle of the night to an all-night grocery store.

Altman, known to allow his actors free-reign for improvised dialogue, appears to allow Gould to experiment during this scene.

Phillip’s neighbors, a bundle of gorgeous twenty-something females, seem to do nothing except exercise on their balcony, get high, and request he buy them brownie mix for a “special occasion”.

As they stretch topless, usually in the background and almost out of camera range, they are a prime example of an interesting nuance of the film. The girls are mysterious but have nothing to do with the actual plot adding even more intrigue to the film.

In one of the most frightening scenes in cinematic history and one that could be straight from The Godfather (1972), crazed gangster, Marty Augustine (Mark Rydell), slices the beautiful face of his girlfriend to prove a point to Marlowe.

In a famous line, he utters, “That’s someone I love. You, I don’t even like.” The violent act is quick, unexpected, and fraught with insanity.

Finally, the film’s conclusion contains a good old-fashioned twist worthy of any good film noir. In the end, the big reveal makes sense and begs to raise the question “why did we trust this character?”

In addition to the viewer being satisfied, Marlowe also gets a deserved finale and proves that he cannot be messed with nor taken for a fool.

The Long Goodbye is undoubtedly the best film of Gould’s career. With a charismatic, wise-cracking persona, the chain-smoking cynic is deemed by most as a loser. He is an unhappy man and down on humanity but still wants to do what is right. He lives a depressed life with few friends and the company of only his cat.

While he is marginally entertained by his neighbors, he goes about his days only barely getting by emotionally. Gould is brilliant at relaying all these qualities within his performance.

The addition of the title theme song in numerous renditions is a major win for the film and something noticed more and more with each repeated viewing. The ill-fated gangster’s girlfriend hums along to the song playing on the radio at one point, and a jazz pianist plays a rendition in a smoky bar.

This is an ingenious approach by Altman and gives the film a greater sense of mystery and style.

There is no question among cinema lovers that Robert Altman is one of the best directors of all time.

In his lengthy catalog filled with rich and experimental films, The Long Goodbye (1973) is not the best-remembered nor the most recognizable.

I implore film fans, especially fans of plodding mystery and intrigue to check this great steak dinner of a film out.

Can You Ever Forgive Me?-2018

Can You Ever Forgive Me? -2018

Director-Marielle Heller

Starring-Melissa McCarthy, Richard E. Grant

Scott’s Review #829

Reviewed November 13, 2018

Grade: A

Can You Ever Forgive Me? (2018) is a biographical drama that excels at successfully providing its audience with sly writing and fruitful chemistry among the lead actors.

A rare dramatic turn for star Melissa McCarthy, she proves that she has the chops as she immerses herself in a role that showcases her acting talent when she is provided a good script. Grizzled, angry, and sometimes depressed, she infuses a character we should hate with gusts of humor and sarcasm, so much so that we fall in love with her.

That is a testament to a great performance.

The film begins in 1990’s Manhattan as we meet a once successful, but now down on her luck author, Lee Israel (McCarthy). Famous for works now deemed dated, she is angry, boozy, and brazen, certainly not afraid to tell someone off for not holding the door for her or prank-calling a vicious bookstore owner.

We quickly learn that Lee is three months behind on her rent and cannot afford to take her sick, elderly cat to the vet. She fights with her publisher, Marjorie (Jane Curtin), who refuses to advance her $10,000.

As she sits in a bar contemplating her future, she reconnects with an acquaintance, Jack Hock (Richard E. Grant), a flamboyant gay man who once caused a stir at a party for urinating on rich women’s furs.

Lee and Jack are in stitches over the past incident and immediately form a deep bond, though Jack’s unreliability and dishonesty challenge Lee’s patience.

When Lee concocts a scheme to forge letters supposedly written by famous deceased literary people, Jack quickly becomes her accomplice as the two begin to profit.

The film belongs to McCarthy in a challenging role. By all accounts we should dislike Lee- she attends Marjorie’s parties for the free booze and steals a new jacket from the coat check on the way out.

She distances herself from relationship commitments and alienates most people. But despite these flaws, we adore her and root for her.

When she embarks on a cautious date with quiet bookstore owner Anna (Dolly Wells), she manages to get through her meal with trepidation, unsure whether to open herself up to another potential suitor.

In McCarthy’s best and most emotionally raw scene, we see her raw collapse in tears when she finds her beloved cat under the couch, dead.

Viewing the feline as her only true friend, she is devastated beyond belief and McCarthy will pull at the heartstrings in this poignant scene.

Grant is equally as impressive as McCarthy in the main support role. An aging party-boy in a city that can embrace the young and discard the old, he still dazzles with his dashing smile, but his best years are behind him as he still lives a young man’s life.

He flirts with a handsome waiter and still has charm and humor that has aided him through the past few decades, but he is also ravaged from decades of abuse and his luster has become tarnished. A health secret revealed at the end of the film adds further layers to the character’s complexity and richness.

Beyond the great acting performances, the screenplay, written by Nicole Holofcener and Jeff Whitty, crackles with rich dialogue and fantastic aplomb.

The writers write with confidence and smarts and provide the goods in spades. The proof is in the proverbial pudding as Lee cackles with glee as she types her latest Dorothy Parker forgery in the words of the deceased satirist, writing what she imagines the famous author would write.

These added touches of intelligence and quick-witted dialogue make the film fantastic to view.

Can You Ever Forgive Me? (2018) is a fabulous undertaking made spectacular by two actors with bold chemistry. Combined with intelligent writing, a grand yet gritty New York City setting, and an authenticity unrivaled, the film succeeds on all levels.

With heart, drama, compelling situations, and most of all dark sardonic humor, the elements are all there for a dynamic film.

Oscar Nominations: Best Actress-Melissa McCarthy, Best Supporting Actor-Richard E. Grant, Best Adapted Screenplay

Independent Spirit Award Nominations: Best Supporting Male-Richard E. Grant (won), Best Screenplay (won)

The Grapes of Wrath-1940

The Grapes of Wrath-1940

Director John Ford

Starring Henry Fonda, Jane Darwell

Scott’s Review #828

Reviewed November 8, 2018

Grade: A

Based on the famous novel written by John Steinbeck and released only one year before the film, The Grapes of Wrath (1940) is a superlative offering by director John Ford, known chiefly for Westerns.

The work accurately depicts life for the struggling American family during the Great Depression of the 1930s.

With gorgeous cinematography and a sad yet poignant story, the film is a must-see and a timeless depiction of the perils of life for working-class people in the United States.

Set on the vast plains of Oklahoma, the Joad family has run a successful farm and lived as a thriving family unit for decades- an extended group enjoying their lives.

When the United States suffers from Depression, the Joads’ lives are turned upside down, and they are forced to sell their farm. They decide to traverse the countryside in hopes of the promise of profitable jobs and wealth in faraway California. The Grapes of Wrath depicts the family’s journey as hardship and deaths occur.

When the film was released in 1940, many studios were not interested in bringing the story to the big screen, as some aspects were deemed too left-leaning for conservatives.

The social issues the film delves into are still incredibly relevant today, and Ford wisely dissects not only the poverty that the Joad family suffers but also the psychological trauma and ruination they must endure. What a devastating effect this must have had on families.

The casting is spot-on. A young Henry Fonda was merely an upstart actor in 1940 and successfully exuded a rich, passionate performance as Tom.

Plenty of close-up shots reveal the young man’s quiet pain and desperation and the humiliation of having lost his livelihood. Fonda shares poignant chemistry with the preacher character, Jim Casy (John Carradine), who once was filled with glory but has now lost his spirit and belief in goodness.

