All posts by scottmet99

Nancy-2018

Nancy-2018

Director Christina Coe

Starring Andrea Riseborough

Scott’s Review #941

Reviewed October 1, 2019

Grade: B+

Part of why I love independent cinema so much is the freedom it gives the director to tell a good story of his or her choosing, usually with little studio interference or opinions.

Nancy (2018) is a good example of this, as Christina Choe writes and directs a film that is hers to share. A quiet film about loneliness, the need to belong, and connect with others is the main element in a compelling and unpredictable story.

Living in a barren small town in upstate New York, Nancy (Andrea Riseborough) endures cold, damp, and bleak weather. Working a temporary office job where the staff barely remembers her from her previous stint, Nancy spends her downtime caring for her ill mother (Ann Dowd) and playing with her cat, Pete.

When an occurrence leaves her vulnerable, she sees a news report featuring a couple whose daughter disappeared thirty years ago. She looks exactly like Nancy, which gives the sometimes dishonest woman an idea.

Riseborough carries the film with a strong performance but is not a character the audience easily roots for. Nancy is not unkind, dutifully tending to her mother’s needs when she is not pleasant. She pretends to be pregnant to meet an internet support group man who lost a child and seeks comfort in Nancy.

Hoping for a romance or at least a human connection, the two run into each other, and when the man realizes her scheme, he calls her psycho. We witness a range of subtle facial expressions revealing the complicated character, which Riseborough provides brilliantly.

Choe tells a very human story peppered with deep feelings and emotions that are easy for the audience to relate to.

Conflicted views will resound between the principal characters: Nancy, Leo Lynch (Steve Buscemi), and his wife, Ellen (J. Smith-Cameron). The Lynches, especially Ellen, are vulnerable, yearning for a glimmer of hope that their long-lost daughter, surely dead, is alive.

So, the director’s complexities work exceptionally well to keep the emotional level high.

All three principal actors do a fine job, with Smith-Cameron being rewarded with a Film Independent award nomination. She is the most conflicted of the three and the character audiences will ultimately fall in love with and feel much empathy for.

Has Buscemi ever played a nicer man? I think not, as the actor so often plays villainous or grizzled so well. With Leo, he is rational, thoughtful, and skeptical of the story Nancy spins. He adores Ellen and does not want to see her again disappointed, the pain apparent on both faces.

The cast possesses many quiet and palpable subtleties.

The locale in the film is also a high point. Presumably, the cold and angry air fills the screen in January or February, adding a measure of hopelessness that each character suffers from differently.

Numerous scenes of the outdoors are featured, and compelling moments are provided. When a pretty snowfall coats the land, this is a tease, as one character’s hopes are ultimately dashed. A cheery landscape such as California or Florida would not have worked as well in this film.

Nancy (2018) risks turning some viewers off with its unhappy nature and slow pace, but isn’t this much better than a fast-paced Hollywood popcorn film?

To me, the answer is obvious, and Nancy is a prime example of why the film industry and its enthusiasts should celebrate and revere small films.

Lies and truths cross a fine line, and the potent psychological thriller will leave viewers mesmerized as events progress.

Independent Spirit Award Nominations: Best Supporting Female- J. Smith-Cameron, Best First Screenplay

The Aftermath-2019

The Aftermath-2019

Director James Kent

Starring Keira Knightley, Alexander Skarsgard, Jason Clarke

Scott’s Review #940

Reviewed September 13, 2019

Grade: B-

The Aftermath (2019) is a heavily melodramatic post-World War II period film riddled with cliches and poor plot setups, but is nonetheless a moderately enjoyable experience.

With a marginal romantic triangle in play and good-looking stars, this can only go so far, as predictability soon sets in.

Exquisite to look at, with a bright and lush European ambiance, the picture is easy on the eyes but lacks a good story or surprises. The film will be forgotten before long.

The period is 1945, and the murderous war is still fresh on the minds of all affected, and animosity remains between the English and the Germans.

Rachael Morgan (Knightley) arrives in Hamburg during the bitter winter season to reunite with her British husband, Lewis (Clarke), who is tasked with helping to rebuild the decimated city.

The Morgans reside with a handsome German architect, Stefan (Skarsgard), and his teenage daughter, Freda. Resentment exists between the four since a German-caused explosion killed Morgan’s son.

