All posts by scottmet99

A Passage to India-1984

A Passage to India-1984

Director David Lean

Starring Judy Davis, Peggy Ashcroft

Scott’s Review #971

Reviewed December 24, 2019

Grade: A-

David Lean, famous for his sweeping, masterpiece epics including Lawrence of Arabia (1962) and Doctor Zhivago (1965), returns with his swan song, a grandiose and lavish film, A Passage to India (1984).

Though not quite on the same level as the two other mentions, the brilliant cinematography alone makes this one a winner.

The story is compelling with a mystery and he said/she said rape story that deepens, exploring racism and religion, assuredly switching viewer allegiances between characters.

A Passage to India is based on the famous E.M. Forster novel from 1924. Along with A Room with a View (1908) and Howards End (1910), the three make up a series that examines class differences and hypocrisy among the British.

All three are set at least partially in England and were all adapted to film with immeasurable success. While the film is potent and meaningful, it is the least brilliant of the three, but only by a hair.

Set in the 1920s, the British had control over India causing some tensions in the air. Adela Quested (Judy Davis) sails from England to India with Mrs. Moore (Peggy Ashcroft), the mother of her intended bridegroom, whom they plan to see when they arrive at their destination.

The women have a wonderful relationship and excitedly anticipate their adventure.

After Mrs. Moore meets the kindly Dr. Aziz Ahmed (Victor Banerjee), becoming enamored and enraptured, the women accompany him to an exploration of ancient caves, along with a guide.

When Adela and Ahmed are left alone, she suddenly appears frantic, accusing the Indian Doctor of attempted rape, setting off a blistering scandal that causes public debate and divides the townspeople, culminating in a trial.

The story is naturally the focal point of the film, but not the strongest part. At first left aghast at the accusations hurled at Aziz, by all appearances a wonderful man, the intention is for the viewer to be unclear of what transpires when Aziz and Adela are alone. The events, if any exist, take place off-screen, so we only see a disheveled Adela flee the caves in panic.

The rest is left to the viewer’s imagination and to wonder what happened. As the truth is eventually revealed, we wonder about the intended motivations and the ramifications the accusations will have on the central characters.

The film is successful at interestingly discussing racism and assumptions, leading major characters to disagree. Adela and Mrs. Moore wind up at odds after the events, with Moore refusing to believe Aziz did anything wrong.

This is a bold stance to take as the women are good friends and we would assume one would support the other. While Moore is liberal and open-minded, Adela is conservative and buttoned-up, making the ideological differences clearer.

Did Adela imagine the attack? Did somebody else attack her?

The cinematography is brilliant and the pure excellence of the film is. The plentiful exterior scenes are delectable and simmer with beauty within each frame. Since many of them take place in the grandiose mountains or caves the results are exquisite.

One can easily sit back and revel in the majestic sequences and many scenes are still and quiet which enhances the effects. As with other Lean epics, it advisable is to see this film on the biggest screen known to mankind.

At one-hundred and sixty-four minutes, the film is hardly non-stop action, but rather slightly laborious and lumbering. Some parts are a tad too slow, but the payoff is mighty and there is a measure of intrigue throughout, especially once the cave incident occurs.

I hate to say the film drags, but perhaps fifteen to twenty minutes could have been shaved off. When Lean is at the helm, a hefty running time is a guarantee.

A Passage to India (1984) is a film by a respected director that culminates a lengthy and inspired career boldly. While not his best film, this should not detract from the excellent experience the film provides.

Grandiose sequences and sophisticated style make the film able to be viewed more than once, a marvel for a film released in the lackluster 1980s.

Oscar Nominations: 2 wins-Best Picture, Best Director-David Lean, Best Actress-Judy Davis, Best Supporting Actress-Peggy Ashcroft (won), Best Screenplay Based on Material from Another Medium, Best Original Score (won), Best Sound, Best Art Direction, Best Costume Design, Best Cinematography, Best Film Editing

A League of Their Own-1992

A League of Their Own-1992

Director Penny Marshall

Starring Geena Davis, Tom Hanks

Scott’s Review #970

Reviewed December 18, 2019

Grade: B

Sports films are too often predictable affairs with fairy tale endings. They are also typically male-driven.

A League of Their Own (1992) is warm and sentimental, and while director Penny Marshall plays it way too sweet and safe for my tastes, there is a measure of feminism that is admirable and a bit different.

The cast is well-known and provides professionalism and energy, but the film is little more than mediocre and strikes out towards the end with a far too pretty ending, doing exactly what these genre films normally do. It’s as if Marshall has a great idea but then decides not to teeter too far left of center.

Beginning in 1988 (present times), elderly Dottie Hinson attends an opening of the new All-American Girls Professional Baseball League exhibit at the Baseball Hall of Fame. She reunites with several of her former teammates and friends, prompting a flashback to 1943 when the main story takes place.

With many young men off fighting World War II, the Major League Baseball franchise is at risk. A women’s league is bankrolled which prompts the recruitment of several players, forming the Peaches and the Belles. They face off in the World Series to dramatic effect.

To be fair, the film is nice and welcoming, providing a haven for filmgoers seeking a solid story and a heartwarming sensibility. The lead actors, Tom Hanks and Geena Davis, respectively the team manager and star player, provide strength and do the best they can with the roles given.

During the early 1990s, both were big stars and while their characters are not romantically linked, their chemistry is zesty. Hanks as Jimmy is a bit predictable and gruff, at first being little more than a male chauvinist, but eventually coming around to respect the women.

For fans of the sport of baseball, the film will be delightful. With enough action scenes on the outdoor diamond to please those fans, one might forget that the teams are made up of women. The demographic sought after is female, but the sunny settings and standard hot dogs, peanuts, and popcorn result in the film drawing a wholesomeness that should also please men.

The supporting characters are too one-dimensional and cliched. The biggest offenders are the characters of “All the Way” Mae Morabito (Madonna) and Doris Murphy (Rosie O’Donnell).

The pop star, a horrid actress, in my opinion, is written way too corny, cracking gum and talking tough, while O’Donnell is intended to be her sidekick. The duo is street-smart and grizzled New Yorkers, but the casting never really works, and the action feels very formulaic, losing its luster very early on.

While Marshall incorporates brief moments of tragedy, one minor character’s husband is killed in action during the war, and all the action is safely in the United States, the war serving as more of a backdrop than a major player.

More common are syrupy scenes between characters who at first have a miscommunication or misunderstanding, but then forge their way to a close bond. And do we ever really believe Jimmy will not become the women’s biggest fan?

A League of Their Own (1992) is a decent watch and marginally enjoyable in a fluff way. It provides little edginess and could have provided darker story points than it does.

Instead, it shows a slice of Americana and Apple Pie approach that while not all bad, is not all good either, feeling limited by its sentimentality.

The film could be much worse and possesses characters that the viewer can root for and cheer along with a home run or a safe slide into third base. This is mainly a result of the stellar cast that Marshall presents.

Knives Out-2019

Knives Out-2019

Director Rian Johnson

Starring Ana de Armas, Daniel Craig

Scott’s Review #969

Reviewed December 17, 2019

Grade: B+

Knives Out (2019) is a cleverly constructed whodunit, crafted in a style not dissimilar from the famous board game Clue. This facet is mentioned by one character during a scene in the film.

With a sizable cast of film stars, both young and old (mostly old), the result is a good time, featuring intelligent writing, surprises, and a crowd-pleasing tone. The project is presented by a cast who undoubtedly had a ball during filming.

The point of the film is to try and figure out whodunit and why, in perfect murder mystery form.

It is explained through narration that wealthy crime novelist Harlan Thrombey (Christopher Plummer) has invited his family to flock to his mansion for his eighty-fifth birthday party. The next morning, Harlan’s housekeeper Fran finds him dead, apparently having slit his own throat.

An anonymous figure hires private detective Benoit Blanc (Daniel Craig) to investigate the situation. When Blanc arrives at the grand estate to interrogate family and friends, tidbits of scandal and intrigue slowly emerge as layers are revealed.

The sizable cast features Hollywood stalwarts like Jamie Lee Curtis (Linda, Harlan’s daughter), Don Johnson (Richard, Harlan’s son-in-law, and Linda’s husband), Chris Evans (Ransom, Harlan’s grandson), Michael Shannon (Walt, Harlan’s youngest son), and Toni Collette (Joni, widow of Harlan’s deceased son Neil).

Helpful is how the film takes the time to introduce and explain each prominent character, so that the viewer has a good sense of who’s who and how one character relates to the others before the tangled web unravels.

The delicious aspect of Knives Out is the numerous twists and turns it offers throughout its runtime.

Surprisingly, it was a key revelation exposed quite early on, so that the pacing is more left of center than classic whodunits of days past. Once the new story arc is revealed, the plot thickens further, and we know that more events will ultimately unfold, as the story cannot be this simple.

This successfully kept me engaged as a viewer throughout the entire experience.

Having witnessed the previews at length and the way the trailer presents a Hercule Poirot/Agatha Christie/Jessica Fletcher-type sleuth to solve, it was delightful to see one character snuggling on the couch, absorbed in an episode of the 1980s television series “Murder, She Wrote.”

Director Rian Johnson offers several sly homages to influential tidbits of pop culture that helped shape his film and retain its amusement.

Another momentous positive is the incorporation of a political discussion among the family as they brood and fret over how much money they stand to inherit from their dead patriarch.

Donald J. Trump, a man who catapulted the United States into controversy post-2016, is never mentioned by name. Still, immigration, children in cages, and expletives are carefully hurled about in his honor, so there is no question about the connotations.

Harlan’s caregiver is Marta (Ana de Armas), the heroine of the film and the standout, whose mother is an undocumented immigrant.

So political overtones abound.

Knives Out seamlessly blends dark humor with traditional mystery, ensuring it never loses its edge. The big reveal at the end is neither brilliant nor disappointing. It simply bubbles to the surface after numerous red herrings and lies.

The final sequence is palpable, and savvy viewers will wonder what one character will possibly do next to either please or anger the rest of the characters.

Might a sequel be at hand?

A film not meant to be high art or anything more than an entertaining good time, Knives Out (2019) achieves its intent by offering an experience reminiscent of an Agatha Christie tale that is fun for the audience.

The benefits are reaped, as the film received an enormous box office return. Thanks in large part to a talented cast, a gloomy mansion, and wealthy individuals faced with peril and comeuppance, these elements make for a wonderful recipe for a good, solid mystery.

Oscar Nominations: Best Original Screenplay

127 Hours-2010

127 Hours-2010

Director Danny Boyle

Starring James Franco, Kate Mara

Scott’s Review #967

Reviewed December 13, 2019

Grade: A

A biography of epic proportions, 127 Hours (2010) provides a stunning account of one man’s journey and near-tragic fate. If not for his resolve and determination this would surely have been the result.

Director, Danny Boyle casts the charismatic James Franco in the role of the hiker who was forced to amputate his arm after becoming pinned by a rock. The effective title gives a non-stop active feel, a five-day in-life production if you will, and a pulsating ninety minutes of crafty filmmaking.

The film starts a cheery story of an excited mountaineer, Aron Ralston, (Franco) who prepares to embark on a long-awaited adventure.