Jane Darwell, a famous character-actress, gives a treasured performance as the family matriarch, Ma Joad. The actress won the Academy Award for Best Supporting Actress, deservedly so, as she relays a haggard woman wanting only the best for her family and attempting to hold them together.

Her determined final speech at the film’s conclusion is teary and meaningful. She says, “We’re the people… We’ll go on forever.” Speaking of Oscars, Ford also won Best Director.

The film sees no age but endures as a timeless journey alongside the Joad family. Although it stays very close to Steinbeck’s novel, the story is modified significantly. Perhaps to please studio financiers or provide a more hopeful message, the Joads are left with a positive future thanks to a government-run camp where they finally live.

In the novel, they reside at the camp first but are later reduced to starvation wages.

A monumental scene is when the family drives their battered vehicle to a squatter’s camp for needed shelter. The scene is shot documentary style, with the camera focusing both on the Joads and on the faces of the occupants of the run-down and filthy shacks that they are forced to live in.

We wonder with sadness what the lives of these unfortunate people were like before the Depression.

The Grapes of Wrath (1940) was a humanistic cinematic masterpiece. As a terrible war and otherworldly problems plagued the new decade, the film reminisced about a previous decade fraught with different issues.

The film is one for the ages and should be appreciated by all.

Oscar Nominations: 2 wins-Outstanding Production, Best Director-John Ford (won), Best Actor-Henry Ford, Best Supporting Actress-Jane Darwell (won), Best Screenplay, Best Sound Recording, Best Film Editing

The Little Princess-1939

The Little Princess-1939

Director Walter Lang

Starring Shirley Temple, Ian Hunter

Scott’s Review #827

Reviewed November 6, 2018

Grade: B+

The Little Princess (1939) is a latter-day Shirley Temple film released when the child star’s popularity declined.

The film is also Temple’s first production filmed in Technicolor and the last of her major successes. It is perfect, though not the first I would choose as a starting point in her collection. The film is saccharin, wholesome, and predictable, which are also adjectives audiences adore about the star’s cinematic projected film, looselyosely based on A Little Princess by Frances Hodgson Burnfilm, was criticized at the time release for deviatingaying too far from the original novel.

The time is the turn of the century in England, and the backdrop is the Boer War. The film’s setting is a highlight for American audiences amidst the First World War and on the cusp of World War II, allowing for a timely and relevant film quality.

In the story, Temple plays Sara, the wealthy daughter of a military Captain (Ian Hunter) who is left to reside in a well-to-do girl’s school when her father is called away to serve in the war. When he unexpectedly dies in battle, Sara is left penniless and forced to work as a servant in the school she once attended.

At first, the staff treats Sara like royalty, but her treatment gradually harbors resentment among the principals, especially the dastardly headmistress (Mary Nash). Sara keeps her chin up, insisting that her father is not dead, and she becomes determined to find him in a local hospital.

In 2018, Shirley Temple’s films mainly served as a source of nostalgia rather than critical acclaim or cinematic dissection—what was the point?

Her films are a wholesome trip back memory lane to a simpler time for many. Ironic that the film is the first color picture in the collection, this detracts from the enjoyment and adds too much of a modern element foreign to Temple fans.

My preference is for the black-and-white productions of the early and mid-1930s.

The supporting characters spice up The Little Princess quite a bit.

Most notable is Cesar Romero as neighbor Ram Dass, who fills the void Sara needs after losing her father. The chemistry between Romero and Temple is terrific, and in a tender scene, the kindly Dass leaves warm blankets for Sara.

As the main villainous, common in Temple films, Mary Nash, as Miss Minchin, does her job flawlessly. As the main foil, Nash perfectly blends rigid mannerisms and the brunt of Sara’s tension.

The overall tone of The Little Princess (1939), hence the title, contains a riches to rags, Cinderella in reverse, type of story. The film is above average but not the best in the bunch.

Venturing to say that the film is a forgotten work save for the Shirley Temple series fans, it does what it sets out to do and entertains.

With drama, musical numbers, and a happy ending, the result is a similar experience to her many other films.

Heidi-1937

Heidi-1937

Director Allan Dwan

Starring Shirley Temple, Jean Hersholt

Scott’s Review #826

Reviewed November 2, 2018

Grade: A-

During the 1930s and 1940s, Shirley Temple was the most prominent and profitable child star around, starring in dozens of films deemed “wholesome” and “cute.”

Heidi (1937) is one of her most popular and best-regarded treasures of earnest and sentimental riches.

The film is forever known in pop culture as the ruination of the 1968 Super Bowl when the Oakland Raiders and New York Jets game was interrupted at a crucial moment due to the film’s scheduled airing.

An interesting side note is that, amazingly, Temple relinquished her Hollywood title with dignity and without scars. She left the scene entirely and became a successful world diplomat.

In an era in American cinema when child stars were treated as property and sometimes like cattle, her relatively healthy exit was a remarkable feat.

The story of Heidi is based on the 1880 Swiss story of the same name. In the title role, Temple plays an orphan living in the cold mountains with her grizzled grandfather, Adolf (Jean Hersholt). At first bitter for being saddled with raising a child, Adolf finally accepts the girl, and he and Heidi become fast friends, exhibiting a warm and tender bond.

Heidi’s self-absorbed aunt ruins the dynamic and whisks the child away to live with a wealthy family. The little girl will be a companion for their disabled daughter, Klara, as Heidi and Adolf are determined to find each other.

Adding drama to the story is Klara’s evil housekeeper and her jealousy of Heidi, leading to attempts to sell Heidi off to gypsies for profit.

By 1937, Temple was beginning to be deemed “too old” for cute roles, but Heidi is one of her best-remembered films, and the actress is in top form.

As one might expect from any Shirley Temple film, musical numbers are included- a dream sequence in Holland culminates with Temple belting out the charming “In My Little Wooden Shoes.”

There are millions of Shirley Temple fans worldwide, but there are also her detractors. Some feel her films are completely dated and that the young star was not as talented as they thought she was.

Admittedly, watching her films approaching the one-hundred-year mark can be peculiar. On the surface, they seem a bit hammy and overly sentimental, but my personal experience elicits a return to childhood days.

Despite being decades before my existence, Shirley Temple films were commonplace in my childhood household.

Heidi is not a groundbreaking cinematic experience or all that deep. What the film does provide, though, is comfort. The audience assuredly must know a film like Heidi has a happy ending, as the child provides warmth and spirit to every person she meets, making their lives better.

Even during peril, the girl has an “awe-shucks” manner of being and makes the best of her lousy situation.

The strongest appeal of Heidi comes from her friendship with Klara, a disabled woman. Klara is kind and naive, unaware of her servant’s jealousy and rage. Helpless, she comes to depend on Heidi, and we root for Heidi to rescue Klara and bring her to a better life.

The film has sappily written all over it but somehow works simultaneously.

Films such as Heidi, the best of all the Temple films, can be watched and enjoyed as an ode to days gone by or a tribute to someone’s grandmother’s favorite film.

Despite being irrelevant and too sappy in today’s modern world, they undoubtedly provide comfort and support to some, which cannot be such a bad thing.

Heidi (1937) can easily be enjoyed because of the film’s popularity and its warm message.

Bride of Frankenstein-1935

Bride of Frankenstein-1935

Director James Whale

Starring Boris Karloff, Elsa Lanchester

Scott’s Review #825

Reviewed October 31, 2018

Grade: A-

After four long years as director, James Whale finally agreed to follow up on and resurrect his character, The Monster. Fortunately, Boris Karloff also returned to the role he made famous. In this installment, he meets a mate played by the gorgeous Elsa Manchester.

Critics argue that the sequel is superior to the original, but I am not so sure of that; I slightly prefer Frankenstein. Still, the aptly titled Bride of Frankenstein (1935) is a fantastic effort and a memorable classic in and of itself.

