All posts by scottmet99

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

Some scenes of Paris, 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, who do not know one another beforehand and miss each other in a coffee shop.

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

Both Varda and JR co-directed this documentary.

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

Paris gets short shrift, but this can be forgiven as rural France (not known as a tourist hotbed) is featured mainly. 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. In another town, Varga and JR honor an old woman who has lived in the same house for decades by brandishing 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 of the relationship between Ruth Gordon and Bud Cort 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 because of her contribution to the 1950s 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 with enough imagination and creativity to inspire viewers.

Although the documentary does not offer as much of the vast French landscape as I had anticipated, it does offer 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 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 in an embattled court case as we also get to know supporting characters.

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

Still, the film is a worthy watch.

The main character, Tony Hanna (Adel Karam), lives with his pregnant wife, Shirine, in a small Lebanese village. Tony works as an automobile mechanic but 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 end up in the courtroom.

Those films are better written and feel more authentic and raw than The Insult. 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.

I felt little sympathy for Tony, and I was unsure if we were supposed to feel anything for him. With his brooding nature and populist attitude, he is initially written as downright unlikeable.

I assume the intent was to soften the character over the film’s length 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 why the tension between the two men begins in the first place, and attempted apologies only lead to miscommunication 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 create 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 been quickly resolved or smoothed under different circumstances. Therefore, despite some good drama, the tone of the films feels less than authentic and manipulative.

Still, the writing team introduces the audience to the turbulent world of Middle Eastern politics in a way that undoubtedly results in thought-provoking views and exposure to opposing ideas.

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

The Insult (2017) is not a bad watch. It compels the viewer to witness a fascinating 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. Still, given the dozens of potential Best Foreign Language finalists, I am not sure the film entirely “cuts the mustard” for me- indeed, 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 Östlund

Starring Claes Bang, Elisabeth Moss

Scott’s Review #814

Reviewed September 28, 2018

Grade: B+

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

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

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

The film’s primary setting is the X-Royal Art Museum in Stockholm, Sweden. The action centers mainly around the museum’s new creative director, Christian (Claes Bang), 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 subplots that are generally interesting but do not always make logical sense.

Bang is quite compelling in the lead role and the film’s best part for me. He is charismatic and a good father to his two daughters. He helps people experiencing homelessness- 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 humane and admirable- a safe zone for trust and compassion. The character is a good guy but is 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 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 quite amusing as the man erupts with various expletives at the most inopportune times.

My favorite sequence occurs approximately midway through the film. As bizarre as the scene, it is riveting in its momentum and bravery.

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

He begins pulling one woman’s hair while chasing an angry man from the hall. This scene is shocking, intense, and thought-provoking.

But what the scene means is perplexing.

A treat for me was viewing the famous Stockholm museum’s frequent interior and exterior scenes- which I was privy to have visited in 2016.

This experience was so fresh that it brought back wonderful memories of not only the museum but also 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. It feels wholly 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 mainly 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, 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.

Office Space-1999

Office Space-1999

Director Mike Judge

Starring Ron Livingston, Jennifer Aniston

Scott’s Review #811

Reviewed September 16, 2018

Grade: B+

Having become somewhat of a cult classic since its theatrical release in 1999, Office Space is delightful to watch for anyone who works in a corporate environment- or ever has- they will undoubtedly “get” this movie.

The dark humor and antics may be lost on those who have not, but for the rest of us, the film is quite the treat.

One may never view a stapler or the common office cake party in the same manner. Yes, the story and characters are somewhat over-the-top but more than a few clever scenes ring with truth.

But over time will the film become dated?

Writer and Director, Mike Judge, tells a story about life within a 1990s software firm.

Reportedly, the story is based on Judge’s cartoon series Milton, and his first foray into live-action filmmaking. His first film was Beavis and Butt-Head Do America (1996) if this gives any indication of the type of humor that resounds. Fraternity boy-minded, yes, but the writing is crisp and oftentimes rife with fun.

The film was not a box-office smash at the time of release yet is well-regarded by critics.

Peter Gibbons (Ron Livingston) is a frustrated IT programmer who works for a company named Initech. Alongside two colleagues, one of whom is comically named Michael Bolton (not that Michael Bolton), they despise their sneaky boss, Lumbergh (Gary Cole).

The situation gets worse when two consultants are brought in to downsize the company, leaving everyone in panic mode.

After a failed hypnotherapy session Peter becomes relaxed and confident, even winning praise from the consultants and scoring a promotion. This puts him at odds with Lumbergh, especially after he begins dating a waitress, Joanna (Jennifer Aniston), and assumes she has also slept with him.

Office Space shines the most with the crackling dialogue and clever scenes that take place within the confines of the office. With stuffy cubicles for miles and the standard corporate jargon to make into witty lines, the subject matter is ripe for the picking.

With Cole’s sly requests for his employees to work weekends, Judge creates authenticity and freshness that is incredibly appealing to corporate workers. He successfully knocks down office politics with intelligent, wisely crafted, memorable satire.

In the supporting role of Milton Waddams, character actor Stephen Root is successful at stealing the show with his mumbling and bumbling character. Nearly invisible to all his colleagues, Milton is eventually moved to a basement desk and left out of the cake party.

When somebody borrows his prized red stapler, all hell breaks loose. Increasingly disgruntled, Milton’s fate is instrumental to the hilarious conclusion of the film and he ultimately gets his revenge satisfyingly to all.

The romantic element between Peter and Joanna is okay, but not at all the highlight of the film. The romance seems unnecessary to me but undoubtedly added since comedies of this sort usually require something heartfelt to appeal to mainstream audiences.

Aniston, popular at the time for her role on the television show Friends, was on her way to becoming a marquee movie star, but not quite yet, so she must be content with the standard “girlfriend” role.

She’s cute, but hardly anything more.

Office Space is a fun ride, but the film is not a groundbreaking experience in great film techniques, inventive ideas, or any other technical or story achievements.

What it offers to fans, it does very well and feels like a breath of fresh air in its genre.

The film is a comedy, but not a dumb comedy as a myriad of similar style offerings have been released since the beginning of cinema. With witty one-liners and comic gold, Office Space (1999) is a film to be remembered.

RBG-2018

RBG-2018

Director-Betsy West, Julie Cohen

Starring-Ruth Bader Ginsburg

Scott’s Review #810

Reviewed September 10, 2018

Grade: B+

In the aftermath of the tumultuous 2016 United States Presidential election that still resonates in 2018, making a documentary about one of the most senior members of the U.S. Supreme Court is perfect timing.

The eighty-four-year-old Ruth Bader Ginsburg is featured in this production, as the inspirational woman’s early life, rise to the top, and views on the current Trump administration are discussed, offering a fleshed-out chronicle of the inspirational figurehead.

Directed and produced by feminists Betsy West and Julie Cohen, an enormously wise move, in my opinion, much of the focus is on Ginsburg’s trailblazing reputation and her achievements with gender-discrimination law.

The point is made more than once that Ginsburg, with her tiny stature, pulled-back hair, and thick glasses, was not to be taken seriously in a world of men. The woman being of serious demeanor, she nevertheless was successful at proving herself against many odds.

The documentary wisely places most of the emphasis on the current Ruth Bader Ginsburg. Her life as a youngster, her parents, family, and friends are all discussed in detail, but the heart of the film is positioned at the here and now.

This can only be assumed because of the volatile and relevant current political state and the importance of the Supreme Court in its current state of conservative leanings.

Ginsburg is now the furthest left-leaning judge- a point the documentary stresses not without some urgency.

The documentary begins as we see “RBG”, as she has adoringly been come to be known, working out with her trainer. At age eighty-four, this is remarkable and overall encompasses her hard work ethic- inside and outside of the courtroom.

The film stresses her endurance and dedication to the job. One family member comments how Ginsburg will frequently work until four in the morning, staying up all night, and will then sleep for sixteen hours- to play “catch-up”.

RBG- the film- shares sweet moments alongside the legal courtroom facts, so that it is not over-saturated by too much legal jargon and terms.

A nice touch is a focus on Ginsburg’s husband- a lively, boisterous, and comical man who balances his wife’s mannerisms and characteristics perfectly. According to many sources in the documentary they are a perfect match- this portrays a more romantic (and needed) element to the overall story.

Ginsburg was granted the highest honor during President Clinton’s term- a pivotal time in United States history- when the Supreme Court took more of a left of center turn.