Both positives and negatives are contained within the film.

The casting of Knightley, Skarsgard, and Clarke brings professionalism and A-list sensibility so that the viewer is keen to be watching a glossy Hollywood affair.

The offering of a robust romantic triangle is not fair to say, since from the moment Rachael and Stefan meet, they can barely take their eyes from one another.

As if this is not enough, the largely absent Lewis leaves plenty of alone time for Stefan and Rachael to watch each other lustfully. Nonetheless, Knightley and Skarsgard share great chemistry.

The time and setting are also well done. The gorgeous German house in which Stefan and his daughter reside feels both grand and cozy, complete with a piano and enough open space to go along perfectly with the snowy and crisp exterior shots.

The coldness mixes with the fresh effects of those ravaged by war. Music is played frequently, and a female servant dutifully waits on all the principals during dinners and desserts, adding classic sophistication to the film.

So, the look of it all is quite lovely.

Despite the elements outlined above, the story is a real weak point of The Aftermath. It is riddled with cliché after cliché and seems to want to take a page out of every war romance imaginable. Rachael at first loathes Stefan simply for being German, despite clearly being in lust with him.

Her constant gazes into the distance (thoughtfully pondering what, we wonder?) grow stale, and the product is just not very interesting.

A silly side story involving Freda’s boyfriend being involved in Werwolf, a Nazi resistance movement, seems unnecessary and merely a way to momentarily cast suspicion on Stefan.

The film is plot-driven rather than character-driven, and this makes the characters less than compelling.

The final sequence, set on a train platform as Rachael, Stefan, and Freda eagerly decide to steal away into the sunset and begin a new life together, is standard fare. Lewis, the odd man out, is a bit too okay with the circumstances of Rachael and Stefan’s passion to be believed.

The farewell scene is stolen from the superb 2002 classic Far from Heaven and is nearly identical in every way.

Marvelous to look at and nurturing a slight historical lesson within its bright veneer, The Aftermath (2019) is a soap opera story-telling of a romance between two individuals who are not supposed to fall in love.

The film has pros and cons and is an okay watch, mainly because the talented cast raises it slightly above mediocrity, adding some measure of realism and avoiding it from being a disaster.

Recommended for anyone who adores melodrama mixed with a classic period piece.

IT: Chapter Two-2019

IT: Chapter Two- 2019

Director Andy Muschietti

Starring James McAvoy, Jessica Chastain, Bill Hader

Scott’s Review #939

Reviewed September 11, 2019

Grade: B+

A companion piece to the first chapter, named It (2017), and an adaptation of the famous and chilling 1986 novel by horror novelist Stephen King, It: Chapter Two (2019) is a successful culmination of the vast story and will please many fans.

A box-office hit mixing straight-ahead horror with the supernatural, and a tad of adventure mixed in, the film is to be appreciated in many ways, though I slightly prefer the first chapter by measure.

Set in present times (2016), twenty-seven years after the first film took place, the Losers’ Club kids are now nearing middle age, in their forties.

The most prominent characters in the group, Beverly Marsh (Jessica Chastain), Bill Denbrough (James McAvoy), and Richie Tozier (Bill Hader) are summoned by childhood chum Mike Hanlon to return to the sleepy town of Derry, Maine, after a series of murders begin at the summer carnival.

Each of them, except for Mike, has fled the small town and found success in bustling cities, living prosperous lives.

Because of a promise made as kids, the entire group reunites except for Stanley Uris, who chooses to fatally slit his wrists in a bathtub rather than return and face evil Pennywise the Clown (Bill Skarsgard).

The six members wrestle with their demons and past mistakes while Pennywise takes the form of human beings and objects to terrorize the group, providing imagined and frenzied scares. At the same time, they scramble to perform a Native American ritual to destroy the beast.

It isn’t easy to write a successful review of It: Chapter Two as merely a stand-alone film since the two chapters are meant to be one cohesive, long film.

Filmed at the same time, the pacing and continuity are what make the experience an enjoyable one. The key is the interspersing of many scenes, a hybrid of childhood and adult sequences, which gives the film a cohesive package.