The plot picks up where the original Frankenstein ended and includes a sub-plot from the 1818 Mary Shelley novel. Having learned his lesson about the drawbacks of creating life, Dr. Frankenstein (Colin Clive) is coerced into making a female mate for the Monster.

Much of the action follows the Monster, who is on the run from hunters as he encounters devious and kindly individuals. In clever form, Manchester plays the “Bride” and Mary Shelley, who is heralded for her masterful writing.

The main difference between Frankenstein and Bride of Frankenstein is that the Monster is more developed from a character perspective. Even more empathetic and now uttering some dialogue, the pained character contains more profound moments and a damaged quality.

Karloff reportedly despised this aspect, preferring that his character be more ambivalent, using grunts and facial expressions more than words, but to me, the development works well.

As the Monster traverses the forest looking for shelter while being pursued in a witch hunt style, a lovely sequence occurs between the Monster and a lonely blind man. Attracted by the gorgeous sounds of a violin playing “Ave Maria”, the blind hermit befriends the Monster and teaches him a few words like “friend”.

Harboring no ill will towards the Creature, the old hermit feels blessed and thanks God for sending him a friend. The tender moment is then shattered when a fire burns down the cottage.

The constant theme of loneliness and despair continues what Frankenstein did and is more in line with Shelley’s novel. The Creature is a tortured soul yearning for love and affection yet suffering from a temper. He is childlike and struggles to know the difference between right and wrong.

Like Frankenstein, the sequel contains high-quality special effects and ambiance. With a storm raging (naturally), the thunder and lightning qualities add so much to a horror film, filling it with suspense and a particular science fiction element.

When the Bride is hoisted to the sky and struck by lightning, the scene is both campy and terrifying.

How delicious a character is Manchester as The Monster’s Bride? The character is forever recognizable in pop culture with her statuesque seven-foot height (the actress used stilts), white-streaked hairdo, macabre white gown, and jerky, animal-like head movements.

Timeless in characterization, the beautiful woman possesses a macabre yet humorous quality. The moment she becomes alert, sees the monster, and shrieks is a memorable moment in film history.

Throughout cinematic history, few sequels ever live up to their predecessors, but Bride comes close.

Easily able to be watched in tandem with Frankenstein and perfect for a bit of Saturday afternoon nostalgia, Bride of Frankenstein (1935) is a wonderful trip down memory lane to a time when horror was as thrilling in simple black and white as it is with all the frills added.

Thanks to Whale’s brilliant direction, both films are legendary in their inspiration and achievements.

Oscar Nominations: Best Sound Recording

It Happened One Night-1934

It Happened One Night-1934

Director Frank Capra

Starring Clark Gable, Claudette Colbert

Scott’s Review #824

Reviewed October 25, 2018

Grade: A-

Perhaps the film that best defines the early cinematic romantic comedy and certainly the one most modern genre films can learn from, It Happened One Night (1934) is a lively, fun romp.

The film carted away the Best Picture, Best Director, Best Actor, and Best Actress Academy Awards, a rare feat, and defined what romantic tension and thoughtful dialogue should be in a quality picture. All the elements sparkle into an excellent classic film watch.

Ellie Andrews (Colbert) is a pampered socialite who recently disobeyed her overbearing and wealthy father by eloping with a blue-collar pilot who is feared to be after her money.

Determined, Ellie escapes her father’s clutches and hops on a Greyhound bus headed from Florida to New York, where her husband is. When she crosses paths with an out-of-work journalist, Peter Warne (Gable), they each find an opportunity to use the other to their advantage.

The pair’s adventures along the East Coast lead to antics and schemes as they fall madly in love with one another.

It Happened One Night successfully mixes a good romance with some screwball comedy without ever becoming silly or trite.

The film also serves as a good old-fashioned adventure story as Peter and Ellie face one hurdle after another on their trek north.

Pleasing is how the duo slowly finds romance but first begins as irritants towards each other. The chemistry between the actors is superb and never seems forced or contrived.

Frank Capra, a famous director with successes throughout the 1930s, culminating with the holiday favorite It’s a Wonderful Life (1946), had several Oscar-winning films during the decade.

It Happened One Night seems to have inspired most of them, and the acting, absurd situations, dialogue, and direction all successfully come together.

Shot in black and white and the Motion Picture Production Code, which heavily restricted details deemed too violent or sexual, It Happened One Night pushed the envelope quite a bit.

This is to the film’s credit- who can forget the adorable yet provocative scene in which Ellie shows her shapely legs to enable the duo to catch a ride? The lovable scene, non-risque in today’s modern world, was anything but in 1934.

An interesting, at that time unique, point is that supporting characters are more layered than is typical in romantic comedies. Danker, whom Peter and Ellie hitch a ride with, is seemingly a decent man but ultimately attempts to steal their luggage.

Later, Ellie’s preposterous father turns out to be a decent man, so the film also contains a few character surprises.

While not quite a pure masterpiece, It Happened One Night (1934) is nonetheless an inspired legendary film that can be viewed and enjoyed for the period in which it was made.

The film stands out among the similarly themed romantic comedies of the 1930s and 1940s and is a teachable moment for all filmmakers who explore the same genre territory.

Oscar Nominations: 5 wins– Outstanding Production (won), Best Director (won), Best Actor-Clark Gable (won), Best Actress-Claudette Colbert (won), Best Adaptation (won)

Halloween-2018

Halloween-2018

Director-David Gordon Green

Starring-Jamie Lee Curtis, Judy Greer

Scott’s Review #823

Reviewed October 23, 2018

Grade: B+

Let’s be honest- nobody will ever be able to either top or recreate the iconic 1978 masterpiece Halloween- so any real attempt is a moot point.

Throughout the subsequent decades, many sequels or remakes have emerged and have largely disappointed or turned the franchise into a joke.

With the latest incarnation of Halloween (2018), director David Gordon Green gets it right by creating a follow-up to the original, skipping all the other films. Scoring Jamie Lee Curtis as Laurie is a major win along with seemingly dozens of neat references to the original gem.

Set forty years to the day (Halloween Eve and Halloween, naturally!), the audience is first given a summary of killer Michael Meyer’s (Nick Castle) time spent in Smith Grove Sanitarium once captured following the 1978 Haddonfield killing spree.

Two journalists visit Meyers in captivity and attempt to make him speak after forty years of silence by mentioning the name Laurie Strode and showing him his notorious Halloween mask.

Conveniently, he is scheduled to be transferred to a maximum-security prison the following day. We just know that Meyers will escape.

Meanwhile, Laurie has been living with post-traumatic stress disorder since her attack and lives in a constant state of paranoia.

With two failed marriages and a daughter, Karen (Judy Greer), who is traumatized by her mother’s anxiety, Laurie’s life has not been easy. As an aside, I just love how Laurie dons the same hairstyle she had at age seventeen.

While she awaits the inevitable return of Michael, her secluded house is peppered with traps and guns allowing her to be at the ready at any moment. Despite her problems, Laurie is very close with her granddaughter, Allyson (Andi Matichak).

When the inevitable happens and Michael escapes by presumably causing a bus accident off-screen, the action truly begins. The coincidence of this happening on Halloween night is to be expected and embraced.

Audiences who see the film certainly are not new to the genre. The target audience is the crowd who either grew up with the original or generations who followed and were introduced to the original.

Therefore, the film is wise to not try and reinvent the wheel- giving fans what they expect. To this point, the opening graphics (the eerie orange writing and the glowing jack-o-lantern) are intact as well as the “introducing” credit for its heroin star- in this case, Matichak.