The time is April 2003.

His goal is to enjoy a few days of hiking, reveling in the freedom the fresh Utah air offers him. Somewhat of a daredevil, he happily anticipates adventure as he begins his journey.

He meets two attractive young women, Kristi (Kate Mara) and Megan (Amber Tamblyn) and the trio swims in an underground pool before going their separate ways.

Had 127 Hours been a horror film there would be a sense of suspicion or dread surrounding the female hikers, but the scene is enchanting and pure innocence.

Once again on his own, Aron suddenly slips and falls, knocking over a boulder that crushes his right hand and wrist against the wall. He calls for help but realizes that he is alone. Aron begins recording a video diary and reflects on his past, for example forgetting to leave a note of his whereabouts while becoming more and more desperate to escape.

Most of 127 Hours is set within a state of claustrophobic peril in the tiny walls of the rocks that Ralston is trapped between. The film quickly becomes an emotional and personal experience as the camera is focused on Franco, mostly in the close-up form.

At times the shots are too close for comfort, but this is a necessary way for the viewer to experience events the way that Aron did, the style is tremendously effective.

At the risk of diminishing the amazing direction, editing, and cinematography offered, the film belongs to Franco.

As Aron faces peril, growing frantic with each passing hour, but trying to remain calm and focused, Franco does a tremendous job of balancing and revealing the proper emotions. He whimsically recounts memories while forbidding himself to lose sight of escape, rationing what little food and water he has.

The gruesome amputation scene is gory and powerful and may necessitate closing one’s eyes.

The remainder of the elements come together perfectly. The editing, cinematography, and pacing of the story are all spot-on. The musical soundtrack is key to the pacing of the film. At first energetic and excitable, the music slowly becomes darker and more subdued, while at the end it is low-key.

Aron is thankful to simply be alive as he walks a lonely walk to help as the film concludes.

Since the real-life figure is still very much alive, the historical accuracy of the experience is preserved, as confirmed by the hero. He only showed Kristi and Megan basic climbing moves and they never swam together, but the remainder is a brilliant documentary-style film experience.

The real Ralston himself, along with his wife and son make cameo appearances at the end of the film, providing good authenticity.

127 Hours (2010) scores big, creating an experience that is breathtaking, disturbing, and real. Inspiration will be given to each viewer and a lesson in endurance and perseverance will resonate in their own life.

The film deservedly received Oscar nominations for Best Picture, Best Actor, Best Adapted Screenplay, Best Original Score, Best Original Song, and Best Film Editing, but sadly coming up empty-handed.

Oscar Nominations: Best Picture, Best Actor-James Franco, Best Adapted Screenplay, Best Original Score, Best Original Song-“If I Rise”, Best Film Editing

Independent Spirit Award Nominations: 1 win-Best Feature, Best Director-Danny Boyle, Best Male Lead-James Franco (won)

Toy Story 4-2019

Toy Story 4-2019

Director Josh Cooley

Voices: Tom Hanks, Tim Allen, Annie Potts

Scott’s Review #966

Reviewed December 10, 2019

Grade: B

Toy Story 4 (2019) is the fourth installment in the Pixar/Disney-produced Toy Story series, now nearly twenty-five years old!

The glitter is beginning to fade on a once-endearing franchise, and hopefully, this is the last one- additional segments are not needed unless desperation develops.

After a slow start and too many retread moments, the film shows bombast and familiar heart and tenderness in the finale, presumably wrapping up the long story with a neat bow.

The animation is vivid and colorful, almost astounding, and makes up for an otherwise unnecessary story.

In a flashback sequence, nine years after Toy Story 2, Bo Peep (Annie Potts) is donated to a new owner, and Woody (Tom Hanks) begrudgingly decides to maintain his loyalty to the owner, Andy.

Years later, and now a teenager, Andy donates a forgotten Woody to a young child named Bonnie, who lacks the affection for the toy that Andy had. When Bonnie makes and bonds with Forky, a toy made of plastic, Woody struggles to convince Forky that each is more than garbage.

When Bonnie and her parents embark on a summer road trip to an amusement park, Woody and other familiar faces are along for the ride.

The group meets other forgotten toys, some benevolent and some sinister, at the park and a nearby antique store. Woody’s dear friend and comic relief, Buzz (voiced by Tim Allen), is in the mix and helps all the toys realize that they are not forgotten and that they can still bring joy to children.

The film provides an unwieldy list of celebrities in major and minor roles. The incorporation of characters like Chairol Burnett, Bitey White, and Carl Reineroceros (voiced naturally by Carol Burnett, Betty White, and Carl Reiner) may not be necessary.

Still, it’s fun to watch the credits roll and see who’s who from the cast.

The minor characters are little more than window dressing, but the creativity is admirable.

The main story of abandonment, loyalty, and discarding of one’s toys is ample and pleasant, but has occurred in every segment thus far in the series.

Do we need to see this again? Yes, it is an essential message for both children and adults, but why not simply watch the first three installments of Toy Story, each brilliant in their own right?

Toy Story 4 plays by the numbers with little surprises.

One glaring notice is how almost every single adult is either incompetent or played for laughs.

I understand that the main draw is the toys and outsmarting the adults is half the fun, but when Bonnie’s father assumes his navigation system is on the fritz, rather than catching on to the fact that one of the toys is voicing the system, one must shake one’s head.

Suspension of disbelief is increasingly required in these types of films.

Toy Story 4 picks up steam in the final twenty minutes with a thrilling adventure through the amusement park and a cute romance between Woody and Bo Peep.

When the long-forgotten toy Gabby Gabby (Christina Hendricks) emotionally rescues a lost child, she is rejuvenated and breathes new life into both the child’s life and her own.

In a darling moment, Forky meets another creation named Knifey. Knifey suffers from the same existential crisis as Forky once did, and Forky immediately becomes smitten with her, both realizing that even though they are odd-looking, they still matter.

The nice lesson learned is that even toys from the 1960s and 1970s can provide warmth and comfort to a young child and are more than “of their time”.

This is a clear and bold message that resonates with human beings and acknowledges that advanced age does not come with an expiration date.

Everyone matters and brings importance. The underlying theme is heartwarming and central to the film, bringing it above mediocrity.

What should certainly be the final chapter in a tired franchise that continues to trudge along, the bright message and strong animations remain, but the film feels like a retread.

Given that Toy Story 3 was released in 2010, Toy Story 4 (2019) needs to bring the series to a conclusion before installments 5, 6, 7, or 8 result in a dead-on-arrival sequel.

Oscar Nominations: 1 win-Best Animated Feature Film (won), Best Original Song-“I Can’t Let You Throw Yourself Away”

Mary Poppins-1964

Mary Poppins-1964

Director Robert Stevenson

Starring Julie Andrews, Dick Van Dyke

Scott’s Review #965

Reviewed December 9, 2019

Grade: A-

Mary Poppins (1964) is a lovely Walt Disney production that shines with zest and an ample supply of good, cheery tunes. A family affair, it will hardly disappoint, with sing-alongs and enchanting stories for miles.

It’s tough to knock a film that has it all, but it sometimes borders on sickeningly sweet wholesomeness with too much schmaltz mixed in.

This can easily be forgiven because of the robust music, dazzling visual effects, and perfect casting, which make the film enjoyable entertainment for all.

The Banks family resides in London, England. The foursome consists of George and Winifred Banks, along with children Jane and Michael. They live a comfortable and happy upper-middle-class existence.

When their nanny quits after the children run away to chase a kite, the panicked George requests a stern, no-nonsense nanny, while the children (now returned home) desire a kind, sweet one. Through magic, a young nanny (Julie Andrews) descends from the sky using her umbrella.

Mary Poppins teaches the children to enjoy chores through tunes with the help of a kindly chimney sweep, Bert (Dick Van Dyke).

Mary Poppins cheerily takes the children on several adventures, teaching them valuable lessons. The drama involves light situations such as the irritable George threatening to fire the nanny because she is too cheerful or a mini-scandal at the bank where George works.

These side stories are trivial and non-threatening since the film is really about the antics of the magically odd nanny and her relationship with the children.

The film is unique because it combines live-action with animation and is magical and inventive. This is most evident during sequences that feature animals, especially the superb scene where Mary Poppins transports Bert, Jane, and Michael into a picture where they ride a carousel and stroll the day away.

The appearance of horses and a fox makes the scene beautifully crafted and filled with joy.

The casting could be no different and is flawless across the board. Standouts are Andrews and Van Dyke, the former appearing in her very first film role.

Not to be usurped by her most iconic role as Maria in the following year’s brilliant The Sound of Music (1965), Andrews possesses a benevolent and delightful spirit that works perfectly in the role, to say nothing of her powerful voice.

Van Dyke, as the romantic interest, is equally well-cast, and together the chemistry is easy and apparent.

Mary Poppins was met with critical acclaim when it was released when Disney ruled the roost and musicals were a dime a dozen.

It received thirteen Academy Award nominations, including Best Picture—a record for any film released by Walt Disney Studios—and won five: Best Actress for Andrews, Best Film Editing, Best Original Music Score, Best Visual Effects, and Best Original Song for “Chim Chim Cher-ee.”

This was quite a feat as the film was up against My Fair Lady (1964), which won the biggest prize.

Rated G and box-office success, Mary Poppins (1964) is a legendary Walt Disney film that uses creative techniques and musical numbers to develop a finely finished product.

The song standouts are “A Spoonful of Sugar”, “Chim Chim Cher-ee”, and “Supercalifragilisticexpialidocious”, as each offers candy for the ears and immeasurable fun.

The classic songs and the cohesive sentimentality make this one easy to enjoy with repeated viewings.

Oscar Nominations: 5 wins-Best Picture, Best Director-Robert Stevenson, Best Actress-Julie Andrews (won), Best Screenplay Based on Material from Another Medium, Best Song-“Chim Chim Cher-ee” (won), Best Music Score-Substantially Original (won), Best Scoring of Music-Adaptation or Treatment, Best Sound, Best Art Direction, Color, Best Cinematography, Color, Best Costume Design, Color, Best Film Editing (won), Best Special Visual Effects (won)

A Beautiful Day in the Neighborhood-2019

A Beautiful Day in the Neighborhood-2019

Director Marielle Heller

Starring Matthew Rhys, Tom Hanks

Scott’s Review #964

Reviewed December 6, 2019

Grade: A

Any viewer seeking a weepy affair should look no further than A Beautiful Day in the Neighborhood (2019). The film is sentimental, without ever feeling sappy or overwrought; instead, it abounds with freshness and authenticity.

Tom Hanks is brilliant as the iconic children’s television personality, and Matthew Rhys holds his own, delivering a fantastic performance as an angry journalist tasked with writing a magazine article about the legend.

The film is heartwarming and teary with a poignant and inspirational message, and in 2019, we could all use a little Mister Rogers in our lives.

The film’s period is 1998, and on the outs with his father, Jerry (Chris Cooper), Lloyd Vogel (Rhys) works as a writer for Esquire magazine. Both attend Lloyd’s sister’s wedding, where the two men come to blows over past disputes, ruining the wedding reception and reigniting their feud.