This style is a treat for viewers who have seen the first chapter two years ago. After the hoopla dies down, patient fans would do well to watch both chapters in sequence in back-to-back sittings for an undoubtedly pleasant experience.

Director Andres Muschietti wisely places focus on the characters so that the film is character-driven rather than plot-driven, a risk with anything in the horror genre.

Each of the six adults resembles the six kids in physical appearance, which makes the story believable. A major strength is the focus on each character individually, both in the present and in the past. Each faces insecurity, guilt, or mistakes, making them complex.

At a running time of two hours and forty-nine minutes, the film can take its time with character exploration and depth.

A nice add-on and deviating slightly from the King novel is a modern LGBTQ presence. It is implied (though I admittedly missed this when I saw the film) that Richie (Hader) is either gay or wrestling with his sexuality.

The pivotal final scenes depict Richie’s undying love for his lifelong friend Eddie, as one saves the other’s life only to sacrifice his own. The fact that the love is unrequited or unrealized is both sad and heartbreaking.

The gay-bashing opening sequence of Adrian Mellon and his boyfriend is quite a difficult watch, as is the lack of any comeuppance for their perpetrators, but the scene is faithful to King’s novel.

It is also a jarring reminder that in 2019, small towns are not always the safest place for the LGBTQ community, as far too often, small towns breed small minds.

The film could contain more jumps and scares than it does, and teeters a bit too long in the overall running time. While the focus on the character is excellent, the final climax and the battle with Pennywise are a slight letdown and feel predictable.

The film is not scary in terms of horror but does have nice special effects and visual razzle-dazzle, especially concerning Pennywise. The creepy clown is less frightening than in the first chapter, but perhaps this is due to becoming more familiar with him.

A treat for eagle-eyed fans is the cameo appearance by legendary author Stephen King. As a cantankerous pawn shop owner, he sells Bill the relic bicycle he had enjoyed in his youth.

For bonus points, Muschietti treats fans to a scene including filmmaker Peter Bogdanovich, who cameos as the director of the film based on Bill’s novel.

It: Chapter Two (2019) offers good entertainment and will please fans of the horror genre and the famous author, as the film is very faithful to the novel.

As a modern horror experience, the film is a solid win, though not without slight missteps. Superior in depth and character development to most films in the same vein, it is a film to be enjoyed and appreciated.

My Fair Lady-1964

My Fair Lady-1964

Director George Cukor

Starring Audrey Hepburn, Rex Harrison

Scott’s Review #938

Reviewed September 6, 2019

Grade: A-

Winner of the Best Picture Academy Award (it would not have been my choice), My Fair Lady (1964) is a good product that is based on the stage version, in turn, based on the famous 1913 stage play Pygmalion by George Bernard Shaw.

The musical’s central negative aspect is its casting choices. Hepburn and Harrison have only mediocre chemistry, and Hepburn does not sing. However, the film is enchanting and filled with lavish sets, colorful costumes, and earnest songs, making it entertaining for the whole family.

The iconic Eliza Doolittle (Hepburn) and Henry Higgins (Harrison) are household names to every fan of the musical genre.

Set in London, sophisticated and arrogant Professor Higgins, a scholar of phonetics, is intent on proving that the tone and accent of one’s voice determine one’s lot in society.

As an experiment, he chooses flower saleswoman Eliza, with her horrid Cockney accent, and is determined to crown her duchess of a ball.

Unaware of his scheme but soon to find out she has been had, romance eventually blooms as the song “I’ve Grown Accustomed to Her Face” becomes essential.

My Fair Lady is quite the epic, with a runtime of two hours and fifty-two minutes, which is lofty for a film.

The misty London setting adds layers of mystique and atmosphere, and the cinematography drizzles with color and pizzazz, making the overall content look fantastic.

Because of the length of the film and the magnificent trimmings, the production looks like a spectacle, reminiscent of the elegant extravagance of the 1950s and 1960s, when musicals made into films were grand and robust.

It’s no wonder this helped it win Best Picture, Best Director, and many other awards. Hollywood loves this film.

When dissected and analyzed, social and class systems are a large part of the film amid the cheery singing, dancing, and big-screen bombast. Social status and hints of socialism pepper the production, rising way above the fluff it could have been if just a “boy from the good side of the tracks meets girls from the wrong side.”