There are several certainties with a horror film like Halloween. We know there will be “kills”, we know there will be an inevitable showdown between Laurie and Michael Myers to conclude the film. The fun is in the trip we take to get there. Who will be offed and how? A butcher-knife? other Halloween delights?

Since there are arguably three female leads and three generations of Strode’s, will the film make one of them feel Michael’s deadly wrath?

Halloween works, and a large reason for this is countless nods to its past. Many scenes pay homage to attention-paying fans resulting in riches and nostalgic memories.

Allyson’s boyfriend’s father’s name is Lonnie- undoubtedly the kid who Dr. Loomis scared away from the Meyers house forty years ago.  Then there is a neighbor woman wearing curlers and slicing a sandwich with a butcher knife, who Michael steals the knife from.

Finally, as Allyson sits in the back of her class and glances out the window she sees not Michael, but Laurie standing across the street staring at her. These gems are in large part thanks to clever writing and study.

There are a couple of negatives to mention. I am not crazy about the casting of Judy Greer as Jamie Lee Curtis’s daughter. The actresses look nothing alike nor does Curtis seem old enough to be Greer’s mother.

Furthermore, attempts to add some comic relief moments, two bumbling police officer’s talking about brownies, Allyson’s goofy father, and the salty tongue of the kid one of the baby-sitters sits for does not work.

How great would it have been to include P.J. Soles, Nancy Loomis, or even Kyle Richards in cameos? Since Curtis and Castle returned I wanted more familiar faces.

In wise form Gordon Green leaves the window wide open for a potential sequel, so be sure to stay for the end credits. My wish would be for this to parlay to the aftereffects of the killings on the same night, which Halloween II (1981) did so successfully.

If the box office returns are strong enough and with Curtis on board for another installment, the possibilities are endless.

Frankenstein-1931

Frankenstein-1931

Director James Whale

Starring Colin Clive, Boris Karloff

Scott’s Review #822

Reviewed October 22, 2018

Grade: A

Those of us who treasure cinematic brilliance in films of the past need to look no further than Frankenstein (1931), a masterpiece in the horror genre.

Some consider it the greatest horror film ever made. The still frightening work is based on the legendary 1818 Mary Shelley novel.

Highly influential to later groupings of horror film sub-genres, the importance of this film must never be forgotten.

In a small European village, a scientist named Henry Frankenstein (Colin Clive) is determined to create human life by stealing fresh body parts from cemeteries and using electrical shock as part of his creation.

He convinces his assistant, Fritz (Dwight Frye), to steal a human brain from a former professor’s laboratory. Due to a clumsy mistake, Fritz must steal the brain of a criminal rather than a “normal” human being, the result being dire when Frankenstein’s monster is created.

The creation of the monster (and no, the monster’s name is not Frankenstein, as some might assume) is astounding, especially given the period of the early 1930s.

With a flattop, heavy eyelids, protruding neck terminals, and his hulking physique, he is a frightening figure with a yearning, childlike nature. The monster’s innocence makes him so tragic.

A compelling scene occurs when the audience sees the monster turn around and face the camera.

What separates Frankenstein from many other horror films is the underlying sadness and empathy we feel toward the monster. The “villain” in most horror films is clearly defined, but who is the villain in Frankenstein?

How can it be the monster when he, unaware of his strength, drowns a young child? We root for the beast when he hangs the dastardly dwarf, and we hate the town of peasants who seek revenge on the monster.

The complexities in this film are endless.

The main character is an interesting study. Title billed: the character is a genius while also teetering on the brink of madness- he is not the film’s hero, nor is he entirely sympathetic.

He is the ruin of a monster who has feelings and sadness in him. Frankenstein’s fiancée, Elizabeth (Mae Clark), is concerned for him, which adds a nurturing element to the dynamic. The intent is for the audience not to despise Frankenstein but to be enthralled with his complexities.

The term “monster film” can conjure feelings of silliness or over-the-top acting, but Frankenstein is more artistic than goofy.

The famous line “It’s alive!” was paid tribute to in later years, but an equally spectacular horror film, Rosemary’s Baby (1968), when Rosemary feels her haunted baby kick. To say nothing of the tribute Mel Brook’s classic Young Frankenstein (1974) paid to the original.

Given that the film was made in 1931, the effects and lighting techniques are beyond impressive. The overall tone of the film is stylistic, with a prevalent fairy-tale beauty unlike any films made at the time, save for perhaps Dracula, the 1931 horror-vampire masterpiece.

Frankenstein and Dracula would make a delicious double feature on Saturday evenings. Director James Whale creates a magical environment, holding up thriving generation after generation, never seeming dated.

Frankenstein (1931) was followed by numerous sequels, the best of which is Bride of Frankenstein (1935). Undoubtedly, the film influenced campy yet influential monster films to follow- most notably the “Hammer Horror films” of the same tone.

Despite teetering on the one-hundred-year-old mark, the brilliant film is timeless and must be introduced to young filmmakers everywhere (especially in the horror genre).

Split-2016

Split-2016

Director M. Night Shyamalan

Starring James McAvoy, Anya Taylor Joy

Scott’s Review #821

Reviewed October 18, 2018

Grade: B-

Split (2016) is the second part of a planned trilogy; the first is Unbreakable (2000), and the third is to debut in 2019.

This point confused me because I did not notice any correlation between the films until the final scene, which was unclear.

Split has its ups and downs, mainly because of James McAvoy’s spectacular performance, which is the highlight, but the film is sadly riddled with many plot holes and nonsense.

I do not predict the film will be remembered all too well.

Casey (Joy) is a withdrawn teenage girl with an abusive past at the hands of her uncle, who raised her after her father died. She, along with two other girls, is accosted by a man (McAvoy) who chloroforms them and takes them to a hidden basement.

The girls quickly learn that their abductor is Kevin Wendell Crumb, a man suffering from Dissociative Identity Disorder (DID).

His personality ranges from that of a nine-year-old child to that of an effeminate artist, a well-dressed woman, and Kevin.

The audience (but not the girls) learns that Kevin is in therapy under the care of Doctor Karen Fletcher (Betty Buckley), an established Philadelphia psychiatrist. Fletcher is aware of Kevin’s other personalities, including an additional personality deemed “The Beast.”

She assumes this is a fantasy superhero figure.

Karen slowly pieces together the frightening depth of Kevin’s disorder and must race against time to save the girls.

McAvoy, best known for his outstanding performances in The Last King of Scotland (2006) and Atonement (2007), is also a central figure in the X-Men film franchise (2011-2019). He knocks it out of the park.

What a challenging role (or roles!) for the handsome Scottish actor.  He is as convincing as the stoic and confident Kevin and provides the perfect swagger as “Patricia” and “Dennis.” Finally, he plays nine-year-old “Hedwig” with childhood innocence and insecurities.

The casting of McAvoy is a treat and a success.

How lovely to see film and television stalwart Betty Buckley back in the game with a central film role. The actress is a legend in other genres, not to mention her achievements on stage in play after play.

Eagle-eyed horror fans will undoubtedly remember Buckley’s role as the sympathetic gym teacher in Carrie (1976). In Split, she portrays another benevolent character as she is concerned for her patient’s well-being, not realizing the sinister sides he keeps hidden. The role is perfect for the warm Buckley.

Written, co-produced, and directed by the acclaimed M. Night Shyamalan, Split is no masterpiece like The Sixth Sense (1999) or even on par with The Village (2004).  Instead, the result is a peculiar and uneven effort- the fascination is with McAvoy’s twenty-three different personalities, granted we only see four or five of them.

The film misses the numerous backstory scenes of Casey and her uncle hunting in the woods. These scenes slow down the action and seem overly lengthy. She was abused and can now handle herself- we get it.