Presently, in 2018, the Court has harshly swayed in the other direction, making Ginsburg a tremendously instrumental figure. In the documentary, the courageous lady astutely points out that she “will do the job as long as she can do the job”.

RBG (2018) is an incredibly important documentary in an incredibly tumultuous time. Not only are women’s rights, specifically Roe v. Wade, in serious trouble, but the country is also in danger of taking a stark turn right and thereby taking the country backward.

Leave it to a dear eighty-four-year-old woman with courage for miles to be leading the charge for freedom and the progressive movement. The years ahead will tell us how this all turns out, but the documentary excels at relaying its vital importance.

Oscar Nominations: Best Documentary-Feature, Best Original Song-“I’ll Fight”

The Wife-2018

The Wife-2018

Director-Bjorn Runge

Starring-Glenn Close, Jonathan Pryce

Scott’s Review #809

Reviewed September 8, 2018

Grade: A

Swedish director Bjorn Runge crafts a nearly flawless film in The Wife (2018) that elicits a perfect performance from its star Glenn Close.

The film may be a standard drama, but the performances are the star attraction here. Along with Close, Jonathan Pryce deserves his share of kudos along with many of the supporting players.

But the film unquestionably belongs to Close as she plays an overlooked wife with subtle intelligence and enough simmering fury and resentment to astound compelled audiences.

Professor Joe Castleman (Pryce) and his wife Joan (Close) live a charming existence in upscale Connecticut. Joe is an acclaimed author and has just been notified that he will soon be awarded the Nobel Prize in Literature.

As Joe and Joan excitedly jump up and down on the bed in celebration, there is something not altogether joyous about Joan.

Parties are thrown and Joe and Joan, along with their son David (Max Irons), an aspiring author himself, fly to Stockholm, Sweden, for the coveted ceremony. Joe is flocked with attention while Joan is cast on the sidelines- secrets eventually bubbling to the surface by way of a nosy reporter, Nathaniel Bone (Christian Slater), who digs into Joe and Joan’s past.

The prime setting of Stockholm is a great plus, adding both a cultural and cold vibe to the story. The snowy and blustery Scandinavian locale, with some characters of European descent, brings richness to the film.

The scenes of characters sipping brandy or other warming spirits while a bristling fireplace erupts in the background add good texture.

Close is one of the finest actresses of our time and portrays Joan with refined restraint at every turn. Yes, we know that something is bothering Joan, but we know not what that is. Close is one of those talents whose face tells so much while she can utter so little, and through a good one-third of the film, this is all we have.

What is wrong with her? Why does she act happy for her husband and go about her tasks seamlessly, but harbors rage bubbling beneath the surface?

Slowly, with the help of numerous flashback scenes we learn how Joe and Joan met- he a young professor in the early 1960s, and she a naive student with delusions of grandeur of becoming a female novelist. She quickly learns how difficult this will be to achieve as she babysits Joe’s young kids- slowly falling in love with the married man.

From flashbacks, we learn more about the emotions, aspirations, and limitations of both Joe and Joan. We also learn that Joe has always had a wandering eye for other women- after all, wasn’t Joan “the other woman”?

Back to present times, a restless Joan needs a day to herself in the bustling city before she explodes at Joe. Before she can head out, she is talked into a drink by Nathaniel, who cagily reveals much of what he knows to Joan.

The scenes between Close and Slater crackle with passion Is he flirting with her or attempting to get her to buckle under from compliments and booze? Close is purely in control of Joan’s emotions here, but so much is written on the actress’s face.

She is just mesmerizing to watch as her calm demeanor borders on cold and calculating in her responses to Nathaniel’s questions.

Joe and Joan’s son David plays a key role in all of this. As with Joan, he harbors his resentments towards his father, but his rage is more blatant. He yearns for his father’s approval on a newly written story, also is angry with every comment his father makes. Is he simply experiencing jealousy over his father’s talents?

When David learns a secret, events get good, culminating in a wonderful blowup scene between the three characters in a hotel room, at simply the worst possible time.

Pryce must be given props as he plays Joe with much complexity. Partially sympathetic and partially unforgivable, he elicited a mixed reaction from me. Not one to treat Joan badly, he sings her praises from one toast to another.

A cad, he is also a narcissist, yet he does adore and think the world of Joan- so they share a complex love.

The Wife (2018) is a wonderful film that appreciates the talents of its cast. With stalwarts such as Pryce, Slater, and newcomer Max Irons fleshing out the supporting roles, this only enhances Queen Bee Close’s bravura performance.

I have always thought there would never be any way Close could rival her breathtaking portrayal of dastardly Alex in Fatal Attraction (1987), but she sure comes damned close in The Wife.

Oscar Nominations: Best Actress-Glenn Close

Independent Spirit Award Nominations: Best Female Lead-Glenn Close (won)

The Happytime Murders-2018

The Happytime Murders-2018

Director-Brian Henson

Starring-Melissa McCarthy, Maya Rudolph

Scott’s Review #808

Reviewed September 6, 2018

Grade: B-

Considered by some to be the worst film release of 2018, I had nary a positive expectation as I walked into an empty movie theater.

In truth, The Happytime Murders is not that bad, more in tune with a fun, adult-humored late-night affair. The greatest assets are the comic talents of Melissa McCarthy and the neat whodunit that is the central part of the story.

The human actors acting opposite puppets are a bit bizarre and take some getting used to, but the nice editing (not easy at all to do!) is to be commended.

Set in modern times, in the underbelly of Los Angeles, puppets live alongside humans and are not treated well- constantly bullied and thoughtless of.

Sarcastic and angry puppet, Phil Phillips (a nod to the American Idol winner?) works as a private investigator, an incident many years ago causing him to be booted from the LAPD police force forever.

When Phil is hired by a sexy blonde female puppet, Sandra, to find out who has been sending her blackmail letters, he stumbles upon a rash of puppet murders.

The killer is knocking off members of a 1980’s television show, presumably for profit. Phil’s brother and grizzled ex-partner, Connie Edwards (McCarthy) become central to the story.

The first dynamic that works well in The Happytime Murders is the “chemistry” between Connie and Phil. Surprising is the connection and good rapport considering the human/puppet factor.

One might find that surprising that the two characters play well off of each other, but their adult sparring and frequent vulgar language name-calling is oodles of fun to watch. McCarthy is always fantastic with comic timing so fans of hers will not be disappointed. As they shout vulgar “pleasantries” to each other one cannot help but smirk.

Maya Rudolph has an interesting role as secretary to Phil. Named Bubbles, she is sexy, sultry, and coquettish- an unusual role for Rudolph, but she pulls it off in spades.

Otherwise, Elizabeth Banks cast in the small role of Jenny, Phil’s blonde ex-girlfriend is entertaining. Phil, despite being a puppet is quite the lady’s man with Sandra (a nymphomaniac) being his main conquest.

In one lewd scene, Phil beds her right in his office spewing strands of white goo meant to be semen and Sandra exposing her purple pubic hair.

The film is clearly for adults only and hopefully, unwitting parents do not mistake the puppet characters for a kid’s film. The film contains many scenes bordering on X-rated territory, yet the inclusion of puppets undoubtedly gives off a humorous, not to be taken too seriously element.

Handsome Joel McHale as a Special Agent on the case along with a Lieutenant, Connie’s superior, makes it clear the characters are along for the comic ride and the film never takes itself too seriously.

I admittedly had low expectations to begin so I was surprised to find myself enjoying the puppet characters most of all and the rapport between them. Phil, charismatic in a Dick Tracy sort of way balances with the other “over the top” puppets including a drug lord, two puppet prostitutes, and a puppet bunny addicted to porn.

The creations are lively and unique.

Let’s not get carried away though- The Happytime Murders is not the genius that Who Framed Roger Rabbit? (1988) is, but its crass nature is of some appeal.

I adored the Los Angeles setting as the sunny locale perfectly counter-balanced the murderous antics of a hooded killer. The big reveal I did not see coming added to the surprise factor for me.

To summarize, The Happytime Murders (2018) is not a work of art or anything particularly spectacular.

Presumably, it will be a forgotten film, especially since McCarthy is appearing in another “more serious” film in 2018 named Can You Ever Forgive Me? with enormous Oscar potential. Therefore, the focus will assuredly be on that film.

But a work like The Happytime Murders does have its place as perhaps a fun late-night offering.