Lloyd’s wife, Andrea, serves as a mediator when their newborn son becomes an interesting link between father and son. When Lloyd meets with Mister Rogers (Hanks), he is at first skeptical of the man’s benevolence, but the two men slowly develop a strong bond, forging a deep friendship.

Director Marielle Heller drew acclaim for her recent film, Can You Ever Forgive Me? (2018), a project about a grizzled New York writer.

Once again, her lead character is a dark and troubled writer, but with enough humanity bubbling under the surface to make the character likable. The contrast between the two main characters (Lloyd and Mister Rogers) is palpable and central to the story, making it intriguing and successful.

Her message is a strong lesson in humanity.

The setup is tremendous for anyone who has a clue to the unconditional kindness that Mister Rogers embodies. He not only adores children but also all of humanity, and, as referenced, he is particularly drawn to those who are wounded or broken.

The legend sees the goodness in all human beings and focuses on everyone he speaks with rather than on himself. What a wonderful message of patient, goodness, and empathy Heller carves from start to finish.

No surprise is how Rogers teaches Lloyd to accept and forgive Jerry. During a thrilling scene, Lloyd lashes out at his father, reminding him that when he was bedding other women, his wife (Lloyd’s mother) lay riddled with cancer, not dying in peace, but screaming with agony.

The irony is that Jerry is now at death’s door, attempting to make amends with Lloyd before he dies. Both men are wounded and damaged, but because of Mister Rogers’ kindness, they come to an understanding. The message is lovely and kind.

I was surprised at how emotionally fulfilling the film turned out to be. Mister Rogers cares, and one can easily slip into a fantasy that, as he sits and holds a conversation with Lloyd, gazing whimsically and thoughtfully into his eyes, he is staring into our very own eyes.

I sure did, and what a powerful emotion that conjures. When Mister Rogers asks to take a moment of silence to think about the people who have shaped our lives, there is no doubt that each member of the movie theater audience did just that.

Hanks is a godsend and ideally suited for the role. Known to be a kindly humanitarian himself, he easily slips into the role of Mister Rogers and imitates the mannerisms perfectly. Especially impressive is when Danny, a puppet bear, appears on screen.

Savvy viewers will realize that Rogers channels his childhood through this character and the pain he felt as an overweight child.

Hanks is a tremendous actor, winning Oscars for Philadelphia (1993) and Forrest Gump (1994), so we have every confidence in his ability to craft a new character so well.

A Beautiful Day in the Neighborhood (2019) wins the year’s award for evoking the most emotion from viewers. The familiar “Mister Rogers’ Neighborhood” tune will evoke memories and add a level of sentiment to a heartwarming film.

Instead of crafting a sterile or preachy film, Heller delivers a simple message of kindness and understanding, along with a valuable lesson in accepting people as they are.

Oscar Nominations: Best Supporting Actor-Tom Hanks

Shoplifters-2018

Shoplifters-2018

Director Hirokazu Kore-eda

Starring Lily Franky, Sakura Ando

Scott’s Review #962

Reviewed November 26, 2019

Grade: A-

Shoplifters (2018) is a fabulous Japanese offering directed, written, and edited by Hirokazu Kore-Eda. The film is slow-moving and understated, but it provides a moving and poignant message about family, by blood or not, and the robust ties that bind individuals compassionately and emotionally.

The film is character-driven and humanistic, offering sentiment and emotion without ever feeling overwrought or manipulative. It is not to be missed.

A dysfunctional group of outsiders lives together in a dingy basement establishment in Tokyo, Japan. They escape their poverty by shoplifting and embarking on mild adventures to pass the time. They share a deep bond and look out for each other.

The audience assumes they are family, which they are, but not in the biological sense. The family rescues an abused young girl and takes her into their home, showering her with love and affection.

Eventually, trouble comes when one of them is caught shoplifting, which leads to a domino effect of terrible events.

The group consists of Osamu (Lily Franky), a day laborer forced to leave his job after twisting his ankle; his “wife” Nobuyo (Sakura Ando), who works for industrial laundry service; Aki (Mayu Matsuoka), who works at a hostess club; Shota (Kairi Jo), a young boy; and Hatsue (Kirin Kiki), an elderly woman who owns the home and supports the group with her deceased husband’s pension.

The film showcases most of the characters equally as they work, drink, and hang out together. The abused girl, named Yuri, is given a haircut and renamed Lin and is central to the plot. Nobuyo and Shota take a shine to her. She teaches Lin that parents who love their children hug them and do not hit them, while Shota teaches her the ins and outs of stealing groceries.

Though the watch is slow, the audience inevitably falls in love with the characters, and the connection becomes powerful before the viewer knows it. We know Osamu and Nobuyo should leave Yuri where she is when they see her unattended and shivering on a cold balcony, but they cannot help themselves.

Their actions immediately make the audience realize that they are good, kind people who have been handed bad life circumstances to deal with.

The film is a strict watch and will never be defined as edge-of-your-seat. Many scenes involve characters walking around the streets, almost aimlessly, commenting that the weather is cold or other trivial conversational bits.

The scenes could be described as dull or bleak, but eventually, something magical happens, the characters become favorites, and the viewer is immersed in their world unflinchingly.

The character of Yuri is a tough one to observe. With bruises on her arms and a burn from a hot iron, tearful is the imagining of the terror the little girl has already been through at the hands of blood relatives, especially since her parents assume she has run off and are thrilled she is out of their lives.

The conclusion of the film is cold and harsh, hitting home that the justice system is flawed and cruel, as Yuri ultimately is returned to her parents, sure to face more abuse and eventual death. Doesn’t child abuse usually turn out like this?

Director Kore-eda could have spun a feel-good story with the family parading onto the beach in the sunshine, but he chooses not to. We wonder how Yuri’s life might have turned out under better circumstances and had the courts not gotten involved.

Kore-eda instead paints a stark picture of reality, not the fictional happily-ever-after films too often rush to craft.

Shoplifters (2018) offers a look at humanity at its best and its worst with a story about joy and pain. The film is quiet and careful and ultimately keeps one in its grips. It sticks with the viewer and makes one question what a family is and what it is defined as in the court of law.

Who decides who is family and who is not? The film will make one ponder many things, which is a treasured quality of good cinema.

Oscar Nominations: Best Foreign Language Film

Independent Spirit Award Nominations: Best International Film

The Magnificent Seven-1960

The Magnificent Seven-1960

Director John Sturges

Starring Yul Brynner, Steve McQueen

Scott’s Review #961

Reviewed November 22, 2019

Grade: B-

The Magnificent Seven (1960) is a Western in the classic sense that will satisfy fans of the genre. It features Hollywood stars of the day in heroic roles that give an aura of nationalism and conservative Americana.

Other than an outstanding musical score, a pleasant romance, and some male bonding, the film feels quite dated, with racial overtones that probably were not as irritating in the 1960s as they are now.

The film is a remake of the 1954 Japanese film Seven Samurai.

The bullied residents of a small Mexican village decide to hire seven American gunslingers to defeat a gang of bandits led by Calvera (Eli Wallach), who terrorizes the villagers regularly.

The Gunslingers are led by Chris Adams (Yul Brynner) and feature Vin (Steve McQueen), Bernardo (Charles Bronson), Lee (Robert Vaughn), Harry (Brad Dexter), Britt (James Coburn), and Chico (Horst Buchholz). Each is distinctive in some way- Lee is a veteran while Vin is a drifter, and so on.

The musical score is to be praised for its high energy and adventurous timing, especially during key scenes.

The introduction of the seven gunslingers is fun and popular for the Western genre, especially in television series of the time. This was a treat for audiences because most cast members were handsome, leading men.

The music also infuses the film with charisma and is perfect for the genre.

A romance between the hot-blooded Chico and the gorgeous Mexican girl Petra also works. An unlikely pairing, the couple has resounding chemistry and a West Side Story-style connection. Not supposed to be attracted to one another or hardly soul mates, the two blessedly share a happily-ever-after roll-up as the entire film does.

Westerns in the 1960s were meant to be crowd-pleasing and not especially daring. Chico and Petra are a nice addition and provide a bit of diversity.

Brynner and McQueen’s swagger is filled with machismo that might be annoying in a different film, but it works in The Magnificent Seven. They both look great, are clearly in their prime, and are well suited for a feature meant to satisfy the tastes of men and make the women swoon.

They prance around on their horses, looking serious, calm, and confident. However, the film’s target demographic is men and not teenage girls.

The over-arching story is irritating. The viewer is supposed to believe that the Mexican men are so incompetent that they do not even know how to shoot a gun or how to defend themselves.

This seems to be a gimmick and a pro-American stance more than a reality. The gunslingers swoop in and take complete control, showing the Mexicans how real men fight. It’s silly and trite and a prominent plot device.

It isn’t very kind, but standard for the genre.

The film meanders, and the viewer becomes restless in the middle because of the thirst for the inevitable climactic finale. Finally, we are treated to the battle between good and evil, where much blood is spilled, and even a few gunslingers are slain.

Laughable is how the characters die on cue but still look great while dying. The finale is marginally satisfying but predictable in its outcome.

Made when the Western was a popular genre and a box office success, decades later, the film feels dated and unnecessary.

Featuring big stars of the day, this is not surprising, and better genre films with more grit were soon to be on the way, think The Wild Bunch (1967), and are superior to The Magnificent Seven (1960).

Oscar Nominations: Best Music Score of a Dramatic or Comedy Picture

The Irishman-2019

The Irishman-2019

Director Martin Scorsese

Starring Robert De Niro, Al Pacino, Joe Pesci

Scott’s Review #960

Reviewed November 20, 2019

Grade: A

Any film created by legendary director Martin Scorsese is sure to impress legions of adoring followers and most critics.

Every project he touches results in something fantastic, and it’s easy to revel in, with good analysis and discussion about the movie moments after the closing credits have rolled.

The Irishman (2019) is a film that demands repeated viewings and thoughtful consideration to appreciate the rich and diverse cast of characters fully.

The picture may not be on the same level as Goodfellas (1990) or The Godfather (1972), which it seems patterned after, but the work is awe-inspiring and should stand the test of time, resulting in a fine wine analogy.

The years will likely be kind to the film and enrich the experience- it’s that kind of film.

With stars like Robert De Niro, Al Pacino, Joe Pesci, and Harvey Keitel on board, the viewer expects a plethora of riches, and that is precisely what is delivered.

The film spans the period from the 1950s to the 1970s.

It follows the life of Frank Sheeran (De Niro), a truck driver who becomes a hitman and becomes involved with mobster Russell Bufalino (Pesci) and his crime family, including his time working for the powerful Teamster Jimmy Hoffa (Pacino). Sheeran is dubbed “the Irishman”.

He narrates much of the story, now quite elderly and residing in a nursing home, of his time in the mafia and the mystery surrounding the death of Hoffa.

The only negatives to the film are the suspension of disbelief that De Niro is Irish – was there ever a more quintessential Italian New Yorker? However, this film is directed by Scorsese and produced by De Niro, so they could tell me the sky is green, and I would readily nod in agreement.

At three hours and twenty-nine minutes, the film is a long haul, and towards the middle, the film meanders a bit. Perhaps twenty or thirty minutes could have been sliced to the cutting room floor.