Eliza’s father, Alfred (Stanley Holloway), a waste collector, is also an opportunist. He sings his story during “With a Little Bit of Luck.” The differences between the “haves” and the “have nots” are evident.

Since the chemistry is limited, I never bought Harrison and Hepburn as a romantic duo. The teacher/student angle somewhat works, though always bothersome, but Henry’s self-assured behavior and superior attitude make him tough to root for.

The controversy surrounding the film includes the decision to dub nearly all of Hepburn’s singing with another singer’s voice. This devastated the actress and cost her an Academy Award nomination. Her snub is especially jarring, given the dozen other nominations it received.

The story is heartwarming and follows the like-minded theme of a hero rescuing a damsel in distress. Hints of Cinderella (1950) and even Pretty Woman (1990) glisten, with only a hint of male chauvinism that does not ruin the experience or reduce the film to a dated guy film, as with Pretty Woman.

“I’m an Ordinary Man” describes how women ruin men’s lives and are not the most progressive or female-friendly of all the numbers.

My Fair Lady (1964) is a film from the past that begs to be viewed on the big screen so that all its qualities can be enjoyed. Like Lawrence of Arabia (1963), it is best viewed in a wide-angle, enormous theater setting to ensure that all its aspects are noticed and enjoyed.

It’s a Hollywood film done tremendously well. Young viewers would be wise to be exposed to this film to delight in the cinematic treats.

Oscar Nominations: 8 wins-Best Picture (won), Best Director-George Cukor (won), Best Actor-Rex Harrison (won), Best Supporting Actor-Stanley Holloway, Best Supporting Actress-Gladys Cooper, Best Screenplay Based on Material from Another Medium, Best Scoring of Music-Adaptation or Treatment (won), Best Sound (won), Best Art Direction, Color (won), Best Cinematography, Color (won), Best Costume Design, Color (won), Best Film Editing

The Curse of La Llorona-2019

The Curse of La Llorona-2019

Director Michael Chaves

Starring Linda Cardellini

Scott’s Review #937

Reviewed August 29, 2019

Grade: C+

The Curse of La Llorona (2019) is a modern-day horror flick that possesses all the standard and expected trimmings that a genre film of this ilk usually has.

The story is left undeveloped, with many possibilities unexplored in favor of a by-the-numbers experience.

Linda Cardellini, an outstanding actress, consistently exceeds the material she is given, yet she often comes up empty-handed.

It is the sixth installment in The Conjuring Universe franchise.

The film does have jumps and frights galore, and a creepy ghost/spirit character that is scary, but more was expected from this film, which left me ultimately disappointed.

First-time director Michael Chaves is a novice, so a bit of leniency should be given as he develops a limited product, but he could have a strong future ahead of him if he works on story elements rather than focuses on merely scare tactics.

In 1673, in Mexico, a family happily plays in a field when one of the boys suddenly witnesses his mother drowning his brother, and soon suffers the same fate.

This incident becomes part of Mexican folklore and is subsequently feared by many. In present times (1973), caseworker Anna (Cardellini) is sent to investigate a woman who has locked her two sons in a room. Despite the woman’s claims that she is trying to save their lives, Anna brings them into police custody.

When the boys are later found drowned, the woman curses Anna, whose two young children are now in danger.

The positives are that Chaves makes a competent film. It is not bad and provides a level of familiarity, with creaking doors, cracking mirrors, and an evil spirit named “The Weeping Woman” that are effective and provide a scare or two at just the right moments.

Characters frequently see the spirit through a reflection, and since the film is set almost entirely at night, this tactic is successful.

Cardellini, garnering recent fame for her role in the Oscar-winning film Green Book (2018), undoubtedly signed on for The Curse of La Llorona before all the Oscar wins.

The actress gives it her all but can hardly save the film, though she does provide the professionalism that raises the film above a terrible experience. Not nearly enough praise will be given to the young child actors playing Anna’s kids.

Largely one-note and lacking any evident experience, ironically, they mirror Chavez’s inexperience. They react to the scenes as they are directed, but never add any depth or authenticity to their performances.

Besides Cardellini and the horror elements, The Curse of La Llorona lacks much shine or substance. The plot and characters are forgettable, and the viewer is left shrugging their shoulders once the film concludes, essentially forgetting the production thirty minutes later.