Legally Blonde-2001

Legally Blonde-2001

Director Robert Luketic

Starring Reese Witherspoon, Luke Wilson

Scott’s Review #807

Reviewed August 30, 2018

Grade: B+

Legally Blonde (2001) is a film that by all accounts should have been a hot mess, but for some reason is a great ball of fun. High art it ain’t by any means, and the plot is implausible beyond belief, and suspension of disbelief must be securely tucked away.

Despite portraying more serious roles both before and after this film, Reese Witherspoon is largely responsible for the success and is closely associated with this role.

Quite simply, all the elements manage to align with perfection in this film.

Elle Woods (Witherspoon) is president of her sorority at a Los Angeles college. Clad in fluffy pink attire and carrying her cute dog everywhere she goes, she epitomizes the stereotypical “dumb blonde”.

However, she does carry a 4.0 grade point average in fashion.

Expecting a marriage proposal from her upper-class, snooty boyfriend, Warner, Elle instead finds herself dumped due to not being serious enough.

Determined to prove herself worthy, she manages acceptance into Harvard Law School, along with Warner, and embarks on hi-jinks and adventures.

Warner’s fiancee and a potential new love interest cause turmoil for the boisterous Elle.

Legally Blonde never takes itself too seriously and is simply a fun, silly-minded, comic adventure. Audiences will likely chuckle and smile along with Elle’s adventures as she gets into one pickle after another, always determined to prove her intelligence.

To be clear, the film itself is very formulaic and could easily have been trivial and uninspired resulting in a bomb. But Witherspoon shines in the lead role adding a likable, charming quality to the character.

The actress possesses great wit and comic timing so that her character becomes more of a champion and we root for her to overcome obstacles and succeed.

By miles, she is the standout in the film.

Suspension of disbelief is at an all-time high. In “real life” there is no way Elle would ever make her way into the elitist Ivy League school brandishing a pink resume or other silly tricks to be cute and appealing.

Nor would she ever likely be so instrumental in winning a murder case so quickly. To nobody’s surprise, Elle eventually graduates with flying colors and is honored with giving a graduation speech inspiring those around her.

But as implausible as these situations are, they are also Legally Blondes’ appeal.

The supporting characters are pure caricatures, especially the main foils (Warner and Vivian- who take Elle’s place as fiancee). Both are the villains, Vivian going so far as to embarrass Elle by inviting her to a stuffy party under the guise of it being a costume party.

In the end, one of the characters “turns good”, another common element of predictable films of this nature. But again, the film is just pure and simple fun, so these stereotypes are okay.

In more modern times (not that 2001 was so long ago), the film would have not been directed by a man, but rather by a woman.

Screenwriters Kirsten Smith and Karen McCullah Lutz prepared a female-driven film that was based on a novel by Amanda Brown.

Why a man was chosen to direct is beyond me, but, alas, this is the way things were at the time.

Interestingly, another recent film that I reviewed, My Big Fat Greek Wedding (2002) would work perfectly as a now retro romantic comedy double feature along with Legally Blonde (2001).

Both are fun and light but also celebrate strong female characters.

Legally Blonde borrows much from the 1995 brilliant similar genre Clueless but is not as great as that film. Still, the film is an inspired effort due largely to the charms of its lead star.

My Big Fat Greek Wedding-2002

My Big Fat Greek Wedding-2002

Director Joel Zwick

Starring Nia Vardalos, John Corbett

Scott’s Review #806

Reviewed August 28, 2018

Grade: B+

My Big Fat Greek Wedding is a romantic comedy from 2002 that became a surprising sleeper hit at the time of release. A novel story idea, the film was even recognized with a Best Original Screenplay Oscar nomination.

The film achieved success the old-fashioned way by garnering word-of-mouth buzz despite little promotion.

Good-natured, earnest, and tender, the film was nonetheless marred by an abysmal sequel and short-lived television series- a lesson learned in leaving well enough alone.

Comedian Nia Vardalos reportedly wrote the story as a one-woman play and word of mouth among Hollywood A-list celebrities led to a film version starring Vardalos herself. This casting choice adds enormous authenticity as the writer’s vision shines through on-screen.

The film has a fresh and modern feel to it. Otherwise, the supporting cast is brilliant and perfectly selected. From handsome love interest John Corbett to veterans like Lainie Kazan and Andrea Martin, everyone plays their part to the hilt and seems to be having a ball with the comic elements.

Dowdy Toula Portokalos is a lonely thirty-year-old Greek woman, considered the black sheep of her family. Of traditional roots, she is expected to marry and bear children as quickly as possible.

Toula still lives at home and works in the family restaurant in bustling Chicago, yearning for something more out of life.

When she sees dashing school teacher Ian Miller (Corbett) in the restaurant one day, she makes an embarrassing attempt to catch his attention. Through a computer class, Toula blossoms and finally lands her man, but the drama is just beginning as the couples and their individual families’ differing cultures collide.

My Big Fat Greek Wedding is written very well and, again, the authenticity is what shines through in each scene. Admittedly, it often feels like a television sitcom and many scenes play for obvious laughs, but the laughs work. The funniest of these scenes is when Toula and Ian (now engaged) decide to invite his parents to dinner at her parent’s house.

Predictably, events go awry as his parents-conservative and reserved, do not mesh well with hers-festive and bombastic.

Vardalos and Corbett may not have the greatest chemistry in film history, but the build-up and the romance are so charming that we can overlook the lack of lustful vigor or the sexual tension between the pair.

The film feels more like a PG-rated Cinderella story than anything heavier. Predictably, the couple shares a happily-ever-after ending.

As much of a jewel as My Big Fat Greek Wedding was in 2002, the risk with a film of this nature is to hold up well over time. Specifically, in the romantic comedy genre, films of this ilk have a short relevant shelf-life (if deemed relevant at all).

The humorous Windex references may be lost on audiences over time or just become stale over the years.

Some can deem My Big Fat Greek Wedding (2002) as fluff- mainly based on the romantic comedy genre it exists in. But it’s of better worth than that, mainly because of the fresh and genuine use of culture and differing backgrounds.

The film has a quality that most of the standard “rom coms” do not possess, that of authenticity. Yes, it contains Greek stereotypes, but the overall vibe of the film is that of a sunny, fun, happy experience.

An uplifting film can sometimes be just what the doctor ordered.

Oscar Nominations: Best Original Screenplay

Independent Spirit Award Nominations: 1 win-Best Debut Performance- Nia Vardalos (won)

Black Panther-2018

Black Panther-2018

Director Ryan Coogler

Starring Chadwick Boseman, Michael B. Jordan

Scott’s Review #805

Reviewed August 23, 2018

Grade: B+

For the record, I am not a huge superhero fan nor an obsessive follower of the popular Marvel comic series. I see a handful of, but hardly any of this particular genre of film, usually those (if any) receiving year-end recognition.

Having heard many positives regarding Black Panther (2018) I was looking forward to something creative and left of center from the typical genre film.

While the film has some standard super-hero elements, the fact that most of the characters are ethnic is an enormous plus and worth the price of admission alone.

To elaborate further, admittedly Black Panther plays out like a superhero film is “supposed” to play out fight scenes, machismo, action, and villains, with the standard good versus evil storyline thrown in.

This is all well and good and will undoubtedly please the traditional Marvel comic book fan. However, the nuances that the screenwriters and director, Ryan Coogler sneak into the film are what sets it above a mediocre rating.

The fact that nearly all of the principal characters are black is tremendous, and the female black characters portrayed as strong is huge.

Furthermore, the visual treats of Africa, Korea, and multi-cultural clothing and colors are noteworthy. While I wish the actual story would have steered further away from the tried and true, I was left happy with the other qualities.

The film begins with a quick story of how one African nation, Wakanda, came to be and proudly brought into existence the first “Black Panther” with superpowers obtained from a special plant.

As the action moves to Oakland, California, circa 1992, we learn that the King of Wakanda is visiting his brother who works undercover.

Following the King’s death, his son T’Challa (Chadwick Boseman) takes over the throne but is soon challenged by his cousin, N’Jadakan (Michael B. Jordan), who deems himself the rightful heir to the throne.

Another subplot involving a black-market arms leader named Ulysses Klaue, leads T’Challa, along with Nakia (Lupita Nyong’o) and Okoye (Danai Gurira) to South Korea and back to Wakanda.

Black Panther feels ambitious to me- like seeing something of worth and something inventive and cool. The film is stylized and the direction that Coogler provides is spectacular, with bright, colorful, visual treats, especially as he features lavish African locales.