The rest of the experience The Irishman serves up is brilliance, with rich characters and a fantastic atmosphere. Have I mentioned that Scorsese directed this film? The cast of characters is endless and drips with zest, speaking volumes for what The Godfather did with casting.

Many recognizable actors appear in minor roles, like Ray Romano as attorney Bill Bufalino, Bobby Cannavale as “Skinny Razor”, and Anna Paquin as Frank’s estranged daughter, Peggy.

An endless supply of character actors fleshes out the remaining cast.

Excellent is the plethora of food references that would impress notable food director Alfred Hitchcock, known for incorporating meals into many of his scenes. The delectable early scenes, when Frank delivers meat to grocers and gets into a discussion with a gangster over a good steak, will leave viewers mouth-watering for a tender sirloin.

The conversations between characters are interesting, slowly building and adding robust grit to a packed film. They engage in good, thoughtful dialogue exchanges and discuss life and experiences matter-of-factly.

Characters are given a chance to develop and grow, and even minor characters, such as a nurse or a wife, add a comforting aura. It is evident what treasured films look like when a director can create and develop without outside interference.

The standouts in the acting department are Pacino and De Niro, the former of whom I’m crossing my fingers will receive an Oscar nomination.

The pairing is flawless, and eagle-eyed fans will recall that both actors appeared together in The Godfather Part II (1974) yet never shared a scene.

In The Irishman, they appear together in pivotal scenes. Pacino infuses Hoffa with humor and poise, as only Pacino can, in a character. He is my favorite character and is tough to look away from.

Both actors, along with Pesci, are treated to a recent marvel in cinema —the de-aging process. Each actor, well into his seventies, is transformed to appear in his mid-forties in many scenes and then aged to appear elderly later in life.

While each has a strange, unnatural look as a younger man, the process is impressive and an innovative technique that will surely become more common in film, subsequently offering limitless possibilities.

The Irishman (2019) is a cinematic gem by a storied director advancing in years, but still offering grandiose films. With stalwarts like De Niro, Pesci, and Pacino, the players are well cast, and nuanced touches add dimensions to the finished product.

Offering a gangster film with grace and style, the story is poignant and crisp, and a thoughtful approach to one of the legendary mysteries- what happened to Jimmy Hoffa?

Oscar Nominations: Best Picture, Best Director-Martin Scorsese, Best Supporting Actor-Al Pacino, Joe Pesci, Best Adapted Screenplay, Best Production Design, Best Cinematography, Best Costume Design, Best Film Editing, Best Visual Effects

Marriage Story-2019

Marriage Story-2019

Director Noah Baumbach

Starring Adam Driver, Scarlett Johansson

Scott’s Review #959

Reviewed November 14, 2019

Grade: A

Marriage Story (2019) is a film that could have been generic, melodramatic, or contrived. Before its release, it was described as an excellent” version of Kramer vs. Kramer (1979) or Terms of Endearment (1983).

Those are excellent films, but marginally sappy and overwrought. Marriage Story excels at being a brilliant, powerful, and realistic portrayal of a marriage disintegrating, painting a picture of how good people can turn ugly under certain circumstances.

Believe the hype of how good this film is.

Taking place in both New York City and Los Angeles, we meet Charlie and Nicole Barber (Adam Driver and Scarlett Johansson), a theater director and his wife, an actress who stars in his plays.

They fill notebook paper with what they love most about each other, and the list is lengthy.

Appearing to be madly in love, the audience soon realizes that the couple is amid an amicable separation, the writings a result of an assignment by a “separations counselor”, hired to make things easier.

Charlie and Nicole share an eight-year-old son named Henry. Nicole returns to Los Angeles to resume her acting career and spend time with her mother (Julie Hagerty) and sister (Merritt Wever). Adam, successful in New York City, plans to stay and reside with his son.

Nicole hires a tough lawyer, Nora (Laura Dern), while Charlie begrudgingly hires semi-retired attorney Bert Spitz (Alan Alda), and later Jay (Ray Liotta). Nicole and Charlie are sensible, planning to work things out on their own, only needing representation for formalities, or so they think.

The situation escalates, spinning out of control as their divorce becomes increasingly hostile, as custody of their young son ups the ante. Qualities they once loved about each other become hate-filled arguments as the couple fights and feuds, as their attorneys scramble for a leg up.

Can the couple save themselves as secrets bubble to the surface, and situations be used against each other?

The film is a lengthy two hours and sixteen minutes, so the plot takes time to capture its viewer. When it eventually takes hold, it never lets go, forcefully enrapturing the watcher.

We care for both Charlie and Nicole, and while sympathizing with each other at different times, both characters are written as benevolent.

There is no villain except the divorce itself.

The key to success is in the writing. Director, Noah Baumbach, known for The Squid and the Whale (2005), and Frances Ha (2012) knows how to craft witty and clever dialogue, weaving comedy and drama intricately together.

He can make the viewer laugh and cry within the same scene.

The screenplay is the best part of the film because it is laden with crackling words and interesting situations.

Marriage Story reminds me of a Woody Allen film. Feeling improvised, unsure if any of the dialogue is, the characters speak lengthy soliloquies and engage in endless chatter with each other or themselves.

This results in a powerful medium of self-expression and a “talkie” movie.

The banter between characters is not drivel nor gibberish but contains significant, emotionally rich meaning and flavor.

The film belongs to Driver and Johansson, each delivering a home run. Driver is the stronger of the two, but not by much, and this is only because his emotional scenes feel rawer than hers do.

When the actors engage in a knock-down, drag-out fight, the scene is lengthy and exceptionally well-acted, with each taking turns verbally attacking the other. Vicious rage and emotional fury come to the forefront.

This is the best scene in the film.

Dern, Alda, and Liotta are terrific, bringing respect to the film. Each has been on the Hollywood scene for a long time, and each plays an attorney. While Dern’s and Liotta’s characters are sharks, Alda is a reasonable and realistic older man who has seen it all.

Burt lays down the facts for Charlie, making him realize how much is at stake. Dern shines as the sexy blonde attorney who wears revealing clothes and legs for miles. Grizzled Liotta plans to win at all costs. What a delight to see these veterans bring electricity to each scene.

Lastly, I adore the bi-coastal locales of New York City and Los Angeles. The big cities burst with meaning and are as different as day and night, as the film explains.

Charlie is a New Yorker, and Nicole is a California girl at heart. The numerous scenes shot on location in both cities lend the film richness and texture.

With Marriage Story (2019), Baumbach creates his best and most personal film.  Rumored to be partly autobiographical, he takes a subject matter that most assume has already been exhausted and spins the story in a different direction, making it feel fresh.

The aspects all come together in an experience that is emotional, powerful, and intelligent. The film is a treasure and a shining example to young filmmakers that good writing always prevails.

Oscar Nominations: 1 win-Best Picture, Best Actor-Adam Driver, Best Actress-Scarlett Johansson, Best Supporting Actress-Laura Dern (won), Best Original Screenplay, Best Original Score

Independent Spirit Award Nominations: 2 wins-Best Feature, Best Screenplay (won), Robert Altman Award (won)

Midsommar-2019

Midsommar-2019

Director Ari Aster

Starring Florence Pugh, Jack Reynor

Scott’s Review #957

Reviewed November 11, 2019

Grade: B+

Director Ari Aster made a splash with his feature-length directorial debut, the horror-drama film Hereditary, in 2018. The film received enormous accolades, even considered for an Oscar nomination, and was quite bizarre and horrific.

Aster follows up with Midsommar (2019), a film that is arguably even freakier and more ambitious.

The film is slow-moving and foreboding, but it ultimately reaches a macabre and perplexing climax. My initial reaction is that the film is a fine wine with additional richness upon subsequent viewings.

The film quickly gets off to a creepy start in the United States as college student Dani Ardor (Florence Pugh) receives a cryptic email from her troubled sister. Her sister soon kills herself and her parents by filling the house with carbon monoxide fumes.

Dani is devastated and needs support from her distant boyfriend, Christian (Jack Reynor), an anthropology student. The couple continues to feel increasingly disconnected from each other as the months pass.

Dani and Christian decide to join some friends at a midsummer festival in a remote Swedish village. One friend has relatives in the town, and another chooses to work on his thesis.

What begins as a carefree holiday takes a devious turn when the villagers invite the group to partake in festivities that grow increasingly unnerving and viscerally disturbing.

Strange events begin to occur as the subsequent series of celebrations gets underway.

Any horror film that mixes pagan cults, folklore, and religion easily provides the creeps, and Midsommar successfully hybridizes American culture with Swedish culture in frightening form.

Much of the film takes place in a remote area, with sprawling sunny lands and a deathly silent atmosphere.

The cheery locale has a peculiar California vibe, and Swedish women often adorn their hair with hairstyles reminiscent of the Charles Manson era.

Uncertain is whether this was Aster’s intent or not.

I love how the students are intelligent and worldly, using their time in the village to learn and study. The traditional horror stereotype involving high school or college students is their desire to guzzle beer, party, have sex, and do little else.

Aster wisely makes his group intellectual and more studious than the norm. The students do partake in drugs, but this has more to do with the villagers having healing remedies and other sorts of herbal delicacies.

Midsommar contains many lengthy nude scenes, both male and female, the actors readily baring both their fronts and their rears. This is almost unheard of in American film, but Midsommar is a co-production between the United States and Sweden, providing more leeway in the nudity department.

When Christian is given a strong psychedelic and beds a virginal villager eager to mate, the poor chap winds up chased around the village in the buff. This occurs after he inseminates the girl as they are surrounded by nude female villagers cheering them on.

Confusing and left unclear are the motivations of the villagers. The point is made that nine human sacrifices must be made to rid the village of evil, but why is the evil there to begin with?

During a ritual, it is revealed, in gruesome form, that those elderly folks commit suicide at age seventy-two, and their names are given to newborns.

The handsome Christian is a prime candidate to provide life, but why are the others killed? Were they lured intentionally, and does their being American have anything to do with it? Was the intent all along to crown Dani May Queen, or did she win the dancing competition?

The climax of the film ties back to the beginning portion only in terms of Dani’s and Christian’s relationship, and her family’s deaths seem to have little to do with the overall narrative. Does Dani intend revenge on Christian, or is she so drugged that she is unaware of her actions? Will she remain in the village?

A film heavily influenced by The Wicker Man (1973), Midsommar (2019) has divided audiences, with common reviews offering mixed opinions. Some despise the film, calling it one of the worst ever seen.

Others herald it as a work of art, an unsettling offering that provokes thought and provides a sinister feel.

I found an enormous number of questions left unanswered, and this may be a good thing. It only makes me want to see the film again or peel back the onion post-film to dissect the many layers Aster creates.

Independent Spirit Award Nominations: Best Cinematography

Dawn of the Dead-2004

Dawn of the Dead-2004

Director Zack Snyder

Starring Sarah Polley, Ving Rhames

Scott’s Review #956

Reviewed November 8, 2019

Grade: C+

Dawn of the Dead (2004) is a remake of the original horror-comedy-satire film by legendary George Romero. What the original provided in intrigue and concept is lacking in the much bloodier remake- the freshness is not there.

The film was made pre-television phenomenon The Walking Dead but watching it now with the zombie obsession in a steady decline, the film, while entertaining, feels tired and dated.