This point could have been achieved within one scene.

The relationship between the three girls is okay, but the story point of Casey being an outcast and different from the other two girls seems unnecessary and thrown in.

The final scene of Bruce Willis (as Dennis Dunn from Unbreakable) is a nice nod to the previous film but is lost on anyone who has not seen it since it premiered well over a decade ago.

More of a connection between the two stories should have been featured.

In addition to McAvoy’s impressive performance, a positive is that no male characters are designed to “save the day,” which is still typical of mainstream films.

The film’s heroes are Casey (a teenage girl) and Karen (a woman in her sixties). Despite all the story pieces not aligning, attempts to make Split a more progressive-minded film must be credited.

The film’s result is fair to middling. Split (2016) is not a great effort but a decent watch. The highlights are McAvoy, a worthy role for veteran Buckley, and some good tension and moments of good peril. The story is not the high point, and Shyamalan has made better films.

All Quiet on the Western Front-1930

All Quiet on the Western Front-1930

Director Lewis Milestone

Starring Lew Ayres

Scott’s Review #820

Reviewed October 12, 2018

Grade: A

All Quiet on the Western Front (1930) is one of the oldest films I have seen. It is a masterpiece that resonates in present times just as much as it did nearly one hundred years ago.

The work of art presents an astounding Anti-war message that is a timeless lesson in humanity, idealism, and despair.

Based on the banned novel by Erich Maria Remarque, much of the action takes place on the front lines during World War I.

The cameras follow an anxious group of spirited young men as they sit in a classroom and listen to a passionate speech given by their professor.

He is pretty “pro-war,” filling the boys with patriotism and the importance of serving the Army and their country. At his urging, the group, led by Paul Baumer (Lew Ayres), joins the Second Company. Once enlisted, the youths are enlightened that war is not fun, and their romantic delusions are smashed.

Paul is the film’s hero, and events are told through his eyes, offering his perspective. Beginning as a young recruit, he ages quickly and sees friends and allies slaughtered senselessly.

One recruit, frightened to death, is blinded by shrapnel and hysterically runs into machine-gun fire, resulting in his death. Other scenes involving the soldiers forced to go without food only to finally be offered more food simply because there are so many dead are heart-wrenching.

Paul is portrayed as a good man- conflicted by how he is supposed to feel towards the enemy and how he sees people as human beings. At the young age of nineteen, he possesses an innocence toward the world.

When he returns home on leave, the townspeople do not incline the ravages of war. When Paul recounts the brutal situations on the front line, he is derided as a coward.

In an excruciating scene, Paul is trapped overnight in a foxhole with a dying French soldier whom Paul has stabbed in a cemetery. He desperately tries to save the man’s life but to no avail.

In this crucial scene, Paul sees the enemy soldier as a human being rather than someone to hate. He crumbles into tears for the dead soldier, begging him to speak. The scene is incredibly poignant and meaningful.

The final scene of All Quiet on the Western Front is lovely and memorable. It is the film’s most remembered scene and is firmly ensconced in cinematic history.

As a wounded Paul lies hiding from German soldiers, he spots a beautiful butterfly peacefully circling. Paul smiles, enamored with the pretty creature amid all the horror. He desperately tries to reach for the gorgeous insect.

What happens next is heartbreaking and fraught with the unfair ruining of life—the scene is of the utmost importance.

The film is both sad and poignant, as we are well into the twenty-first century, and wars continue.

Have we learned nothing?

Director Lewis Milestone brazenly and tragically paints a portrait of war’s foolishness and the senseless loss of life it results in. It is tough to think of an equivalent film that depicts this message more clearly.

Many European leaders and countries, including Germany’s Adolf Hitler, included, banned All Quiet on the Western Front throughout the 1930s and 1940s.

The film has remained controversial in its blatant depiction of war since it was made.

All Quiet on the Western Front (1930) is a groundbreaking film that should remind us how precious life is.

The novel and film were both made after World War I—how profound to think that since this film was made, wars such as World War II, the Korean War, and the Vietnam War have occurred. Is war ever really the answer?

Anyone who watches this terrific film will find out.

Oscar Nominations: 2 wins-Best Picture (won), Best Director (won), Best Writing, Best Cinematography

A Star Is Born-2018

A Star Is Born-2018

Director-Bradley Cooper

Starring Bradley Cooper, Lady Gaga

Scott’s Review #819

Reviewed October 10, 2018

Grade: A

On paper, by the time a film reaches its fourth remake (think- superhero franchises), there is a risk of either utter redundancy or a lack of interest (or both!).

Months before A Star Is Born was released to theaters a tremendous buzz emerged, particularly about the stars (Bradley Cooper and Lady Gaga). Considering the latter had never starred in a film before, the word of mouth was surprising.

The hype can be believed as the film is a tremendous effort with something to offer everyone.

The story begins as a boozy country crooner, Jackson Maine (Bradley Cooper), performs a sold-out show. He needs the aid of pills to take the stage and suffers from gradual hearing loss but is nonetheless a famous and popular star.

Following the concert, Jackson meets Ally (Lady Gaga), a waitress who moonlights singing French songs at a drag bar. They immediately bond as he encourages her to celebrate her talent despite her insecurities.

As events unfold the pair dive into a passionate romance as her career skyrockets while he deteriorates from drug and alcohol abuse.

On the surface, a film such as A Star Is Born runs the risk of being hokey, formulaic, or otherwise generic. The premise dictates as such- successful star meets insecure up and comer, romance ensues, and they face obstacles and internal conflict on the road to success.

Sounds like material custom-made for a Hallmark television movie or something lightweight, especially given the remake of a remake factor.

Instead, every element of A Star Is Born works perfectly. Of enormous praise is how Bradley Cooper both directs this film and has the central male role. He, as a director, incorporates some interesting camera shots, including a long shot of Ally walking down an alley, rehearsing a song for a performance.

Also, the numerous concert scenes are very well done. Impressive since this is Cooper’s directorial debut.

An enormous win for the film is the chemistry between Cooper and Gaga which is evident in the very first moments the two appear on screen together. Their chemistry is purely electric- almost magical as they rapidly bond and connect.

Their connection is not only physical but over their love of music and the artistry associated with creating good music. This bond is slowly tested as Ally’s career takes off and her manager steers her in a more pop-oriented direction, which infuriates Jackson.

Even through turmoil, the chemistry between the two actors is palpable in every scene.

My two favorite scenes include the scene in which Jackson and Ally first meet in the drag bar. The lovely French tune (Edit Piaf’s “La Vie en rose”) that she performs is cultural and rife with talent. As Jackson gazes at her from the bar there is amazement and pride in his gleaming eyes. He is immediately smitten with her talent and poise and this scene sets the tone for the film.

The second comes at the film’s conclusion, as Ally belts out the heartfelt “I’ll Never Love Again”. Performing to a subdued audience, the song is performed as a close-up of Ally to the tremendous visual effect.

The musical numbers are heartfelt and emotional without being sappy. From treasures such as “Shallow”, and “Maybe It’s Time” to the thunderous “Black Eyes” and pop-driven “Why Did You Do That?”, the soundtrack contains something for everyone.

Cooper, already an acting champ, astounds as he is so good, while Lady Gaga, a novice to film acting, looks like a pro. We believe her struggles, doubting her star potential as she is deemed “too ugly” to make it in the music business.

Gaga successfully showcases her pain, doubt, and eventual bombast at her sudden success.

Mention must be given to Sam Elliott, the veteran actor who gives a dynamic supporting turn as Bobby Maine, older brother, and manager of Jackson. Elliott does not have a showy role or a big emotional scene- he doesn’t need to. In the actor’s quiet way, he infuses the character with pent-up anger but with unconditional love and affection for his brother mixed in.