Admittedly, in a mainstream comic book film, laden with CGI effects, it is tough to know what is real or not real, but as a viewer, these aspects were a treat and pleasing to the eyes.

The plot of the film itself feels admittedly mediocre and tough to follow and a “been there done that” evaluation. By the same token, the story seems predictable, and is it any wonder that T’Challa will reclaim the throne as King of Wakanda?

After inevitable clashes with warrior-type men who want the throne and/or feel that they are the rightful heir to the throne, it does not matter too much.

This is not to say the film is not good, it is, but the plot is not the highlight of Black Panther, feeling fairly standard.

The male-female roles are an interesting study and progressive-minded. Granted the male characters (T’Challa, N’Jadaka, and M’Baku) are all testosterone-laden and fierce with machismo.

But despite being manly men they also contain some sensitivity and there is a unique family element to the characters.

On the other hand, the female characters are incredibly strong and empowering- a dynamic approach for a superhero film sure to be seen by millions. One female character is even an Army General! So the portrayal of women as strong warriors rather than merely secondary or arm candy is impressive.

The comic book or superhero genre is notoriously filled with gender stereotypes and specific, oftentimes generic aspects. With this work, it is nice to see some of these barriers broken down.

Between the recent Wonder Woman (2017) and Black Panther (2018), women and the black community have been represented positively.

Here’s to hoping that the LGBT community may be next.

Oscar Nominations: Best Picture, Best Original Score (won), Best Original Song-“All the Stars”, Best Sound Editing, Best Sound Mixing, Best Production Design (won), Best Costume Design (won)

12 Monkeys-1995

12 Monkeys-1995

Director Terry Gilliam

Starring Bruce Willis, Madeline Stowe, Brad Pitt

Scott’s Review #804

Reviewed August 21, 2018

Grade: B+

Bruce Willis stars in a 1995 science-fiction thriller named 12 Monkeys that is sure to confuse even the keenest of viewers. Containing a plot that is impossible to follow (at least with only one watch), the film is quite novel and filled with edge nonetheless.

With this film, Willis came into his own and proved to some naysayers that he is more versatile than a one-note action hero. He would develop even more as the years passed- think Sixth Sense (1999).

If I may begin to summarize the complex plot, 12 Monkeys is a film about time-travel (confusing enough), that traverses from the year 2035 to the year 1990, to the year 1996, with a bevy of dreams or memories thrown in, but I am still not crystal clear on that.

The time involved threw me for a loop and I was not able to comprehend where things shifted to……or was part of it a memory possessed by Willis’s character as a little boy?

Nonetheless, in 2035 James Cole (Willis) is a prisoner who is selected by “the powers that be” to go back in time to find a cure for a deadly virus that has wiped out a large part of the world. He is transported to the year 1990 instead of 1996 and lands in a psychiatric hospital, where he meets fanatical Jeffrey Goines (Brad Pitt).

Dr. Kathryn Railly (Madeleine Stowe) appears in both the 1990 and 1996 stories as a respected psychiatrist and author. Both she and Goines become central to the main plot and the story twists and turns as events move along.

The intention to make Willis and Stowe a romantic couple did not seem to quite work at first, but their chemistry grew on me. The duo never received a “happily ever after” finale as they deserved nor was their troubled romance ever fully realized to say nothing of consummated.

The flirtation and bond they share felt more like a tease than anything else, or rather, having two Hollywood heavyweights forge some sort of romance. Regardless, “romance” did not seem the point of this film.

Brad Pitt was nominated for the Best Supporting Actor Oscar award for the film. While he provides a quirky, showy style role (actually multiple roles or personalities), complete with tics resembling a Tourette syndrome patient, the role is not one of his best.

At this time (1995), Pitt was a rising star and the recognition helped him tremendously. But he seems slightly overact and makes the character too over-the-top.

I much prefer his more subdued work in Seven (released the same year), or future roles in Babel (2006) and Moneyball (2011).

Appealing in parts are the frequent exterior shots of the cities of Philadelphia and Baltimore, where the film is set. Treats include the Baltimore-Washington International Airport, Pennsylvania Convention Center, and Eastern State Penitentiary filming locations as well as numerous highway and bridge shots, which add tons of authenticity.

A major score for the film, and Alfred Hitchcock fans everywhere, is the incorporation of classic film clips, specifically the mysterious Vertigo (1958) into the story.

As Kathryn and James camp out in a rustic movie theater and disguise themselves as different people, they watch a marathon of Hitchcock films (as evidenced by the many titles on the marquee).

Clever is that the characters of James and Kathryn begin to mirror the actions of Vertigo characters Scottie and Judy.

Blondes anyone?

12 Monkeys (1995) does sort of come together after the film as the dreams/memories are laid out pretty clearly. As we have witnessed these sequences throughout, it leads to a semi-satisfying conclusion.

A bit of a beautiful mess, the film has clever tidbits and is well-acted, and the baring of both Willis’s and Pitt’s butts might get some additional viewers.

I think I need to watch the film again to perhaps understand and connect all of the dots better.

Oscar Nominations: Best Supporting Actor-Brad Pitt, Best Costume Design

The Hours-2002

The Hours-2002

Director Stephen Daldry

Starring Nicole Kidman, Julianne Moore, Meryl Streep

Scott’s Review #803

Reviewed August 17, 2018

Grade: A

The Hours (2002) is a film containing the ultimate in acting riches. With names like Nicole Kidman, Meryl Streep, and Julianne Moore associated with the film this is not surprising.

Not solely belonging to the ladies, however, Ed Harris, in particular, is dynamic in his role as are all the other males who appear in the film.

Told in three different sections in chronological order, but going back and forth, the stories all share connections via the novel Mrs. Dalloway, written by Virginia Woolf.

One of the best films of the decade!

Each segment of the film takes place within a single day, but decades apart. Wisely, director Stephen Daldry switches between the stories frequently leaving sort of a cliffhanger, making the drama more compelling and spicy.

In 1923, a depressed Virginia Woolf is portrayed by an unrecognizable Nicole Kidman in a role that won her the Best Actress Oscar.

Woolf resides outside of London and struggles to complete her novel amid nervous breakdowns and the watchful eye of her husband, who is aware of her mental pain.

In 1951, Laura Brown (Julianne Moore) seemingly has it all, living the “American Dream”. Residing in a nice neighborhood with a loving husband, she is pregnant with her second child, spending the days at home raising her young son, Richie, whom she is very close to yet does not understand.

After a fleeting lesbian dalliance with a neighbor, Laura goes off to a hotel with bottles of pills, intending to kill herself. She changes her mind after reading Woolf’s novel and dozing off, deciding instead to make a different decision.

Finally, in 2001, Clarissa (Meryl Streep), is bisexual and in a same-sex relationship. She lives with Richard (Harris), whom she dated in college, now the best of friends. He is gay, stricken with the AIDS virus, and close to committing suicide as he plans to jump out of a window.

This story (present times) is crucial to the film because it involves two characters from the 1951 story. These characters intersect with others in a touching and heart-wrenching way.

The greatest parts of The Hours are the brilliant acting and the richly written storytelling. Arguably, Kidman, Streep, and Moore all could have won Oscars for their performances, and I must mention that as brilliant as Kidman is (she is the sole Oscar recipient), and Streep is just universally good, I would have given the Oscar to Moore- the standout in my opinion.

Glamorous and intelligent, warm to her son, she makes a monumental and controversial decision. The character should not be sympathetic- yet she is. This is a testament to Moore’s infusing the character with confidence, reasonable thoughts, and even some empathy. We finally understand why she does what she does.

May I boast for a moment about Harris’s performance? Richard, once known as Richie as a kid (this will give something away), has lived a difficult life.

Abandoned, wounded, and suffering much loss, he is a tragic figure, pained beyond belief. His suffering is so monumental that we almost welcome his demise, and Harris offers so much of himself in this difficult role. He is both physically and emotionally hurt and Harris portrays this in spades.

Uniquely, all three stories work independently of each other. Yes, characters from one appear in another, but they are like well-crafted vignettes. Similarly, they each begin with breakfast, then involve the planning of a party or celebration of some sort, and culminate in sadness.

Yet, the film does not feel like a downer or preachy in any way, but rather, good, solid, humanistic story-telling, which I adore.

Sure, the film is considered a drama, but it also contains multiple gay or bisexual characters and therefore must be included in the chambers of LGBT filmmaking.