The film feels patterned after the successful and fresh 28 Days Later (2002).

Now set in Wisconsin (the original was in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania), Ana (Sarah Polley), returns from a shift at the local hospital, where she works as a nurse. She soon learns that massive bulletins alert sudden zombie plague, where former human beings have turned into cannibalistic corpses.

Her husband a victim, Ana joins a small group of survivors at the local shopping mall and attempts to stay alive while being encircled by the creatures, and other not-so-nice people.

The main group includes a grizzled police sergeant, Kenneth (Ving Rhames), electronics salesman Michael, petty criminal Andre and his pregnant wife, Luda, and three guards, C.J., Bart, and Terry.  They are later joined by others who arrive via delivery truck.

The large group befriends another survivor, Andy, who is stranded in his gun store across the zombie-infested parking lot.

The rest of the film offs the characters one by one in traditional horror style, while the remaining few try to figure out an escape route.

The main problem with Dawn of the Dead is that the characters are not written well, making them either one-note or not particularly interesting, and quite stereotypical. Examples of this are the angry and defiant guards, who make trouble for the rest of the group for no other reason than as a weak plot device to create drama other than from the zombies.

Kenneth is an angry cop, a lone wolf type of character, who frequently postures and preaches. Again, there is no interesting reason behind his personality.

Finally, Steve is an oversexed playboy who keeps recordings of his sexual shenanigans for repeated viewings.

The character meant to root for is Ana. We sympathize with her for her husband’s gruesome death and her struggle to stay alive, so she is the film’s hero. Her character is likable and Polley is a worthy actress, but I wonder if a name star would have been better in this circumstance.

Polley did not last very long in the Hollywood world and this only makes the film feel more dated than it already does. Many viewers will not know who the actress is.

Another irritant is the decision to make the zombies move faster. Part of the beauty of the zombies is that they are slow and brooding, unable to think, just existing in a mummy-like haze. Suddenly, they are fast, making them tougher to flee from. This attempt at a modern approach by changing things up too much does not work at all.

Dawn of the Dead is not all dour.

Props must be given to the mall setting, updated for 2004 shopping inclusiveness. Trendy and timely stores are added, and it feels like a mall of its time. This is one aspect of the film that works and feels interesting.

Eagle-eyed viewers may spot some of their favorite stores from this decade.

The strongest part of an otherwise mediocre film is the brilliant incorporation of the heavy-metal band Disturbed’s aggressive song “Down with the Sickness” from 1999. The song is incorporated over the stylistic end credits and a summary of what happens to the survivors is provided over the lyrically brutal song.

Unfortunately, it is at the very ending of the film where it finally hits a home run.

Since this is a remake it is impossible not to compare it to the 1978 version in many ways. The characters in the original had more salt and a romance added a bit of complexity. The original also felt fun whereas the 2004 version seems hardened and angry.

The originality that made the original fresh is lacking in this retread, which limits the unique social context and thought provocation that the original contained.

With little reason to watch Dawn of the Dead (2004), unless it was still 2004, the original 1978 Romero version is far superior. A fun tip might be to watch them in sequence (I did!) to notice differences in style and pacing and for general comparison sake.

The final musical score is a win, but much of the rest is dull and dated.

Jojo Rabbit-2019

Jojo Rabbit-2019

Director Taika Waititi

Starring Roman Griffin Davis, Scarlett Johansson

Scott’s Review #955

Reviewed November 6, 2019

Grade: A

Jojo Rabbit (2019) is, quite simply, a satire.

This type of film, and this style of filmmaking, is not intended for all palates. The subject of Nazis and Adolf Hitler will hit too close to home for some viewers, especially considering this film is being classified as a comedy, albeit a dark one.

With this risk in mind, the film has a fabulous message, is quirky, well-acted, and a marvelous piece of work. But it is a gradual, acquired taste, and not everyone will leave theaters feeling satisfied. I sure did.

Director Taika Waititi, a Jewish man, is careful to toe the line with his story, teetering close to the edge, but never going too far overboard.

He is careful not to offend those who may have close ties to World War II, the horrific events that took place, or disrespect the scars that remain.

Instead, he teaches a lesson of acceptance, humanity, and pathos. A laugh one moment leads to tragedy and tears the next, making Jojo Rabbit quite the robust emotional experience.

The time is the 1940s, setting Germany, as Roman Griffin Davis portrays the title character, a Hitler Youth who finds out his mother (Scarlett Johansson) is hiding a Jewish girl, Elsa (Thomasin McKenzie), in their attic.

Energetic and excitable, he joins a training camp where he is unable to kill a defenseless rabbit, earning him his new nickname. Jojo slowly comes to question his beliefs while dealing with the intervention of his imaginary friend, an idiotic version of Adolf Hitler (Waititi).

He eventually forges a close bond with Elsa.

As the film begins, it immediately reminds me of Wes Anderson’s distinctive storytelling style. Think The Royal Tenenbaums (2001) or Moonrise Kingdom (2012).

With quick editing and fast-paced monotone dialogue, the characters initially appear silly and trite, yet offer witty responses to unusual situations. As the relationships deepen, the audience comes to fall in love with them.

Davis is an outstanding child actor and the heart of the film.

Johansson’s Rosie, the mother, is secretly anti-Nazi. She’s got flair, pizzazz, and a good pair of shoes. She states that to dance is to be alive, offering Jojo words of wisdom. They come upon a few dangling bodies perched in the center of town for all to see.

They have been caught aiding Jewish people and are a deadly symbol to present. Rosie tells Jojo not to look away, for these people did what little they could.

This scene is a poignant one.

Captain Klenzendorf (Sam Rockwell), a Nazi captain who oversees the youth camp, initially appears to be a buffoon and a one-dimensional character. He deepens as not just his patriotism, but his sexuality is called into question.

The LGBTQ angle is implied, but only lightly touched upon, so that the point remains vague and mysterious.

The Captain stands very close by his second-in-command, Finkel, and a scene at the pool will make many wonder about the proper relationship between the men.

Finally, Yorki, Jojo’s best friend, is just adorable, providing sweetness and genuine quality that is undeniably benevolent. McKenzie, as the frightened yet strong Elsa, is courageous to a fault. Stubborn and inflexible, she softens to Jojo as they get to know each other.

Her mysterious boyfriend, Nathan, never seen on-screen, plays a prominent role and is a key to the relationship between her and Jojo. The characters are an integral part of the film.

Made in 2019, a volatile time on planet earth, and especially in the United States, the film breathes fresh air into the world of inclusion and acceptance. Much of this is slowly revealed as events transpire to a crescendo.

As the war ends, several lives are forever changed, some for the better, others tragically, but each is connected to the others, enriching their respective lives.

Waititi celebrates the gifts, joys, and heartbreaks of life.

Jojo Rabbit (2019) is a film that prompts the viewer to think critically and challenges them to reconcile innocence and evil. Despite the subject matter, the film is neither cold nor harsh, and it does not disrespect history.

Incorporated are death and tragedy, mixed with learning and strong relationships.

The film is a great experience and an essential find among many routines and mainstream projects. Jojo Rabbit perks up the cinema, and hopefully the viewer, with a beautiful message.

Oscar Nominations: 1 win-Best Picture, Best Supporting Actress-Scarlett Johansson, Best Adapted Screenplay (won), Best Production Design, Best Costume Design, Best Film Editing

Don’t Look in the Basement-1973

Don’t Look in the Basement-1973

Director S.F. Brownrigg

Starring Anne MacAdams, Rosie Holotik

Scott’s Review #954

Reviewed November 5, 2019

Grade: B

A film that is so low-budget that it strongly resembles the quality of independent master John Waters films, Don’t Look in the Basement (1973) has very low production values. It makes Waters’s films look like grandiose budget fests.

It contains a campy and cheap quality that adds to the fun of watching. With a videotaped look and marginal acting, the film is perfect for a late-night indulgence, but little more.

Director S.F. Brownrigg, with screenwriter, Tim Pope, brought this project to life. Also named The Forgotten and Death Ward #13, Don’t Look in the Basement is the title that works best and conjures up the most intrigue.

The story revolves around a collection of odd hospital inmates running the asylum while a series of mishaps occur.

Stephens Sanitarium is a secluded mental health facility in a remote area run by the quirky Dr. Stephens. The good doctor believes that the secret to curing his crazy group of loons is to allow them to express themselves, acting out their realities in hopes of solving their problems.

Stephens and an elderly nurse are both killed separately, he is accidentally hacked to bits by an ax, and she has her head crushed by a female patient who thinks her baby (a doll) is being taken from her.

Dr. Geraldine Masters (Anne MacAdams) is left to run the facility and greets a new nurse, the sexy Charlotte (Rosie Holotik) when she arrives from out of town expecting a job.

Charlotte encounters all the inmates before strange events begin to occur like an older patient having her tongue cut out, and a visiting telephone repairman being murdered.

One could speculate that Don’t Look in the Basement influenced independent treats such as Supervixens (1975), High Anxiety (1977), or the plethora of slasher films soon to be on the horizon, but this may be wishful thinking.

A few choice scenes seem like quick blueprints for these films to follow but in an amateurish way.

Despite the film being of the horror genre category, several scenes, mostly of Charlotte and Geraldine talking in an office, seemingly carved from a daytime soap opera, which was popular in those days.

The long dialogue, and almost throwaway scenes, do not further the plot much, and it’s the occasional macabre death scene that achieves the most reaction.

Don’t Look in the Basement adds a big twist that is not difficult to figure out once all the pieces are presented to the viewer. The foreboding title ultimately underwhelms as this anticipated big secret barely comes to fruition.

As the players are offed one by one the implausible conclusion reaches a climax and the viewer will ruminate that the early stages of the film are superior to the ending.

The poor pacing and meandering story made me tune out from time to time. Still, the film is fun and a good, old-fashioned camp-goofy good time.

The characters are completely over-the-top in the best possible way. A female nymphomaniac who, it is relayed, has been left by any man she has ever met and craves love and affection, is convinced that the repairman will marry her (they have only just met!) and has sex with his corpse.

A lobotomized black man only eats purple lollipops and has a heart of gold, while the ugly old woman, sans tongue, attempts to convey a secret message.

Don’t Look in the Basement (1973) is a marginal success because it does not take itself too seriously. This is both good and bad because the project takes on a juvenile quality that sometimes seems to be going for laughs more than for fright.

The acting is below par, but somehow the characters retain enough interest to warrant a recommendation, but only for those with interest in the genre.

Yesterday-2019

Yesterday-2019

Director Danny Boyle

Starring Himesh Patel, Lily James

Scott’s Review #952

Reviewed October 29, 2019

Grade: B-

Yesterday (2019) is a film that is silly but sentimental, oozing with a nice quality that becomes tiresome towards the conclusion.

For those seeking a safe experience, the film will be deemed as wonderful, but for those with an appetite for a left-of-center grit, the film will only marginally entertain. It’s safe.

Director Danny Boyle (2008’s Slumdog Millionaire) chooses a charismatic British-Indian actor, Himesh Patel, for the starring role in a film that any fan of the rock band The Beatles should see.