Harboring rage and turmoil for each other, the best scene between Elliott and Cooper comes towards the end of the film when Jackson admits his love for Bobby. The emotion is raw on the face of Elliott in this important scene.

A Star Is Born (2018) is a superlative remake and one for the ages. I can easily see this film, already a fan favorite, going down in the record books.

With a memorable musical soundtrack, wonderful acting and directing, and characters audiences can relate to, a classic in the making is not too difficult to imagine.

Oscar Nominations: Best Picture, Best Actor-Bradley Cooper, Best Actress-Lady Gaga, Best Supporting Actor-Sam Elliott, Best Adapted Screenplay, Best Original Song-“Shallow” (won), Best Sound Mixing, Best Cinematography

Oliver & Company-1988

Oliver & Company-1988

Director George Scribner

Voices Joey Lawrence, Billy Joel, Cheech Marin

Scott’s Review #818

Reviewed October 8, 2018

Grade: B

Oliver & Company (1988) is a darling animated film released by Walt Disney Pictures, the twenty-seventh Disney feature film to be produced.

The film is based on the Charles Dickens novel Oliver Twist, but Oliver is now a homeless kitten who joins a gang of dogs, and the setting moves from London to the dangerous streets of New York City- present times.

We meet Oliver (Joey Lawrence) as he huddles with other homeless kittens in a cardboard box, chilly from a driving New York rain. As all of the other kittens are snatched up by adoring animal lovers, Oliver is inexplicably left on his own.

He eventually meets up with Dodger (Billy Joel), a mongrel with street smarts, and the duo steals hot dogs from an abrasive food vendor.

When Dodger swindles Oliver out of his share, the kitten follows the dog to a barge, which turns out to be the hideout of Fagin (Dom DeLuise), a human pickpocket. Fagin houses a gang of assorted dogs as he is bullied by loan shark Sykes.

As Oliver bonds with the miscreants, his life suddenly takes a positive turn when he is rescued from the streets by a kindly, wealthy little girl named Jenny and her bumbling butler, Winston.

Jenny’s parents are on holiday in Europe, leaving her and Winston running the house. Along for the ride is Jenny’s sophisticated and spoiled pet poodle, Georgette (Bette Midler), who takes a dislike to Oliver.

By the 1980s Disney films were hardly the hot commodity they once were, and the small budget is evidence of that. Oliver & Company is not on par with classic, lovely offerings such as Pinocchio (1940), Fantasia (1940), or Dumbo (1941).

The film has a severe and decidedly “1980s quality”, mostly due to the upbeat soundtrack, which decades later makes the film feel rather dated.

Speaking of the soundtrack, the highlight is a treat entitled “Why Should I Worry?”, a tune sung by the ensemble cast and impossible not to hum along to.

The film features an array of famous voices that are perfectly cast. The filmmakers wisely cast plenty of native New Yorkers, which results in a huge measure of authenticity. Brazen voices like Midler’s, Joel’s, and Cheech Marin’s as feisty chihuahua Tito, give credibility to their characters.

The odd romantic pairing of Georgette and Tito, on the surface completely mismatched, gives a good dose of comic relief to the story.

The story written for Oliver & Company is the best part of the entire production.  Anyone familiar with the famous Dickens novel or Oliver! (1968), the most famous of the film incarnations knows how the story will end.

This did not hinder my enjoyment of the animated film though, a compelling and charming experience. Sykes makes a great villain, drawn with a long face and enormous chin, interesting, but not too scary to frighten young children.

One conspicuous omission is the elimination of the important character of Nancy. As fans know, Nancy played a vital role in the original story. Perplexing is the decision not to include her, but perhaps her ultimate death would have made the story too dark, so this can be overlooked.

Surely not the best in the Disney bunch, Oliver & Company (1988) is nonetheless a decent offering sadly overlooked by fans and critics alike.

The film is nearly forgotten and suffers from a dated quality if not for the widespread knowledge of the classic novel. The film is not one of the storied Disney treasures, nor should it be dismissed altogether.

The result is a darling, innocent experience meant for pure enjoyment.

Fahrenheit 11/9-2018

Fahrenheit 11/9-2018

Director-Michael Moore

Starring-Michael Moore

Scott’s Review #817

Reviewed October 5, 2018

Grade: B+

Controversial filmmaker Michael Moore, who has been at the helm of other topical and lively works does it again with a politically charged documentary called Fahrenheit 11/9 (2018).

Known for other substantial offerings like Roger and Me (1989), Bowling for Columbine (2002), and Fahrenheit 9/11 (2004), the left-wing activist continues his aggressive and thought-provoking ways with a very good effort.

After the gloomy and divisive 2016 United States Presidential election, it seems inevitable for Moore to create another politically infused documentary.

This important point in history is the primary focus of his work. Moore asks and analyzes two very important questions- how did we get here? and how do we get out?  In pure Michael Moore controversy, he adds a couple of expletives for good measure.

The documentary itself does begin with the surprising, and (to most), now dire buildup to the 2016 election with clips of Hillary Clinton’s assured victory and election night festivities interspersed with the expected loss of Donald Trump.

The Republican party was not crazy about Trump as a candidate and the unexpected victory due to the electoral college rule left the United States shocked, appalled, and in a state of peril.

Moore does not simply create a documentary about the election though. Instead, he crosses into territory including the creation of a dictator (Trump) and how this man’s rise to the presidency mirrors Adolf Hitler’s rise to power in 1930’s Germany.

Hitler used a sense of fear and populism among the German people to his advantage and successfully created an “us versus them” mentality.

Trump is doing the same with sour and hateful propaganda.

The documentary feels very personal to Moore, as many of his others do. Fahrenheit 11/9 spends a good deal of time exploring the Flint, Michigan (Moore’s hometown) poison water situation and the ensuing cover-up by the Governor of Michigan, Rick Snyder.

The largely working-class city (already decimated by numerous GM layoffs) faced a public health emergency due to lead contamination.

So that the subject matter is not completely dour and depressing (though admittedly I was depressed watching most of the documentary, for personal reasons), Moore gleefully adds in some humor.

As a camera shot of the director lumbering towards the Snyder headquarters to confront him about the poisoned Flint water and the Governors reported cover-up, a Snyder employee refuses to drink the water Moore insists is directly from Flint and therefore must be safe.

Moore later waters the lawn of the Governors home with a giant fire hose when Snyder refuses to be interviewed.

To be fair, as liberal-minded as Moore is, he is not afraid to call out members of his party- the Democrats. He shames President Obama for once appearing in Flint, viewed as a “saving grace” for the city folks, only to pretend to drink a glass of Flint water, while insisting it was safe to drink.

Moore surmises that this stunt so turned off the people of Flint that they stayed home on election day, causing Clinton to lose the state of Michigan.

Moore has perhaps never made a more relevant or emotional documentary than he has with Fahrenheit 11/9 (2018). In a tumultuous time in the United States history, his documentary is quite opportune to implore people to care about what is going on.

With the 2018 mid-term elections looming, the country is again at the forefront of a pivotal moment in history. Moore’s timing is flawless.

Faces Places-2017

Faces Places-2017

Director-Agnes Varda, JR

Scott’s Review #816

Reviewed October 3, 2018

Grade: B+

Fans of French culture, landscape, and sophistication will assuredly enjoy Faces Places (2017), a documentary that explores art and creativity.

With both humorous and touching moments, the work explores the friendship between two different artists of vastly opposite ages.

Some scenes of Paris and especially the French countryside make this a personal treat.

The documentary begins by showing its two main characters, thirty-something JR, and eighty-something Agnes Varda, beforehand not knowing one another, missing each other in a coffee shop.