With an A-list cast, the film helps lead the charge (successfully so) to bring more rich LGBT films to center stage and garner mainstream audiences.

The great aspect of The Hours is that it is a mainstream film- a good solid drama.

Based on a Pulitzer Prize-winning novel by Michael Cunningham, The Hours (2002) does not try to draw parallels with each story or necessarily connect them in an obvious fashion.

Rather, the film version provokes thought both with LGBT and feminist approaches. Each female central character lives in a world run by men, as Woolf argues in her novel.

The film brilliantly adapts the novel and brings it to large audiences in a fantastic, riveting fashion.

Oscar Nominations: 1 win-Best Picture, Best Director-Stephen Daldry, Best Actress-Nicole Kidman (won), Best Supporting Actor-Ed Harris, Best Supporting Actress-Julianne Moore, Best Adapted Screenplay, Best Original Score, Best Costume Design, Best Film Editing

BlacKkKlansman-2018

BlacKkKlansman-2018

Director-Spike Lee

Starring-John David Washington, Adam Driver

Scott’s Review #802

Reviewed August 14, 2018

Grade: A

Spike Lee’s latest offering, BlacKkKlansman (2018) is a brilliant effort and oh so timely in the tumultuous political climate in the United States circa 2018.

Despite the film being set in the early 1970s, the racial issues and tensions that Lee examines are sadly still an enormous problem in present times. Lee infuses some humor and even romance into the drama so the film is not too preachy or heavy.

A grand and relevant effort that should be watched by all.

As the film commences, we are treated to a clip from the 1939 classic film Gone With the Wind and BlacKkKlansman concludes with prominent clips of racial tensions circa 2017.

The timeline is extremely important and powerful as the point of the film is made abundantly clear that racism is still alive and well.

Lee, a known liberal, puts a clear left spin on his work- BlacKkKlansman will likely not be seen by conservative filmgoers and this is sad as valuable lessons learned can be achieved by viewing this piece.

The story is based on a true story memoir written by Ron Stallworth, the first black police officer to be hired by the Colorado Springs police department. He successfully infiltrates the local chapter of the Ku Klux Klan with startling results.

The film begins with a speech by a doctor (Alec Baldwin) offering a “scientific explanation” of white superiority in 1957. Fast-forward to the early 1970s where the rest of the film takes place.

Ron is initially hired by the police force as a progressive initiative for diversity, but quickly moves into a detective role as he manages to pose as a KKK member via telephone while another detective, Flip Zimmerman (Adam Driver) goes to meetings in person.

Lee’s focus is clearly on the overall content and message of the film and therefore little character development is achieved. I admittedly did yearn to know the “how’s” and the “why’s” of many of the characters, but the film is not really about the characters individually and I am okay with this.

Why did Ron desire so much to become a police officer? What was his childhood like? How did Patrice become President of the black student union? What was her childhood like? What upbringings did some of the KKK members have?

Certainly, enough time would not have been allowed to answer all of these questions. Small gripe.

Lead actor John David Washington, son of Denzel Washington, unknown to me before watching this film, is tremendous in his role. As is Driver in his supporting role of Zimmerman, but again these are not character-driven roles.

Washington has tremendous chemistry with his love interest, played by Laura Harrier. Ron and Patrice discuss politics and dance the night away, but she is an activist and a cop making their chances of happily ever after tough to imagine. Their romance is atypical of most films as it is based on intelligence and not silly, melodramatic aspects.

On the acting front, Topher Grace as the racist David Duke is tremendous. With a kindly demeanor mixed with a bubbling under the hatred of blacks and Jewish people, Lee makes certain he is the foil.

A delicious scene towards the end of the film when Duke gets his comeuppance of sorts is well done and received a thunderous roar from the theater audience.

Lee is careful to make sure the bad guys all get their just due and are all portrayed as complete fools. With a false sense of nationalism, many hate minorities simply because they feel they are taking over their beloved country.

Not to harp on this, but BlacKkKlansman will attract those who already agree with Lee’s beliefs and politics. If only those who disagree would give the film a chance. Unlikely.

The final five minutes of BlacKkKlansman arguably is the most pivotal experience of the entire film but has nothing to do with the actual story portrayed in the rest of the production.

Lee concludes the 1970’s portion of the film in a satisfying fashion, then fast forwards to the horrific events that took place in Charlottesville, Virginia in 2017 when protesters clashed with a racist group resulting in an innocent woman’s death.

The controversial remarks of President Trump- refusing to cast blame on the racist group are shown. Sitting in a crowded movie theater, these clips had the biggest reaction from the audience with some flipping Trump the finger, while others sobbed in anguish and disbelief that we have achieved so little as a nation.

Rarely ever a  more pertinent or meaningful film for the current political climate the United States is experiencing, BlacKkKlansman (2018) brilliantly ties racism spanning one hundred and fifty years and shows how it still exists.

Amid this message, however, lies a great drama containing humor and importance.

Oscar Nominations: Best Picture, Best Director-Spike Lee, Best Supporting Actor-Adam Driver, Best Adapted Screenplay (won), Best Original Score, Best Film Editing

Mystic River-2003

Mystic River-2003

Director Clint Eastwood

Starring Sean Penn, Tim Robbins

Scott’s Review #801

Reviewed August 10, 2018

Grade: A

Mystic River (2003) is a film that I consider to be the second-best offering directed by Clint Eastwood.

Along with Million Dollar Baby (2004), Eastwood successfully creates two compelling back-to-back dramas, not too dissimilar from each other.

He was unquestionably the “it” director of the early 2000s, and with Mystic River, helms a gritty, mystery drama with a stellar cast, nuts-and-bolts storytelling, and enough twists and turns to keep the audience guessing and ultimately shocked.

All of these pieces result in a memorable experience.

The film is based on the novel of the same name, written by Dennis Lehane. A tremendous element is a locale of Boston, and an Irish, blue-collar/working-class theme, prevalent throughout the story.

Thanks to the cinematography, illuminating a grey and stormy look, enhances the rest of the film. I adore films shot in and around Boston as so much culture and flavor are provided.

Eastwood hardly misses a beat with some cold and grizzled touches that play into the hardships and struggles of the character’s everyday lives.

The story itself begins as we meet the central characters (Jimmy, Dave, and Sean) as young boys, a three musketeers-type scenario where they are like blood brothers. After an incident occurs where Dave is accosted by men and sexually abused, he is ultimately rescued after four torturous days, but his life is never the same.

Fast forward twenty-five years and the boys are now men, still living in a working-class Boston neighborhood. Each is now married, their lives have moved on, drifted away from each other, and contain vastly different personality types.

They reunite after a tragedy occurs.

For starters, a major win by Eastwood is the casting of each of the male characters. Sean Penn plays Jimmy, the volatile ex-con, who runs a small store, while Sean, played by Kevin Bacon, has become a Massachusetts State Police officer, putting him directly at odds with Jimmy.

Sadly, Dave (Tim Robbins), now lives a quiet life, still harboring trauma, shame, and guilt from his childhood experience. When Jimmy’s daughter (Emmy Rossum) is brutally murdered, the three friends’ lives are intertwined as they search for the killer taking the viewers down a dark path filled with secrets, some from the past.

Laura Linney and Marcia Gay Harden give tremendous performances as Jimmy’s and Dave’s wives, respectively.

Mystic River is a film where all of the great elements come together perfectly. From the acting to the components of the story to the whodunit involved, to the exciting twist and conclusion to the overall film are truly exceptional.

But what sets it apart from a standard drama or thriller are the characterizations and relationships among these characters.

Childhood memories can last a lifetime in their monumental importance and this is evidenced many times between Jimmy, Dave, and Sean. Blood brothers, yes, but when tragedy strikes, old wounds and fresh wounds together run deep.

The themes of violence and revenge are firm staples of this film, and these are commonalities for many Eastwood films. Viewers may also find themselves conflicted with whom to sympathize with or where their allegiances should lie.

Jimmy, the anti-hero, will garner sympathy for the vicious loss of his daughter- pain that can never be fully healed.

Did Dave, the obvious prime suspect, kill the girl? If so, was it on purpose or by accident? Are others, specifically his wife, involved in a cover-up? Eastwood carves the setup spectacularly, but is it a simple red herring? These events make the film unbelievably compelling.

Fabulous is the performances all around, but especially by Penn and Robbins, both awarded with Oscar wins for Best Actor and Best Supporting Actor, respectively.