Jack Malick (Patel) is a struggling musician who resides in Lowestoft, England, a suburb of London. Unsuccessful, he is nonetheless encouraged by his manager and childhood friend, Ellie (Lily James), to reach for the stars and never give up his dreams of achieving success.

One day, he is hit by a bus during a global blackout and is hospitalized with a head injury and missing teeth. When he performs the Beatles song “Yesterday” for his friends, they are blown away by its genius.

Jack realizes that the entire world has never heard of the legendary band and capitalizes on the stroke of luck, becoming a rock n roll superstar.

The massive song catalog of the Beatles featured in Yesterday is the best part of the film. The pleasure is in wondering which songs will appear next and in what context. Jack awkwardly “debuts” the song “Let it Be” to his parents, who continuously botch the name of the song, only showing mild interest.

Next, Jack furiously attempts to remember the lyrics to “Eleanor Rigby”, a difficult song lyrically. Other gorgeous classics featured are “The Long and Winding Road”, “Here Comes the Sun”, and “Something”.

A sentimental nod and appearance of a John Lennon figure is a nice touch and a worthy dedication to the deceased legend. The key here is wondering what would have become of the assassinated star had he not been famous.

The film approaches this when revealing that Lennon would be an older man today. Lennon tells Jack in a sentimental scene that he has lived happily with his wife by his side. If only this had been the case.

Patel is charming and a character to root for. As the butt of jokes made by his friends, who truly adore him, he is neither the handsome lead nor the wimpy co-star, more of a hybrid of the two.

We want him to achieve musical success because he is a nice guy, but we are glad when he finally confesses to the phony plot, as predictable as that revelation is to the film. Patel’s best scenes occur on stage when he either rocks out to the guitar or adorns us with a piano ballad.

Other than the above notes, Yesterday was only mildly entertaining, as it mixed a musical with a romantic story that does not work. If the audience is expected to root for Jack and Ellie to get together, then the idea falls flat.

The pair has no chemistry, nor is Ellie even remotely written as being the type who would live the rock ‘n’ roll lifestyle or want to. She is an elementary school teacher and asks Jack to give up his dream and lead a simple life in the suburbs. Who would do that?

Yesterday is riddled with stock characters, some of whom may or may not exist in real life. As much as I love actress/comedian Kate McKinnon, her overbearing character of Debra Hammer doesn’t showcase her best work.

Driven and cold, the character is played for laughs with her over-the-top behavior, but it feels too much like a part written to showcase McKinnon. Jack’s parents are cliche-filled characters, doting around with confused expressions and seeming to be overwhelmed by all events.

A musical film that cringes with a safe and saccharine feel, saved only slightly by the bevy of mostly 1960s hits by the Beatles, some of which lyrically are dissected and showcased.

Yesterday (2019) features pop star Ed Sheeran, who does not act or contribute to the film. Way too polished and superfluous for its good, Boyle, a worthy director, should have added some edginess rather than going for safe pop.

Thank goodness the film is about the Beatles rather than the Backstreet Boys.

Love Story-1970

Love Story-1970

Director Arthur Hiller

Starring Ryan O’Neal, Ali MacGraw

Scott’s Review #950

Reviewed October 23, 2019

Grade: B+

Love Story (1970) was an enormous blockbuster hit at the time of release with two good-looking stars of the day immersed in a tragic romance. Almost fifty years later the story feels contrived and watered down with a “been there seen that” result.

While reviewing the film one must be mindful of the period in which the film was made (before similar films hit the circuit) and the chemistry between the leads holds up quite well.

Perhaps the film works best having seen it decades ago as it now feels dated.

Handsome Oliver Barrett IV (Ryan O’Neal) is a star ice hockey player attending Harvard University in Cambridge, Massachusetts. He is heir to the wealthy Barrett family led by father Oliver Barrett III (Ray Milland).

While at school he meets the blue-collar Jenny Cavilleri (Ali MacGraw), who attends neighboring Radcliffe College and studies classical music. The couple falls madly in love becoming inseparable.

Oliver is met with anger after he proposes to Jenny, She accepts, and they travel to the Barrett mansion so that she can meet Oliver’s parents. They are judgmental and unimpressed with her thinking she is nice, but hardly a companion for their son.

Later Oliver’s father tells him that he will cut him off financially if he marries Jenny. After graduation, Oliver and Jenny marry nonetheless and begin a life of financial struggle but filled with happiness. When they attempt to conceive they learn that Jenny is terminally ill and has weeks to live.

The prime appeal of the film is the romance between Oliver and Jenny which feels primal and honest. They are the cliched rich boy and poor girl equation but in this film the dynamic works.

O’Neal and MacGraw are good-looking and were on the cusp of Hollywood A-list classification so the stars aligned in the casting. They ebb and flow at the beginning of the film with Jenny’s sarcasm and Oliver’s quiet arrogance, but there is never a doubt the pair will fall madly in love and we, the audience, are hooked from the start.

On an atmospheric level, the icy northeastern climate and the myriad of exterior scenes throughout Massachusetts give the film a proper ambiance.

For anyone who has studied at a university in this area or has an interest, the film succeeds, and it adds a robust flavor to the surrounding events. The youthful wonder and the promise of a bright future are of paramount importance to the story being told and the foreshadowing is effective.

The film lacks guts in the pacing area though. Most of Love Story is spent focusing on the newness of Oliver and Jenny’s romance and their hurdles surrounding family members and a brief nod to class and societal roles.

At a brief one hour and thirty-five minutes, there is very little time left for the shocking turn of events surrounding Jenny’s illness. Coming out of nowhere, the character is alive and well, has a brief fainting spell, and is then seen lying on a gurney before dying off-screen.

There is no bedside death scene, no suffering or deteriorating health, and the entire tragedy is glossed over. Hence the title, the focus is on the “love story” but this seems like a scam.

So much is invested in the couple that the loss seems skimmed over. How can one die from leukemia (blood cancer) within a few days anyway?

The filmmaker’s clear attempts at playing it safe are at the expense of the overall film experience.

Love Story (1970) deserves praise for being one of the first of its kind- the romantic tearjerker. The genre would soon become soaked with imitators so cliched that they bring the original down a notch because it now feels trite.

The ‘chick flick’ contains good acting and nice scenery but lacks the emotional depth I was hoping for. Melodramatic to a fault the appeal of the leads surges the overall effort way more than it should.

Oscar Nominations: 1 win-Best Picture, Best Director-Arthur Hiller, Best Actor-Ryan O’Neal, Best Actress-Ali MacGraw, Best Supporting Actor-John Marley, Best Story or Screenplay Based on Factual Material or Material Not Previously Published or Produced, Best Original Score (won)

Ma-2019

Ma-2019

Director Tate Taylor

Starring Octavia Spencer, Diana Silvers

Scott’s Review #949

Reviewed October 22, 2019

Grade: B+

Marketed as a slasher film based on the trailers, Ma (2019) impressed me immensely as my expectations of a standard horror film were superseded by a more complex, perfectly paced psychological thriller.

A fantastic performance by Octavia Spencer, and dare I mention an Oscar-worthy one if this were a different type of film, the actress effortlessly brings a vulnerability to a not-so-easy role to play.

The finale is disappointing, and the film includes a few too many stereotypes, but it is a terrific effort nonetheless.

Set somewhere in remote Ohio, but looking more like the southern United States, teenager Maggie Thomson (Diana Silvers) and her mom Erica (Juliette Lewis) return to Erica’s hometown after her marriage fails.

Reduced to a job as a cocktail waitress at a local casino, she encourages Maggie to make friends. Maggie falls into the popular crowd as Erica reconnects with high-school friends who are mostly the parents of Maggie’s new friends.

Sue Ann (Spencer) bonds with the cool kids by purchasing them alcohol and hosting parties in her basement, much to the displeasure of her parents.

The audience soon realizes that something is amiss with Sue Ann. She forbids the kids from ever venturing upstairs and slowly develops a needy attachment to the teens.

Flashbacks begin to emerge as clues to her connection to the other parents and her plot for revenge.

The incorporation of a place in the house to avoid is a typical horror gimmick that always works well. Inevitably, someone will venture into that area of the house, and a secret will be revealed. Ma is no different in this regard.

It’s terrific to see more diversity, particularly among the African-American population, represented in the horror genre. Typically, the horror genre has been an all-white affair, with actors of color often cast as best friends or in minor supporting roles at best.

Thanks to Get Out (2017) and Us (2019), horror films have recently included all-black casts and have been tremendous hits.

Let’s hold out hope that the Asian, Latino, and LGBTQ communities will receive more inclusion and bring freshness to a key cinematic genre.

The film belongs to Spencer.

The Oscar-winning actress must have had a fun time with this role and gets to let loose during many scenes. She goes from coquettish to maniacal, sometimes within the same scene, with flawless precision and gutsy acting decisions.

My favorite, Sue Ann, is the unhinged one as she slyly threatens to cut one male character’s genitalia off. She smirks and uses her large, expression-filled eyes to her advantage. Psycho has never looked so good!

The climax, so crucial in horror or thrillers, to follow through and capitalize on the build-up, ultimately fails in Ma. Once the big reveal surfaces and a childhood prank is exposed, the trick hardly seems worthy of a killing bonanza.

A mousy Sue Ann performed fellatio on a nerd instead of her crush. Even those involved on the outskirts are blamed, and waiting twenty years to exact revenge on her tormentors (most of whom have repented) doesn’t seem plausible.

Ma (2019) contains a hefty cast of stalwarts, but it’s Spencer who brings the sometimes-generic material and trivial conclusion to crackling life with her brilliant portrayal of a damaged woman.

Allison Janney, Lewis, and others add respectability when the film teeters too close to mediocrity with its teen character cliches. Still, the film excels when it focuses on a character-rich story and unexpected plot points.

Child’s Play-2019

Child’s Play-2019

Director Lars Klevberg

Starring Aubrey Plaza, Mark Hamill

Scott’s Review #948

Reviewed October 17, 2019

Grade: B

In the horror cinematic genre, when a successful franchise has been dormant for a period, a reboot will inevitably be among the offerings.

Child’s Play (2019) resurrects the series of films popular in the late 1980s and early 1990s with a modern stamp.

The film is formulaic, but it adds a bit of macabre dark humor that lifts it above mediocrity. However, the freshness turns too silly in the final act, and neither the film nor the killer is terrifying.

Kaslan Corporation has launched a successful new global product called Buddi, a revolutionary line of high-tech dolls designed to be human-like companions to their owners, learning from their surroundings and acting accordingly.

Buddi dolls can also connect to and operate other Kaslan products, quickly becoming a phenomenon for kids worldwide. A disgruntled employee tweaks one of the dolls to turn sinister and then commits suicide.

Single mom Karen Barclay (Aubrey Plaza) works as a retail clerk in Chicago, raising a thirteen-year-old son named Andy (Gabriel Bateman), who wears a hearing aid.

New to the area, he struggles to make friends, so Karen takes the defective doll from her store as a substitute friend and picks me up for her son.

As Andy makes acquaintances within the building and takes a dislike to Karen’s new beau, Shane (David Lewis), Buddi names himself Chucky and seeks vengeance against those surrounding Andy, eventually turning on the boy.