Both share their passion for images expressed in different ways- photography and cinema. They each enjoy expressing regular people’s stories by creating lavish portraits and exhibiting them on houses, barns, and the like.

Both Varda and JR co-directed this documentary.

When deciding to view Faces Places, I did so with the anticipation that I would be treated to sightseeing-type glimpses of both Paris and the surrounding areas- possibly even the south of France or Niece or Burgundy!

Paris, however, gets short shrift but this can be forgiven as rural France (not known as a tourist hotbed) is featured mostly. We experience many local French people living ordinary lives, but bringing something treasured to the film.

As Agnes and JR cavort around the rural roads in his pickup truck they stop in small towns where they have heard of an interesting story.

In one town a farmer works alone and supports his village- a superhero of sorts, while in another town an old woman who has lived in the same house for decades is honored by Varga and JR as they brandish her portrait on the exterior of her house. The woman is tearful and emotionally touched.

The dynamic between Agnes and JR is the high point of the documentary.

With more than one generation between them, they begin as acquaintances, but their bond flourishes and grows as the documentary moves along.

Think-the relationship between Ruth Gordon and Bud Cort featured in the 1971 masterpiece Harold and Maude, save for the romantic element. In a touching moment, JR introduces Agnes to his quite elderly grandmother and the two women hit it off tremendously.

Varda is particularly interesting to me for her contribution to 1950’s French New Wave cinema.

Her usage of location sequences and non-professional actors was unconventional at the time and highly influential. In a tender scene, Varda attempts to visit friend Jean-Luc Godard, but he refuses to see her, evidently now living as a recluse.

Faces Places (2017) is a rich and soulful experience, one with enough imagination and creativity to inspire its viewers.

Perhaps not offering as much of the vast French landscape as I had anticipated, instead, the documentary offers a lesson in the importance of life.

With a startlingly connected duo, contributing a whimsical approach to their passion, the result is an inspirational journey that everyone can enjoy.

Oscar Nominations: Best Documentary-Feature

Independent Spirit Award Nominations: Best Documentary Feature (won)

The Insult-2017

The Insult-2017

Director-Ziad Doueiri

Starring-Adel Karam, Kamel El Basha

Scott’s Review #815

Reviewed October 1, 2018

Grade: B

A Lebanese film nominated for the Best Foreign Language Film Academy award, The Insult (2017) offers its audience what I would categorize as a message film.

A battle of cultures and religions leads to chaos and controversy culminating with an embattled court case as we get to know supporting characters as well.

While the film is above average it is also too glossy and at times plays out more like a television series- with dramatic effects and plot developments for miles.

Still, the film is a worthy watch.

In a small Lebanese village, the main character Tony Hanna (Adel Karam) lives with his pregnant wife Shirine. Working as an automobile mechanic, Tony is a proud member of the Christian community, attending rallies and events.

His village employs Palestinian refugees to perform maintenance repairs, which irritates Tony. When a verbal altercation with middle-aged refugee Yasser (Kamel El Basha) occurs over a broken gutter, a failed apology results in physical violence as the situation rapidly escalates.

The courtroom drama, while compelling, seems a very familiar story.

Other recent foreign-language films such as A Separation (2011), and Gett: The Trial of Vivian Amsalem (2014) use similar plot devices of family conflict that wind up in the courtroom.

Those films are better written and feel more authentic and raw than The Insult does. Throughout the film, I kept telling myself I was not watching a middle-eastern version of Law & Order, but that is what it felt like.

Personally, I felt little sympathy for Tony and I was not completely sure if we were supposed to feel anything for him. With his brooding nature, and populist attitude he is written as downright unlikeable at first.

I assume the intent was to soften the character over the length of the film when he briefly comes to Yasser’s aid and helps start the man’s car. However, Tony soon reverts to his original stubborn nature.

Yasser is a much more likable fellow, albeit with a temper. Hurling curse words at Tony is the reason the tension between the two men begins in the first place and attempted apologies only lead to miscommunications between everyone.

But Yasser gets my vote for the most compassionate character.

In the supporting roles, an interesting (though perhaps not completely necessary) side story exists as the embattled lawyers are revealed to be father and daughter.

The major problem with The Insult is that the entire story seems plot-driven and each step is created to come up with a way to build or add tension.

For example, a speeding motorcycle angrily side-swipes Tony and his wife.  The partners are then in peril because their daughter is born prematurely due to stress.

Situations and tensions could have easily been wrapped up or smoothed over under different circumstances, therefore the tone of the films feels less than authentic and manipulative despite some good drama.

Still, what the writing team does is introduce the audience to the turbulent world of Middle Eastern politics in a way that undoubtedly results in thought-provoking views and exposures to opposing ideas.

The film also provides a distinct hopeful slant at the conclusion so as not to send a dour message. The direction is that people can come together as one peaceful group, but that it will not be easy.

The Insult (2017) is not a bad watch and, in fact, compels the viewer to witness an interesting story of differing cultures and warring religious beliefs churning two men inside out when faced with conflict.

The film also does a fine job of emitting a peaceful message of coming together as human beings.

An overall rating of “B” is a nice score but given the dozens of potential Best Foreign Language finalists, I am not sure the film quite “cuts the mustard” for me- surely there were superior entries.

But then this Oscar category’s nominating process has always been a mystery.

Oscar Nominations: Best Foreign Language Film

The Square-2017

The Square-2017

Director-Ruben Oslund

Starring-Claes Bang, Elisabeth Moss

Scott’s Review #814

Reviewed September 28, 2018

Grade: B+

The Square (2017) is an eccentric Swedish language film that is highly interpretive and does not always make perfect sense the way a more mainstream film would.

This is both a positive and a negative as the ultimate message of the film is admirable, though some parts are both perplexing and downright bizarre.

The film was bestowed an Oscar nomination, undoubtedly for its bravery and cutting-edge approach, for the Best Foreign Language Film- subsequently, it lost to A Fantastic Woman (2017).

The X-Royal art museum in Stockholm, Sweden is the primary setting of the film. The action centers mostly around the museum’s creative director Christian (Claes Bang), who is new to the job and attempting to introduce a new installation called “The Square”.

A misunderstanding with a youthful public relations firm hired to make the exhibit as accessible as possible leads to controversy.

The film also interjects various sub-plots that are by and large interesting in themselves, but do not always make logical sense.

Bang is quite compelling in the lead role and the best part of the film for me. He is charismatic, a good father to his two daughters, and helps the homeless- even going so far as to help a young woman when nobody else will, only to find his wallet stolen- an unfortunate victim of a scam.

Furthermore, Christian’s desire to create “The Square” is quite humane and admirable- a safe zone for trust and compassion. The character is a good guy, but also concerned with his status.

Common themes of satire and human beings’ natural hypocritical nature abound. For example, in one scene Christian, proud to drive his flashy Tesla car and give money to the homeless, is then afraid to be seen in a run-down apartment house.

Later, a man with Tourettes syndrome disrupts an interview at the museum and is looked down on by “open-minded people” as a result. The latter scene is admittedly quite amusing as the man erupts with various expletives at the most inopportune times.

My favorite sequence by far occurs approximately mid-way through the film. As bizarre as the scene is, it is also riveting in its momentum and bravery.

When a group of well-dressed museum members gather for a lavish dinner and to watch a human art show, a bare-chested man who only grunts emerges and slowly begins to antagonize certain guests.

He begins pulling the hair of one woman while chasing one angry man from the hall. Shocking, intense, and thought-provoking are words to describe this scene.

But perplexing is what does the scene mean?

A treat for me was being able to view the frequent interior and exterior scenes of the famous Stockholm museum- of which I was privy to have visited in 2016.