Penn never delivers poor performance, but Jimmy is one of his best characters yet. As for Robbins, he fills the character of Dave with empathy- a wounded bird left damaged through no fault of his own, suffering a terrible fate due to circumstances, misunderstandings, and ultimately tragedy.

Mystic River (2003) watched alongside Million Dollar Baby (2004) would make for an excellent Saturday night for fans of Clint Eastwood’s directorial talents. These two are the best of the best with great character development and rich writing.

The direction, however, enhances the spectacular elements and takes it a bit further providing appropriate texture and a wonderful atmosphere.

Oscar Nominations: 2 wins-Best Picture, Best Director-Clint Eastwood, Best Actor-Sean Penn (won), Best Supporting Actor-Tim Robbins (won), Best Supporting Actress-Marcia Gay Harden, Best Adapted Screenplay

The Polar Express-2004

The Polar Express-2004

Director Robert Zemeckis

Starring Tom Hanks

Scott’s Review #800

Reviewed August 8, 2018

Grade: B+

The Polar Express (2004) is a modern entry into the annals of holiday film history. Along with treasures like Rudolph, Frosty, the Grinch, and all the other standards, this film has become a popular one to watch throughout the season.

The film is not exactly like the others, since it is the first of its kind to incorporate live human characters animated using live-action motion capture animation.

The mood of the film is mysterious, edgy, and with a dark tint, so jolly it isn’t, but compelling it is, and visually is a marvel.

The story is as follows- on a snowy (naturally!) Christmas Eve, a young boy living in Grand Rapids, Michigan, is doubtful of the existence of Santa Claus. When a steam locomotive suddenly appears outside of his house, he curiously boards the train to find a mysterious conductor (Tom Hanks) manning the train.

As the train rolls away the boy meets two other children on board and stops for another one, also reluctant to get on. They begin a dazzling, frozen adventure to the North Pole with the promise of receiving the first gift of Christmas from Santa Claus himself.

The main reason to recommend The Polar Express is simply for the gorgeous visual treats offered. In 2004 the film was a unique experience and I fondly recall sitting in a dark movie theater observing the film for the first time.

There was a magical element to the surroundings, combining intrigue and fantasy that still holds up well.

For adults, I do not think the film is at all scary, but I have heard some reviewers complain that the moody ingredients are a bit frightening for children so there is that concern. 

A major component is the mixture of human beings and animated tools. The familiar actor who everybody knows is Tom Hanks as the conductor. Therefore, to sit back and observe the character is a wonderful thing- is it Tom Hanks or is it an animation?

It is ultimately both, but the fun is in the observation and wondering how the filmmakers created this experience.

And listen for Hanks in other voice performances throughout the film. 

The story (or fable) itself is warm and fairly predictable. But, of course, being largely made with kids in mind, this is to be expected. There is never a doubt that the boy (interestingly never given a name) will ultimately believe in Santa after all and live happily ever after.

The magic is in the details, though- the boy’s journey to this realization is peppered with fun and creative richness- the little girl’s floating ticket and an ornament falling off a Christmas tree are good particulars. 

Director, Robert Zemeckis, and Hanks worked closely together in Forrest Gump (1994) so the pair are familiar with each other, creatively speaking. Hanks undoubtedly had much input into the decision making and it shows. 

I do not personally rank The Polar Express (2004) among the best of the best holiday film offerings, but I support an occasional dusting off of this work for viewing pleasure.

Perhaps over time the animations may become dated or seem less dazzling, but the film is still to be appreciated for its creative elements. The story is nothing spectacular (in a way Scrooge for kids) but makes for a pleasant family viewing experience. 

Oscar Nominations: Best Song-“Believe”, Best Sound Editing, Best Sound Mixing

Crash-2005

Crash-2005

Director Paul Haggis

Starring Matt Dillon, Thandie Newton, Don Cheadle

Scott’s Review #799

Reviewed August 3, 2018

Grade: A-

A superior film that has unfortunately suffered greatly after controversy, Crash (2005) is a story of intersecting vignettes all interrelated.

The controversy stems from the film’s very surprising Oscar win over the heavily favored Brokeback Mountain. Many thought the latter was a shoo-in, poised to set the LGBT genre ahead of the game.

Sadly, now when Crash is discussed by film lovers, it’s usually in tandem with Brokeback, and usually on the heels of its having stolen the Oscar crown.

On its own merits, the film excels as a social story exploring the many facets of race, racism, and bigotry.

The events in Crash take place within one thirty-six-hour day in metropolitan Los Angeles. Featuring a slew of characters that would even impress Robert Altman, the audience witnesses situations involving many races and backgrounds.

We meet Rick and Jean Cabot (Brendan Fraser and Sandra Bullock), a white affluent couple who are carjacked when driving home from dinner. The black men who carjack the couple then strike a Korean man and bring him to the hospital.

A racist police officer, John Ryan (Matt Dillon), cares for his troubled father who cannot afford insurance. A Persian father and daughter wish to buy a gun for protection, and a Hispanic father (Michael Pena) worries about a rash of drive-by shootings.

The stories go on and on as a myriad of the characters come into situations involving other characters.

The interconnecting stories all cascade into overlapping situations of interest. The point of Haggis’s film is racism but with a creative twist.

The director points out and shows that those who are racist have good qualities too and those who are discriminated against in turn discriminate against others themselves.

The most interesting character is Dillon’s, John Ryan. On the surface a racist, wise-ass, who in one scene embarrasses an affluent light-skinned black woman (Thandie Newton), simply because he carries a gun, then ends up saving her life in a horrific car accident.

But is he redeemed? Does he see the world as black people getting ahead and he is left behind? What about the Persian man, discriminated against, but then vowing revenge on a Hispanic man after a misunderstanding?

The black men who carjack the white couple then release a group of immigrants who will surely be sold, perhaps even for sex trafficking. Does this act make the men good?

The point that Haggis makes is that each character is neither all good nor all bad, but rather complicated and nuanced with emotions based on past experiences and discrimination themselves.

Crash is highly similar to Traffic (2000) and Babel (2006) in terms of pace, style, and the way the stories align. The film is different, however, in that the location is strictly confined to Los Angeles, making the setting of monumental importance.

How would events be different in a setting like Middle America? Or in a different country? These possibilities are worth contemplating based on the perception that Los Angeles is one of the most diverse cities in the United States. If racism occurs there it can occur anywhere.

Now more about that pesky Oscar controversy! In later years critics would largely agree that the inferior film had won that year and Brokeback Mountain lost due to a level of homophobia on the part of the voting academy.

Since the academy is filled with Hollywood liberals, albeit of an older generation, an alternative way of thinking is that perhaps Crash won because it was the “safer” film.

Everyone seems to have forgotten the other three nominated films that year. Alas, Crash is permanently marred for winning Best Picture. It would undoubtedly have more supporters had it lost.

Ranked as one of the lowest-scoring Best Picture winners, I still believe Crash has some worth- though I agree that it should not have won over Brokeback Mountain.

Taken on its own merits the film is quite good. A message film with great atmosphere, it succeeds in making the viewer think and ponder perhaps their discrimination, whether conscious or subconscious.

The ensemble acting and character representations are all very good and worthy of a second watch.

Oscar Nominations: 3 wins-Best Picture (won), Best Director-Paul Haggis, Best Supporting Actor-Matt Dillon, Best Original Screenplay (won), Best Original Song-“In the Deep”, Best Film Editing (won)

Independent Spirit Award Nominations: 2 wins-Best Supporting Male-Matt Dillon (won), Best First Feature (won)

Million Dollar Baby-2004

Million Dollar Baby-2004

Director Clint Eastwood

Starring Clint Eastwood, Hilary Swank, Morgan Freeman

Scott’s Review #798

Reviewed August 2, 2018

Grade: A

Million Dollar Baby (2004) is arguably Clint Eastwood’s best-directed film of his career.

Rivaling Mystic River (2003) by a hair, the film has a raw emotional appeal, empathetic and richly carved characters and mainstream sensibility.

These combined elements resulted in huge box office success and Oscar wins for Picture, Director, Actress, and Supporting Actor in the year of its release.

Frankie Dunn (Clint Eastwood) is a hardened boxing coach who owns a run-down Los Angeles gym. He works with his best friend and assistant, Eddie (Morgan Freeman). When an aspiring female boxer, Maggie (Hilary Swank), arrives and begs Frankie to train her, he initially declines, but at Eddie’s urging, eventually relents and leads her to great success as a top female boxer.