Child’s Play takes a modernized approach by making the new Chucky a more high-tech doll, significantly advanced from the original Chucky introduced in 1988.

2019’s Chucky is creepier and more lifelike than the original Chucky, which lends the film a fresh look rather than merely a retread of the 1980s.

Set in present times, the film feels relevant and glossy. New Chucky is more human than old Chucky, with more capabilities and room for thought and deduction, making him more devious.

A treat for Star Wars (1977) fans and any fan of cinema history is the inclusion of Mark Hamill as the voice of Chucky. While Hamill’s voice is not sinister nor particularly distinguishable to the naked ear, the star power adds fun and familiarity, a throwback and ode to film lore.

Hamill’s voice is pleasant and kind, which adds a foreboding and sinister quality.

The film has some clever moments and bits of chilling dark humor that make it a fun experience. When Shane becomes the first victim of Chucky’s wrath and meets a dire fate at the hands of a tiller while hanging Christmas lights, he is beheaded, and Chucky leaves the head in a disgusted Andy’s room.

In hilarious and laugh-out-loud form, the head ends up as a wrapped Christmas present for Andy’s elderly neighbor Doreen, who props it on her mantle until she can open it.

Bryan Tyree Henry, known for his prominent roles in Widows (2018) and the wonderful If Beale Street Could Talk (2018), brings comedy and a likable edge as Andy’s neighbor, Detective Mike Norris.

Plaza, like Karen, is given limited material and unable to shine in her role, not seeming old enough nor motherly enough to add much realism. A big fan of the actress, she is more talented than this part allows her to be.

The film misfires with the cliched misunderstandings and incorrect assumptions that Andy is responsible for the deaths Chucky caused.  Andy’s two apartment buddies are caricatures, and the big finale set inside the retail store is disappointing.

Chucky brilliantly hacks the Buddi toys on the shelves, and chaos ensues as parents and children are massacred as a stampede tries to escape the store. The scene does not work as well as it should at a climax.

Sticking closely to the script and offering a predictable formula film, the 1988 film Child’s Play is remade in 2019 with added star power. Familiar faces (and voices), Plaza, Henry, and Hamill, raise the film slightly above B-movie status, though the dumb finale made me tune out a bit after the main kills were over.

I doubt the film performed well enough at the box office to secure the known actor’s returns, and hopefully, this will be a one-and-done project.

Downton Abbey-2019

Downton Abbey-2019

Director Michael Engler

Starring Hugh Bonneville, Michelle Dockery, Maggie Smith

Scott’s Review #947

Reviewed October 16, 2019

Grade: B+

Capitalizing on the tremendous success of the television series, which ended in 2015, Downton Abbey (2019) is a British historical period drama film written by Julian Fellowes, creator and writer of the series.

Beloved fans will devour the film, as the familiar formula and characters are brought to the big screen, giving it an even grander feel.

The film plays more like a two-hour episode arc over reinventing the wheel, but the result is a resounding crowd-pleasing affair with drama, scandals, and a good dose of nostalgia.

The Crawleys and their servants reside in the lavish fictional estate of Downton Abbey during the year 1927, a year and a half after the series ended.

Little has changed, and most of the characters are in similar situations, enjoying their daily lives.

Robert (Hugh Bonneville) and Cora Crawley (Elizabeth McGovern), the Earl and Countess of Grantham, are notified that King George V and Queen Mary will visit their home as part of a royal tour throughout the country.

The family and staff are excited yet skittish as they prepare to ensure the lavish event goes off without a hitch.

Situations arise such as the Downton Abbey servants feuding with the Buckingham Palace staff, Violet Crawley’s (Maggie Smith) dismay at Robert’s cousin Maud (Imelda Staunton) being in attendance, and attempted plot to kill the King which is thwarted by Tom (Allen Leach).

A new job offer for Edith’s (Laura Carmichael) husband, Mary’s (Michelle Dockery) frustration with maintaining the vast estate, and potential romances for several characters, including a scandalous same-sex relationship.

A few contemporary issues are created – among them, women’s rights and the plight of gay men. And though welcome, neither changes the overall blueprint of what the series is about, which is just what the series fans ordered.

Smith is the main attraction as she chews up the scenery with her insults, sarcasm, and blunt honesty. But the best scene, coming late in the film, gives Smith a chance to burst with sentimentality and limit the hamminess for at least one treasured scene.

The costumes and art direction are lovely, with luscious gowns, tuxedos, suits, jackets, hats, and shoes found in every scene.

The sprawling grounds of Downton Abbey and the ravishing interiors are front and center.

The film ventures to the neighboring city of York to offer a more progressive and metropolitan vibe, but each scene looks perfect, which is what fans have come to expect.

Not every character is front and center, but with an unwieldy cast of close to thirty principals, some are destined to accept back-burner status.

Surprisingly, yet agreeably, is the toned-down story for “super-couple” Bates (Brendan Coyle) and Anna (Joanne Froggatt), having enjoyed their share of trials and tribulations during the original run.

Wonderful moments feature supporting characters like Carson (Jim Carter), Thomas (Robert James-Collier), and Molesley (Kevin Doyle), who nearly steals the show with his hysterical fascination with royalty.

The balance and pace of the film are nearly perfect, and every character has at least something to do.

This characteristic has always helped huge ensemble casts succeed, and Fellowes wisely balances humor with drama but avoids tragedy or dark situations, hoping for mainstream success with his move to the big screen, opting to play it safe.

The attempt succeeds as the film adopts the “if it ain’t broke, don’t fix it” approach.

Downton Abbey (2019) is a splendid winner, primarily due to its impressive production values and costumes.

For fans of the television series, the film is a must-see and offers no more or no less than expected, providing more than enough to please those who want what the popular stories initially offered.

Despite the drama, the film does not feel “soapy” or contrived, and the tender moments may evoke a need for a hankie.

If the writing can remain fresh, I see no reason for another offering not to be green-lit, primarily due to the significant box-office returns.

Judy-2019

Judy-2019

Director Rupert Goold

Starring Renee Zellweger

Scott’s Review #946

Reviewed October 14, 2019

Grade: A

Creating a film about an iconic figure like Judy Garland is undoubtedly a challenging task. Casting the role is even tougher.

Both points come together with perfect symmetry as director Rupert Goold provides Judy (2019) with heart, hope, and a sense of sadness. Rene Zellweger is astounding in the title role as she embodies the character.

The film is excellent and an accurate telling of the real-life person.

The period is 1967, and we meet the adult Judy Garland (Zellwegger) well after midnight, having performed with her two young children in tow. Haggard, they are informed by the Los Angeles hotel staff that their room has been given up due to non-payment.

The American singer and actress is broke due to bad marriages, drugs, and alcohol. The star is forced to return to her ex-husband for shelter—the two quarrel about the children.

The film does not focus solely on the late 1960s and the final years of Garland’s life, but also delves back to her debut as Dorothy in The Wizard of Oz (1939).

The pressures put upon the aspiring actress to perform, lose weight, and maintain her energy are shown in savage fury, so that the audience realizes how the young girl has turned into a boozy, unreliable middle-aged woman.

Hollywood ruined her innocence.

Zellweger is beyond brilliant. Having disappeared from the spotlight for several years, the actress is back with a vengeance, having something to prove. Prove she does as she becomes Judy Garland.

From her small but expressive eyes to her nervous movements and pursed lips, she delivers a flawless performance and has been rewarded with praise across the board.

It is a remarkable portrayal that should be remembered in history.

Much of the film takes place in London as Garland is forced, for financial reasons, to agree to a series of concerts to bring in cash. This necessitates leaving her children behind.

A poignant scene unfolds in a phone booth as Judy reaches the heartbreaking conclusion that her children would prefer the stability of living with their father. Though she understands, the star crumbles in sadness and loneliness.

A treat is the showcasing of Garland’s compassion for others deemed outcasts, as she also was. Gravitating towards gay men, she spots one gay couple in the audience night after night and befriends them as they eagerly await her exit from the theater one night.

She suggests dinner, and the dumbfounded couple clumsily searches for a restaurant open that late, finally offering to make her scrambled eggs at their flat.

Things go awry, but it hardly matters in a heartfelt scene that exposes the prejudices same-sex couples faced as recently as the 1960s and the champion Garland was to the LGBTQ community.

The iconic “Over the Rainbow” is featured late in the film and perfectly placed. Judy ends her touring engagement due to hecklers but returns for a final night on stage, where she asks to perform one last song.

She breaks down while singing “Over the Rainbow,” but recovers with the encouragement of supportive fans and can complete the performance.

Judy asks, “You won’t forget me, will you?” She does not live long thereafter and dies in the summer of 1969. The scene is painful, and not a dry eye is left in the house.

Judy (2019) is a wonderful tribute to the life and times of a Hollywood legend. The film is neither a complete downer nor cheerful.

What the filmmakers do is make it clear that Garland always had hope for a better life and for the happiness that eluded her. She was kind to most and loved her children beyond measure.

Zellweger will likely eat up a plethora of awards throughout the season, as she should.

Oscar Nominations: 1 win-Best Actress-Renee Zellweger (won), Best Makeup and Hairstyling

Independent Spirit Award Nominations: 1 win-Best Female Lead-Renee Zellweger (won)

The Old Man & the Gun-2018

The Old Man & the Gun-2018

Director David Lowery

Starring Robert Redford, Sissy Spacek

Scott’s Review #945

Reviewed October 11, 2019

Grade: B

Quiet films centered on older characters are not the norm in youth-obsessed Hollywood, where profits are always in fashion.

The Old Man & the Gun (2018) spins a tale offering adventure and a good old-fashioned love story, with appealing stars. The film is slow-moving and not groundbreaking, but it possesses a fine veneer and a snug plot that gives viewers a fuzzy feeling of watching something wholesome.

The script is loosely based on David Grann’s 2003 article “The Old Man and the Gun”, which was later collected in Grann’s 2010 book The Devil and Sherlock Holmes.

Career criminal Forrest Tucker (Robert Redford) is wanted for his daring escape from San Quentin State Prison in 1979. The current period is 1981.

Addicted to petty bank robberies for relatively small dollar amounts because he is addicted to the rush. A charmer, he is unassuming and unsuspecting. As he flees the scene of a recent heist, he meets a kind widowed woman named Jewel (Sissy Spacek), whose truck has broken down.

The pair have lunch at a diner and quickly bond.

Forrest is in cahoots with two other bank robbers as the trio makes their way across the southwest United States, garnering a reputation. Detective John Hunt (Casey Affleck), a Dallas detective, is tasked with finding and arresting Tucker until the FBI takes the case away.

Hunt cannot give up the search, and the duo embarks on a cat-and-mouse chase across the area, sometimes crossing paths in the local diner.

Where The Old Man & the Gun succeeds is any scene featuring Forrest and Jewel together. Their chemistry is radiant during calm scenes of the couple eating pie and sipping coffee at the diner, simply getting to know each other organically.

During their first encounter, Forrest slips her a note, adding mystery to their bond. It is unclear whether he reveals his shady career to her, but it is alluded that he has confessed something that she is not sure she believes.

Redford carries the film as if he were still a leading man from his 1970s and 1980s blockbuster days, which is a testament to his Hollywood staying power.