So fresh was this experience that it brought back wonderful memories of not only the museum but of the gorgeous city of Stockholm itself.

The chemistry between Christian (who is Swedish) and an American reporter, Anne (Elisabeth Moss), does nothing for the film. In fact, it feels completely disjointed and unnecessary and there is little connection between the two characters.

Engaging in a one-night stand, the duo has a dispute about a used condom. Does Christian think that Anne is desperate enough to use his sperm and impregnate herself? The resulting spat between the two seems meaningless.

The Square (2017) is a very tough film to review.

Oftentimes disjointed and impossible to make heads or tails of, one would be wise to simply “experience” the film on its own merits. I am not sure I particularly need to view it again and try to figure out the plot because I am uncertain if that was the intent of director Ruben Oslund.

Having directed the wonderful Force Majeure (2014), a more straightforward and superior film, in my opinion, The Square is worth a watch in its own right.

Oscar Nominations: Best Foreign Language Film

American Pie-1999

American Pie-1999

Director Paul Weitz

Starring Jason Biggs, Alyson Hannigan

Scott’s Review #813

Reviewed September 23, 2018

Grade: B+

With each generation of film, there seems to be a gross-out comedy that speaks to a young, coming-of-age generation- of the mostly male and jock persuasion.

American Pie (1999) finishes the 1990s strongly with a raunchy story that feels fresh and genuinely funny with precarious situations facing the cast, specifically the protagonist and “everyman”, played by Jason Biggs.

The film is a teen sex comedy of the crudest nature yet engulfed with characters audiences like- not mean-spirited, but rather fun-loving and endearing.

An enormous box office hit at the time, the film was all the rage and brought tawdry new meaning to the Americana staples of apple pie and band camp.

Spawning several sequels throughout the next decade, the franchise successfully brought back the teen comedy genre with strong and highly recognizable characters.

American Pie also brought back the fun to R-rated films and put a nice cherry on top of a creative decade in cinema. The film is not high art, but what it aims to do, it does quite well.

Living a middle to upper-middle-class existence in the suburban USA (presumably Michigan), five high school seniors make a pact to lose their virginity by the time they graduate. Most of the group are nerdy, insecure, and sexually naive, the central character being Jim Levenstein (Biggs).

Most events are taken from his point of view and he is continually advised by his very nerdy father, Noah (Eugene Levy).

The setup is an age-old premise with lots of room for jokes and precarious situations in hilarious form. As Jim has the hots for a sexy foreign exchange student, Nadia, she is out of his league.

In a hilarious scene, a “warm apple pie” incident leads to a webcam setup attempt to watch Nadia change clothes. When events go amiss everyone gains access to the webcam link, and Nadia is sent back to Czechoslovakia in shame.

This leads to a new pursuit for Jim, in geeky band camp girl, Michelle (Alyson Hannigan). Surprisingly, they fall madly in love and have fantastic chemistry.

Some of the supporting characters add energy and sometimes hilarity. Jennifer Coolidge is great as the mother of Stifler (the jock of the group), who has eyes for younger men, specifically Finch.

As they finally consummate their relationship on a basement pool table, Stifler walks in at the worst time and faints in horror. These antics are genuine and fresh, with great acting by all principals.

Coolidge, Hannigan, and Levy are arguably the best secondary characters. Each, in a different way from the others, provides comic relief by crafting interesting nuances to the characters.

Levy, as Jim’s father, is well-meaning, yet bumbling. Every teen cringes at the thought of having a father like Noah, yet the pair share a close bond and a classic father-son relationship, so the character is therefore enamoring.

American Pie was successful at coining new pop-culture phrases such as “warm apple pie”, “milf”, and “this one time in band camp…” that the young generation of the time (myself included) enjoyed giggling over and repeating in glee.

The film set the tone for other similar genre films, but none of them lived up to the chemistry and the charm that American Pie had. This film was better than it ever should have been!

The turn-of-the-century version of Animal House, American Pie (1999) introduces a new generation of young people into the world of comedic, R-rated, raunchy fun. Films like this have been churned out by the numbers, but rarely any are as authentic as this film feels.

The franchise was able to sustain its popularity with well-written sequels, most notably American Pie 2 (2001), which developed the situations more, but the original is a fine blueprint for what good comedy can achieve.

The Nun-2018

The Nun-2018

Director-Corin Hardy

Starring-Taissa Farmiga, Demian Bichir 

Scott’s Review #812

Reviewed September 19, 2018

Grade: B-

A film such as The Nun (2018) is best described as a genre horror film strong on atmosphere, scares, and effect, but weak when it comes to story, dialogue, or weaving much of the other films together that it supposedly relates to in a satisfying way.

To stress, the set pieces and foreboding convent where most events take place are tremendously thought out adding to the stylistic filming, but the story stinks, making the overall result barely above mediocre.

Said to be connected to The Conjuring (2013) and Annabelle (2014), this story point is all but laughable.

In theory, a prequel since the film is set in 1952, the only connection is a super quick sequence of a scene in later years. Ed and Lorraine Warren use a character in The Nun as a case study for their audiences.

Admittedly, I have not seen The Conjuring 2 (2016), but from what I can surmise, what remains of The Nun is a stand-alone film. Was the demonic nun in The Conjuring 2? This may make more sense.

The creepy setting in Romania- is a superb choice given the association with Transylvania and Dracula. The film begins with the suicide of a Roman Catholic nun in a gloomy and largely abandoned Monastery.

Having been visited by an unseen force who kills another nun, a vicious demon appearing in the form of a nun looks on menacingly. Father Burke (Demian Bichir) from the Vatican arrives with Sister Irene (Taissa Farmiga) to investigate, where they meet flirtatious local, Frenchy.

The atmosphere used throughout almost the entirety of the film is spot on and highly effective.

Most of the scenes are set at nighttime (naturally!) and in or around the vicinity of the spooky, gothic monastery. To double, a gorgeous castle in Romania was used. From the dark and narrow hallways to the crucifixes and obvious religious decor, the props and set design shine through.

The best scenes occur within the grounds of the statuesque building as dozens of graves can be seen- when bells from the graves begin to ring on their own and spirits can be seen lurking, the audience is in for a good scare.

Even the scenes in daylight hours are fraught with creepy tension. When Frenchy comes upon the nun, dead for days, she dangles from the monastery, eyes gouged and covered with feasting crows, as her blood drips onto the front porch.

The camera closeup of the shot is highly effective as are others involving the typical jolts and creaky floors that have become a cliche in horror films somehow feel fresh and invigorating in The Nun.

And the demonic nun, a grimacing Marilyn Manson type ghoulish figure, is downright scary.

Unfortunately, along with praise must come to some criticisms. The story and the logic do not make too much sense and I stopped trying to figure out the plot points halfway through.

Why the Father and Sister are chosen to go alone to investigate is implausible as is a silly, brief mention of a Duke in the old days evoking a curse in the monastery that was “conjured” up during World War II and must be contained again is a hardly compelling story.

The plot-driven device (and frankly done to death at this point) attempt to forge a romantic connection between Irene and Frenchy never works. How many times in film have we seen a handsome, young man trying to woo a pretty nun away from her calling?

Filmmakers may have added this for humor and (hopefully) the intentional or not religious exclamations by the characters of “Oh My God!” or “Mother of God!” are laugh-out-loud silly.

At the end of the day, with a film such as The Nun (2018), riveting writing is not top of the wish list- great atmosphere and effects are.

In this way, the film delivers some excellent content and makes for an enjoyable experience with some good thrills and scares. Thankfully, for the horror genre, the film is rated a solid “R” and not watered down for PG-13 audiences. Just be prepared for some hokey writing.