Frankie and Maggie forge a close-knit, father/daughter relationship, a substitute for the damaged one he has with his daughter.

The final portion of Million Dollar Baby takes a very dark turn, as Maggie is illegally punched during a fight by a fellow boxer, causing her to become a quadriplegic. These events are what change the tone of the film from a very good sports drama to a great tale of morality.

Many emotions and debates transpired after this film was released and the common question of, “What would you have done?” engulfed viewers for months, all through awards season.

The heartbreaking effects of the story events raise the film head and shoulders above most typical sports films.

Too often Eastwood creates films that are palpable, but in a way generic, and very Hollywood. Grand Torino (2008) and Invictus (2009) are good examples of this- especially Invictus given the sports drama element.

Some assumed that Million Dollar Baby was to be a female Rocky (1976) and the film was indeed marketed as such. For this reason, some felt robbed or duped, but I celebrate this film as leaning a firm left of center with a refreshing, progressive approach.

The performances are amazing all around, even by Eastwood- never known for his acting talent. The characters are written as character-driven, but not caricatures. Wounded, grizzled, and flawed, in his senior years, Frankie sees his life has passed him by, having achieved nothing.

Never has Eastwood portrayed a character as complex and reserved as Frankie.

Swank deserved her second Oscar (1999’s Boys Don’t Cry was her first) for simply becoming a boxer- her pre-filming prep schedule reportedly was insane. More than the muscle and toning she achieved, are the raw acting talent and wounded emotions she possesses.

The character is written as pained and vulnerable, but also very strong. She has achieved little in her life- working as a waitress in Missouri and stealing scraps of leftovers to survive. Her family is trash through and through, only wanting her eventual riches for themselves.

The character is inevitably championed as we empathize with her plight emotionally.

Finally, Freeman deserves recognition for being the ultimate supporting actor. Eddie Dupris, a former fighter blind in one eye, is the center point of the story and frequently narrates the actions of others, oftentimes offering a glimpse into the psyche of individuals.

The voice of reason, he is observant and analytical, almost knowing Freddie better than Freddie knows himself. They quarrel and disagree, but are forever friends and loyal to a fault. Freeman possesses quite a reserve as the audience becomes curious about his past life.

Million Dollar Baby (2004) is Eastwood’s best film- Mystic River comes a close second, however. A seemingly formulaic story and genre are weaved into a web of humanism, emotions, and power.

The film is about the characters, which makes it succeed.

Eastwood has not been able to quite surpass this beautiful story, but thankfully received dripping praise and accolades for a film not soon forgotten.

Oscar Nominations: 4 wins-Best Picture (won), Best Director-Clint Eastwood (won), Best Actor-Clint Eastwood, Best Actress-Hilary Swank (won), Best Supporting Actor-Morgan Freeman (won), Best Adapted Screenplay, Best Film Editing

Mamma Mia! Here We Go Again-2018

Mamma Mia! Here We Go Again-2018

Director-Ol Parker

Starring-Lily James, Amanda Seyfried

Scott’s Review #797

Reviewed July 31, 2018

Grade: B+

My expectations for Mamma Mia! Here We Go Again (2018) was not lofty was I anticipating drivel. I expected (and was in the mood for) a summer popcorn musical flick with fun, dancing, and little in the way of analysis or requiring too much thought.

I can proudly say that my expectations were fulfilled with this film- it delivers what the intent is and sometimes that is exactly what the doctor ordered.

The film is enthusiastic and lively, with the musical numbers serving as the standouts.

In an immediate plot twist, it is revealed that the main character Donna (Meryl Streep) has died a year earlier and her daughter Sophie (Amanda Seyfried) is planning a lavish reopening of her hotel on the beaches of Greece.

The film serves as both a sequel and a prequel as events also go back to 1979 when a young Donna (Lily James) graduates from college and embarks on a journey to “find herself”. She travels extensively and meets her three beaus (anyone who saw the 2008 original will be familiar with this plot) and the film is great at connecting the events of both films in a pleasing way.

Mamma Mia! Here We Go Again is hardly high art and not intended to be. It is a bit sub-par to the original if truth be told as some of the musical numbers are “secondary” ABBA songs. The biggest hits were used in the 2008 film.

The overall plot feels a bit forced and not exactly compelling drama either- especially since we know what the eventual result of Donna’s relationships will be. The story seems geared towards a bombastic finish.

But the sheer fact that the song and dances are interspersed throughout the film makes it enjoyable enough.

The film plays more like someone’s fantasy than a real-life sequence and liberties must certainly be taken.  Everything always seems to go Donna’s way and events merely fall into place- if only real life were that way!

The introduction of Donna’s mother (Sophie’s grandmother) – explained to be a rich and famous singer residing in Las Vegas, is a way to add the legendary Cher to the story. Disappointing, the star does not appear until the end of the film, more like a cameo appearance.

This leads me to the best parts of the film, which occur during the final thirty minutes. As Sophie’s grand hotel reopening party comes to fruition (a devastating storm thrown into the story is purely for dramatic effect), all details fall into place in magical form.

Hundreds of party guests show up, Donna’s beaus reunite, and the aforementioned absentee grandmother (Ruby) makes a grand entrance via helicopter (in stiletto heels naturally). In this way, the grand finale is superior to the rest of the film.

Cher, still looking gorgeous at age seventy-two, is the pure highlight of the film and it kicks into high gear when she appears. Considering all of the hype and press surrounding a film reunion between Cher and Meryl Streep- they starred together in 1983’s Silkwood- it should come as no real surprise that Streep’s deceased Donna makes an appearance.

The two best scenes come at the end of Mamma Mia! Here We Go Again! As much as the lavish Cher demands the grand finale in terms of glamour and song, it is Streep’s touching duet with Sophie that will bring tears to the viewer’s eyes and capture the emotional element of the film.

As Streep and Seyfried churn out a gorgeous rendition of “My Love, My Life”, the mother/daughter relationship between the actresses is lovely and will fondly remind audiences of the chemistry in the 2008 film.

In regards to Cher, the revelation that Ruby is a long-lost lover of the hotel manager, Fernando (Andy Garcia), is sweet and romantic. Despite limited screen time, the duo shares wonderful on-screen chemistry, so much so that I yearned to know the back story of their relationship.

Do we only know that they were madly in love in 1959? Why did it not work out?  Regardless, Cher’s version of the song “Fernando” is both appropriate and enchanting.

Mamma Mia! Here We Go Again (2018) is a summer film sure to please audiences eager for a fluffy musical.

With bright and cheerful Greek island locales, lavish oceans, and bombastic feel-good pop sensibilities, this film was marketed well and shares enough connection with 2008’s Mamma Mia! to enrapture and please audiences who enjoyed the first version.

Babette’s Feast-1987

Babette’s Feast-1987

Director Gabriel Axel

Starring Stéphane Audran

Scott’s Review #796

Reviewed July 27, 2018

Grade: A

Babette’s Feast (1987) is a pure delight for any viewer who is a foodie, particularly of stylish French cuisine.

In fact, during the final thirty minutes or so I was salivating with pleasure as a final multiple-course meal was presented before me. The film is rich with “flavor” and tells a wonderful tale of self-sacrifice, benevolence, and good human nature.

The film won the Oscar for Best Foreign Language Film- the very first Danish film to do so.

Adapted from a 1958 short story, Babette’s Feast tells of two elderly and deeply religious Protestant sisters, Martine (Birgitte Federspiel) and Phillipa (Bodil Kjer), who exist in a small village in Denmark.

The sisters have lived there all their lives and, through flashbacks, it is revealed that each had an opportunity for romance with men decades earlier, as young and fresh young ladies. Each resisted the temptation due to the deeply religious beliefs of their disapproving father.

When a delightful French woman, Babette (Stephane Audran), appears on their doorstep with a note from Phillipa’s potential beau, the kindly women take her in.

Babette is a refugee fleeing Paris and offers to serve as the sister’s housekeeper. Babette is filled with life and a passion for cooking and art- largely contrasting the townspeople, who frequently shun pleasures and harbor reserved and repressed feelings for joy.

When Babette wins the lottery and is assumed to depart back to Paris, she instead offers to make the town a lavish, classic french meal.

The film is a pure treat, especially in the final act when Babette decides to prepare an exquisite meal. This is the true highlight of the film and the menu simply must be listed below to wholly appreciate the film.