The story, based on folklore, is weak.

The audience is expected to believe the spirit killed her children and now roams the earth looking for other sacrificial pairs of children so that she may bring hers back from the dead?

In one perplexing sequence, the Weeping Woman softens when looking at Anna’s kids, her demonic face reveals how she once was a beautiful woman. She suddenly changes course and reverts to the evil spirit she had been.

Granted, the special effects are impressive, but this is one example of a missed opportunity. Why couldn’t we be given a meatier backstory of the motivations of the woman?

Other misses include the 1970s Los Angeles period, featuring a feathered hairstyle and a tight sweater worn by Anna, a clip of an old television show, and a car or two overlooking the City of Angels, which hardly appreciates the decade or the metropolis.

Especially laughable are the modern hairstyles and looks of the children, including the kid from the seventeenth century.

Any connection to The Conjuring (2013) or Annabelle (2014) is limited, as one character (Father Perez), appearing briefly holding the Annabelle doll, barely warrants mention.

The Curse of La Llorona (2019) may only be a blueprint of what director Chaves can build on in his career, and a bright future for him is not out of the question.

Building on the Conjuring franchise is a good place to start with a specific audience, who are sure to see this film. He should focus on developing his basics and creating films with more depth, character development, twists, and turns.

Charlie Says-2019

Charlie Says-2019

Director Mary Harron

Starring Hannah Murray, Sosie Bacon

Scott’s Review #936

Reviewed August 28, 2019

Grade: B

With the very high-profile release of Quentin Tarantino’s Once Upon a Time in Hollywood (2019) centering around the sadistic Manson murders of 1969, Charlie Says (2019) is another film that delves into the same story, though in a very different way.

The latter takes the perspective of the followers, victimizing them and examining the choices they made that affected the rest of their lives.

The angle is of interest, but the production never completely takes off, resulting in an uneven experience that requires more grit and substance.

Karlene (Merritt Wever), a female graduate student focused on women’s studies, takes an interest in three followers who were viciously killed in the name of their “god”, Charles Manson.

A few years after their arrests, they co-exist together in relative solitary confinement in a California penitentiary. They remain under the delusion that Manson is their leader and their deeds were all part of a grand cosmic plan until Karlene slowly brings them out of their haze of unreality with heartbreaking results.

The casting of the real-life figures is as follows: Charles Manson (Matt Smith), Leslie Van Houten (Hannah Murray), Patricia Krenwinkel (Sosie Bacon), and Susan Atkins (Marianne Rendon).

Each is a prominent character, with the central figure being Leslie “Lulu” and her complex relationship with Manson.

The newest to be recruited, the audience witnesses her hypnotic possession and her occasional uncertainty about the cult. For a fleeting moment, she is even tempted to leave, which the film hammers home to the audience.

Murray plays the character well, but does not resemble her enough for praise, though we read the conflict on her face very well. She is meant to be the thoughtful member of the Manson Family, whereas Patricia and Susan are more reactionary and temperamental, especially Susan.

Whether this is how things were is not known. Still, I always had a gnawing feeling throughout the running time that historical accuracy may have been secondary to the story points and dramatic effect.

Charlie Says is bothersome because of the realization that the girls were recruited and fed lies, falling for the deceit, hook, line, and sinker.

The followers were indeed brainwashed into Manson’s disturbing version of reality, and that fact is alarming, as the girls were not dumb people, only vulnerable young women.

Decades later, it is easy to think of other victims polarized by a central or controversial figure, whether it be in politics or another arena. The lesson learned is that people can be easily influenced.

The actual “murder night” and the death of Sharon Tate are featured, but up-close and personal gore is thankfully avoided. The actress, well known to have suffered a terrible fate, to say nothing of her unborn baby, is a small but crucial aspect of the film.

When one of the girls watches one of Tate’s films in her cell, another girl clamors for her to turn off the film, beginning to feel pangs of guilt and remorse.

The film questions the girl’s responsibilities for their actions, a fact that in real life many wrestled with, including the courts and parole boards. Were they merely duped in the cleverest of ways, or do they deserve their fates?