With his charismatic smile and still dashing good looks, it is little wonder that the bank tellers he holds up describe him as friendly and polite, easily wooing the folks into his good graces.

A crowning achievement for the actor, he narrowly missed an Academy Award nomination but did score a Golden Globe nod.

The film suffers from predictability during the final act, when one of his accomplices turns him in to the police, and a chase ensues between Forrest and Hunt.

This is not the film’s best part, and it feels like dozens of other crime dramas. Affleck looks to be in a role he didn’t particularly enjoy; at least, that is how it seems to me watching the film.

The actor is an Oscar winner playing cops and robbers and second fiddle to Redford. Can you blame him for looking glum?

Speaking of misses, Hunt is in an interracial relationship with Maureen, a beautiful black woman who has a mixed-race daughter. Rural Texas in 1981 must have posed racial issues for the family, but this is never mentioned. Maureen and her daughter also look straight out of 2019 with fashionable hairstyles and clothes.

The relationship is progressive, a plus, but it is written unrealistically.

Although rumored to be retiring from the film industry (we’ll see if that happens), Robert Redford gives a terrific turn as a man who reflects upon his life and treats the audience to the same effect.

Spacek is a delicious role and a crowning achievement for a great career and is a perfect cast and a treasure to have along for the ride, celebrating two fantastic careers.

The Old Man & the Gun (2018) is a touching, romantic bank heist film with more positives than negatives.

At Eternity’s Gate-2018

At Eternity’s Gate-2018

Director Julian Schnabel

Starring Willem Dafoe

Scott’s Review #944

Reviewed October 9, 2019

Grade: B+

At Eternity’s Gate (2018) is a journey into the mind of one of the most tortured painters- Vincent van Gogh.

The film focuses only on the final years of the artist’s life and the events leading up to his death. Inventive direction by visionary Julian Schnabel creates an isolated and majestic world amid a feeling of being inside Van Gogh’s mind.

Though slow-moving, Willem Dafoe performs brilliantly, eliciting pathos from its viewers.

It is 1888, and Van Gogh is traveling to Paris to meet his good friend and fellow painter, Paul Gauguin (Oscar Isaac), an equally tortured individual. They share ideas and qualms about Paris life, and Gauguin convinces Van Gogh to travel to the south of France, while his brother Theo (Rupert Friend) resides in Paris.

Fluctuating scenes occur of Van Gogh’s relationship with a prostitute, a woman he meets on a country road and obsesses over, and his complex relationships with both Theo and Gauguin.

Dafoe, a legendary actor recognized for this role with an Oscar nomination for Best Actor, is one of the best components of At Eternity’s Gate.

He engulfs Van Gogh with a constant state of emotional exhaustion and dissatisfaction. As he becomes attached to Gauguin, who leaves him, Dafoe so eloquently emits his quiet depression, seeming to have nobody left. As he violently chops off his ear as a show of loyalty to Gauguin, the mental hospital awaits him.

Dafoe carries all these complex emotions with calm grace and dignity.

Schnabel, known chiefly for his groundbreaking Oscar-nominated work on The Diving Bell and the Butterfly (2007), has a beautiful technique. He provides even the darkest scenes with a lovely and sometimes dizzying camera effect and frequently adds scenes of blurred focus with close-ups of his characters.

As a painter himself, the result is a magical interpretation of colors and framed scenes. Many of his films focus on real-life studies, and the director made a great choice in Van Gogh.

The French landscape is lovely and culturally significant to the experience. The busy and robust Parisian lifestyle juxtaposes nicely against scenes of the lavish countryside, presumably north and south of the City of Light.

When Van Gogh quietly sits and paints numerous canvases of still objects—a bush or a tree—the flavorful colors stand out against the landscape and are bursting with natural beauty.

The cinematography is excellent.

The main detraction to At Eternity’s Gate is its slow or snail-paced pace. Although the film is only one hour and fifty-three minutes, it feels much longer.

Viewing the film on an international flight may or may not have influenced this note, but the story seems to drag on endlessly, though the beautiful aspects outweigh the boring scenes.

The mental health aspect and the encouragement Van Gogh receives to get better and heal seem a bit too modern a method for the late nineteenth century.

This may have been incorporated as an add-on to current and relevant issues to be exposed, but while inspiring, it does not seem to fit the film. This is a slight criticism I noticed.

Bordering on the art film genre, At Eternity’s Gate (2018) is a sad depiction of a disturbed man’s lonely existence creating art that would not be recognized as a genius until after his death.

It is a slow film that uses gorgeous camera shots and lovely snippets of Vincent van Gogh’s works to seem poetic.

The film is not for everyone and is not a mainstream Hollywood experience, but it is a quiet biography of one of the greats.

Oscar Nominations: Best Actor- Willem Dafoe

Soylent Green-1973

Soylent Green-1973

Director Richard Fleischer

Starring Charlton Heston, Leigh Taylor-Young

Scott’s Review #943

Reviewed October 8, 2019

Grade: B

Soylent Green (1973) is a rather obscure offering starring then big-named star Charlton Heston in a dystopian science-fiction film.

The story is futuristic and eerily reminiscent of Planet of the Apes (1968), though not nearly as compelling nor as layered.

The result is admirable for its progressive message, cool colors, and sets, but feels dated and of its time and treats female characters more like props than characters, leaving an uneven result.

It’s a one-and-done sort of film.

The year is 2022 and because of the Industrial Revolution, forty million people live in New York City, suffering year-round from extreme humidity because of the greenhouse effect and shortages of water, food, and housing.

Only the wealthy are afforded necessities and residents of the rich (mostly female) are referred to as “furniture” and used as slaves.

Detective Frank Thorn (Heston) is tasked with investigating the murder of an affluent and prominent man, which leads him to dire details surrounding Soylent Industries and the food they produce.

The film seems like someone’s visionary idea turned Hollywood.

Loosely based on a 1966 novel entitled “Make Room! Make Room!” by Harry Harrison, Heston is cast as the lead while his career was slowly declining, but he is still the star and quite hunky for an older gentleman.

He plays a role similar to the character of George Taylor in Planet of the Apes, especially during the final climactic reveal, which will make viewers question what is contained in what they are eating for dinner.

Heston carries the film well and mixes wonderfully with character actor Edward G. Robinson, who plays Sol Roth in his final role. The old character decides to “return to the home of God” and seeks assisted suicide at a government clinic.

The final scene between the actors is poignant and heartfelt as they say goodbye to each other. Eagle-eyed viewers will spot a young Dick Van Patten in a tiny role during this scene.

Any romantic chemistry is lacking in Soylent Green as a potential love match between Frank and Shirl (Leigh Taylor-Young) strikes out. Mismatched and having little thunder together, the couple does not appeal well.

Making matters worse is that Shirl is mere “furniture” limiting the character’s potential. She is reduced to assisting with Frank’s investigation.

The main detraction is that the film does not feel very futuristic or authentic. The characters look like actors from the 1970s dressed up to look like they are from the future always with a tint of Hollywood thrown in.

The story loses its way halfway through and teeters about between pure science-fiction and a standard detective story, seen nightly at that time on network television.

Still, the film does contain a robust amount of potential but is not reached. The progressive slant and social commentary are admirable, and the bright green nutritious synthetic canned food is almost a character.

The final scene will shock the viewer with horror and I wish more scenes this jaw-dropping existed within the entire experience and not simply at the end.

A film that attempts to do something different or provide a provocative message is worthy of a certain amount of praise.

Soylent Green (1973) carves a bit of thought provocation but seems more relevant for the 1970s than containing much interest decades later.

Heston is dazzling as the main character and the trimmings are impressive but Invasion of the Body Snatchers (1956) or The Day the Earth Stood Still (1951) resonate more as similar genre films.

Hustlers-2019

Hustlers-2019

Director Lorene Scafaria

Starring Constance Wu, Jennifer Lopez

Scott’s Review #942

Reviewed October 3, 2019

Grade: B+

Hustlers (2019) is a film that I had no intention of seeing. It was not on my radar, and I did not know much about the movie except that it was promoted as a story about a group of strippers who bamboozle Wall Street men.

Yawn!

The experience was better than expected, thanks to the critically lauded performance by Jennifer Lopez. She astounds in a role perfectly written for her as the true story champions female empowerment, and why shouldn’t it?

The result is a feminist film with humor.

Constance Wu, famous for putting Asian actors on the map with Crazy Rich Asians (2018), does a complete one-eighty as the lead character in Hustlers.

Unrecognizable, she plays a New York City stripper named Destiny, who works at a trendy Wall Street club named Moves, in 2007. She supports her grandmother and barely gets by on meager tips, possessing the looks but not quite the style.

When she witnesses fellow dancer Ramona Vega (Lopez) perform a simmering routine, the women bond and become fast friends.

Destiny enjoys newfound wealth and a close friendship with Ramona. A year later, the financial crisis strikes, and both women find themselves struggling for cash, having squandered their fortunes.

Destiny becomes pregnant.

Her boyfriend leaves her shortly after their daughter’s birth, and she is unable to find a new job. Destiny and Ramona, along with other girls, hatch a plot to manipulate the business people they have grown to know out of desperation.

The story is based on actual events.

Had the elements not wholly come together in this film, the result would have been dreary or at best mediocre.

A current trend in modern cinema is to have a group of female characters team up in some form of heist or crime-fighting adventure- think Ocean’s Eight (2018), the Ghostbusters (2016) remake, or Widows (2018).

Some results are better than others, but hardly memorable, as the girl-buddy genre hardly has any depth.

Two critical factors stand out to me as rising Hustlers way above a mediocre or standard fare film experience. Jennifer Lopez deserves all the praise she has been showered with for her role as Ramona.

From the moment Lopez, who is listed as Executive Producer, appears on screen, she is electrifying and impossible not to be mesmerized by.

As she shakes her booty (and many other parts of her anatomy) and writhes on stage to Fiona Apple’s “Criminal,” the men in the club throw money at her.

The scene oozes sexuality, and from this moment on, Lopez owns the film.

Lopez, besides Selena (1997), has primarily chosen mainstream and fluff material like The Wedding Planner (2001) and Maid in Manhattan (2002) over the years.

She may not be the Meryl Streep of her time, but it is always nice when an actor charts challenging and dangerous waters. May she continue to choose wisely. She powers through Hustlers with gusto and is the central draw.

Not to limit Hustlers to a conventional woman using sex appeal to lure men, the film is sure to get its message across to viewers in a more sobering way.

By 2008, the United States was in a financial landslide, with Wall Street being hit particularly hard. The point is made that not a single person went to jail for causing the collapse or for causing tens of thousands of people to lose their homes, jobs, or life savings.

This makes the audience realize that what the women did pales in comparison to Wall Street types (their victims), and many of their lures got what they deserved.

The subject matter at hand, being one of the worlds of strippers, may turn off some of the prudish, but delving into the emotions and aspirations of those who exist in the industry is eye-opening and quite enjoyable.

Hustlers (2019) successfully garnered empathy from its audience and champions a female empowerment movement, resulting in the surprise hit of the season.

Independent Spirit Award Nominations: Best Director-Lorene Scafaria, Best Supporting Female-Jennifer Lopez, Best Cinematography