As each course is served, the film depicts the cooking process, as spices, salts, wines, and reductions are featured, so much so that we wonder, who made such a gorgeous meal when filming transpired? Audran, known to be a gourmet, must have adored this fabulous and creative role!

In order, Babette’s delicious feast consists of turtle soup served with Amontillado sherry, buckwheat pancakes with caviar and sour cream served with Veuve Cliquot Champagne, quail in a puff pastry shell with foie gras and truffle sauce served with Clos de Vougeot Pinot Noir, an endive salad, rum sponge cake with figs and candied cherries served with Champagne, assorted cheeses and fruits served with Sauternes, coffee with Vieux marc Grande Champagne Cognac.

My mouth is watering and my stomach growling as I write this!

Wisely and poignantly, the film heralds the return of Martine’s longtime admirer, Swedish officer Lorens, who escorts his elderly aunt to the dinner. The other dozen or so dinner guests agree not to fuss or voice any reactions to the meal, but Lorens is different.

With each serving, he comments in explicit detail the pleasures of the tastes and fondly recollects an experience with each course. He speaks for the rest of the guests as we see their reactions and the pleasures they exhibit non-verbally.

Tenderly, Lorens confessed that he had never forgotten Martine, and she the same for him. Despite not having seen nor heard from each other in decades, their connection has never wavered, and thus have spent their lives as one.

What a lovely and powerful scene this is and adds romanticism and elegance to the overall film.

The lighting is effective as many scenes seem to bask in an illuminating glow. The whimsical village is well lit with many soft or muted scenes exuding elegance and grace in the tiny living community.

The costumes and styles are meaningful and make the period of the 1800’s realistic. This adds a tremendous amount to the look and texture of Babette’s Feast.

The overall themes of Babette’s Feast (1987) are ones of kindness, forgiveness, enjoyment, and honesty. The characteristics are brought to life by the characters in the film, rich with flavor and taste, and all experienced through the importance and pleasures of food.

What a magnificent piece of film making this work is and the enormity of riches through good dining.

Oscar Nominations: 1 win-Best Foreign Language Film (won)

Transamerica-2005

Transamerica-2005

Director Duncan Tucker

Starring Felicity Huffman, Kevin Zegers

Scott’s Review #795

Reviewed July 25, 2018

Grade: A

Transamerica (2005) is a brave and topical independent drama effort. By 2005 the LGBT genre was in full force with a multitude of similarly themed films gracing silver screens everywhere.

One prominent mainstream production (Brokeback Mountain-2005) was in theaters everywhere. So in a year celebrating diversity, how wonderful and touching to witness a film focused on a transgender woman come into play.

Mixing drama with some needed humor, the film succeeds in large part because it does not take itself too seriously, never becoming too preachy, it merely tells a story. The film’s brilliant casting of Felicity Huffman in the role of a pre-op male to a female transsexual is a success as the decision to cast a female rather than a male in the important role pays off in spades.

The premise allows for a story of both adventure and humor as the film mixes an important issue.

A transgender woman, Bree (Huffman) decides to go on a road trip with her long-lost son, Toby (Kevin Zegers). The intrigue is that Toby is unaware that Bree is both transgender and his father, the fun coming by way of the relationship between the individuals. Adding to the setup is that a week before Bree’s scheduled operation, she has no idea who Toby is.

Encouraged by her therapist, Bree decides to throw caution to the wind and travel to pick up her son- however, does not realize that Bree (being transgender) is his real father. Talk about complicated material!

I love the overall message of the film; the theme being one of self-discovery and a personal journey toward happiness. These qualities do not only apply to Bree but also to Toby. Being a teenage boy, abused and neglected, he has his share of issues, which the film does not skirt over.

The areas of male prostitution and gay porn are featured and the film does its best not to shy away from these sensitive matters.

Therefore, even though the tone of the film is light and more of a coming-of-age story, there are underlying painful emotions suffered by the characters. This makes their bonding easier and more fulfilling.

Without a doubt, the film belongs to Huffman, who was honored with a Best Actress Oscar nomination. No offense to that year’s winner (Reese Witherspoon for Walk the Line (2005), but the rightful owner of the statuette should be Huffman.

The actress simply comes out of nowhere and slays this role. Known for playing a different type of role on the hit television series, ABC’s Desperate Housewives, Bree is in a different league entirely.

Huffman possesses strength, vulnerability, and sarcasm, while physically undertaking a transformation that makes her both feminine and masculine while not becoming a “joke.” All of this she pours into the character.

Transamerica (2005) is an unconventional film that on the surface feels mainstream, like many other road trip films made over the years. With a twist and thus a breath of fresh air considering the importance and relevance of the time-released, the film should be championed.

When combined with the tremendous performance by Huffman, the film is a heavyweight and should be viewed and celebrated for its influence.

Oscar Nominations: Best Actress-Felicity Huffman, Best Original Song-“Travelin’ Thru”

Independent Spirit Award Nominations: 2 wins-Best Female Lead-Felicity Huffman (won), Best First Screenplay (won), Best First Feature

The Dead Girl-2006

The Dead Girl-2006

Director Karen Moncrieff

Starring Brittany Murphy, Toni Collette

Scott’s Review #794

Reviewed July 24, 2018

Grade: A

The Dead Girl (2006) is a unique independent drama with a moody, gloomy underbelly, and is quite the downer, however is also a masterpiece.

Reminiscent of David Lynch’s Mulholland Drive (2001), the remote and dark setting perfectly counter-balances the traditional image of sunny California as a young woman’s murder is discovered.

Writer and director, Karen Moncrieff spins a delicious tale in the mysterious and sinister.

Moncrieff, (a former daytime television actress), wisely carves the film into five chapters- each focusing on a different character. The clever approach, since at first it seems as if the stories are independent of each other, is all intertwined.

The mystery of who the woman is, why she was killed, and other major questions come into play as the chapters unfold. To twist the drama even further, one of the chapters is revealed to be a complete red herring.

The five chapters are each compelling in their way.

Chapter one focuses on Arden (Toni Collette) and her relationship with her abusive mother- deliciously played by Piper Laurie. Arden has a love interest in Rudy (Giovanni Ribisi), who she confides in when she discovers the “Dead Girl”.

The film then moves to various other chapters entitled “The Sister”, “The Wife”, “The Mother”, and finally “The Dead Girl”, which is from the perspective of the murder victim when final clues are revealed.

The last chapter is the best and most heartbreaking in my opinion.

The casting is just wonderful as a myriad of top talents appear in the film. With low-budget independent films, especially before 2006, finding big stars willing to accept little pay was quite difficult.

Moncrieff, however, scores big with the actors cast in her film.

Mainly an all-female cast, talents like Collette, Laurie, Mary Beth Hurt, Brittany Murphy, and Marcia Gay Harden round out the all-star cast. Names like these could fill up a Hollywood marquee let alone a small indie like The Dead Girl.

Speaking of Murphy, this may be the very best role of her career. Sadly, meeting death shortly after this film, she gives a mesmerizing performance in the title role- also known as Krista.

With heavy, gothic-style makeup, her character is vulnerable, having had a difficult childhood and struggling to send an enormous teddy bear to her daughter on her birthday.

Tragically, events do not go as planned for Krista, but what a bravura performance by Murphy.

The overall tone of the film is a great achievement and key to its success.  The film is small and does not need explosions, car chases, or police banter to achieve the message it relays.

The Dead Girl is a quiet film about struggles, decisions, and wounded characters dealing with the life that they have been given the best they can.

The mysterious identities of the characters and the loneliness and lack of identity of some of the characters make me think Moncrieff was at least somewhat inspired by Lynch’s Mulholland Drive.

Not quite as oddball as the former, but more of a downer, The Dead Girl shows elements by way of unusual characters and a melancholy vibe.

The latter focuses more on a serial killer subject matter.

Being a huge proponent of the genre of independent film (think modern 1970s films with directors who have a clear vision), The Dead Girl is an enormous achievement.

Despite a handful of Independent Spirit Award nominations, I still feel the film is under-appreciated and a decade later is largely forgotten, if anyone knew about it, to begin with.

Let’s hope that enough young, aspiring filmmakers were inspired by Moncrieff and what she created with The Dead Girl (2006).

Independent Spirit Award Nominations: Best Feature, Best Director-Karen Moncrieff, Best Supporting Female-Mary Beth Hurt