Spared of the electric chair due to a California law, a positive aspect of the film is a current update of the happenings of each girl, now over forty years later, as mature women. Lulu and Patricia remain incarcerated while Susan has died in prison.

After the film closed and a good measure of time was left to ponder the movie, I was left feeling slightly less than fulfilled and desiring a bit more.

Charlie Says (2019) feels safe and lacks enough grit or bombast, although it is well-intended. The film is clearly from a feminist point of view and is an interesting watch, though, given the subject matter, I had hoped for more substance.

Eighth Grade-2018

Eighth Grade-2018

Director Bo Burnham

Starring Elsie Fisher, Josh Hamilton

Scott’s Review #935

Reviewed August 27, 2018

Grade: A-

Occasionally, a film rich with authenticity and pure honesty comes along, and Eighth Grade (2018) is one of those films.

Bursting with a lead character who brings a genuine sincerity to a complex role, director Bo Burnham gets the best out of emerging talent, Elsie Fisher, in an autobiographical story about teenage angst and awkwardness that nearly everyone can recollect from those hated middle school years.

The coming-of-age story follows the life and struggles of an eighth-grader, Kayla Day (Fisher), during her last week of classes before graduating from junior high school.

She struggles with severe social anxiety but produces secret YouTube videos in which she provides life advice to both herself and her audience. She has a clingy relationship with her sometimes overbearing father, Mark (Josh Hamilton), who adores her but is careful to provide Kayla with freedom and balance, her mother apparently out of the picture.

Eighth Grade feels fresh and rich with good, old-fashioned, non-cliched scenes as audiences fall in love with Kayla and her trials and tribulations.

The stereotypes would abound in a lesser film attempting to appeal to the masses, but this film is going for intelligent writing.

The scenes range from touching to comical to frightening. A tender father and daughter talking over a campfire provides layers of character development for both Kayla and Mark as an understanding is realized.

As Kayla ogles over her classmate Aiden, voted student with the nicest eyes, to Kayla’s demoralizing win for quietest student, she bravely attempts to get to know the boy.

Realizing that to win his heart, she must provide dirty pictures of herself or perform lewd acts, she hilariously watches oral sex tutorials and nearly practices on a banana in a scene rivaling any from the crude American Pie (1998).

To expand on this, the audience will experience concern for Kayla as she winds up in the backseat of a strange boy’s car, encouraged to take off her top, going rapidly from comedy to alarm.

Enough cannot be said for Fisher’s casting as Kayla. Reportedly seen on a real-life YouTube channel, Burnham plucked the fledgling young actress from the ranks of the unknown.

The bright young star will surely be the next big thing with her innocent yet brazen teenage looks- she is only sixteen! With pimples and a pretty face, she admires yet despises popular kids and resorts to telling one-off stories.

Fisher gives Kayla sass and poise mixed with her anti-socialism.

Befriended by a pretty and popular high school student assigned to be her buddy, Kayla awakens with gusto, finally seeing there may be life after middle school and maybe, just maybe, high school will not be as torturous as earlier years.

A cute add-on is an adorable relationship that develops between Kayla and just as awkward Gabe in the film’s final act. They dine over chicken nuggets and bond over a nerdy television show they love.

Hamilton deserves accolades in the more difficult role of the father of a thirteen-year-old. Smart is how the film shares his perspective on current events. He can be daring, as when he enters Kayla’s room to nearly catch her practicing her kissing technique, or creepy, as when he follows Kayla to the mall to see her new friends.

However, his deep affection and admiration for her provide a deep warmth seldom seen in teenage films.

Burnham is careful not to stifle the film with fluff or redundancy but rather makes it timely and relevant. The incorporation of the internet, text messaging, and the never-ending use of smartphones makes any older viewer realize that over ninety percent of thirteen-year-olds use these devices, and social media is the new normal.

The sobering realization is that painful teenage experiences do not end when the three o’clock school bell signals the end of the day.

When the students endure a drill to practice measures to survive a school shooting attack, the reality hits home that this is now also a part of a teenager’s everyday life. American life for the young has changed immensely since most of us were of this age, and Burnham does a bang-up job of reinforcing this importance.

Whether the viewer is elderly or middle-aged, has fond memories of middle school, or cringes at the thought, yearbooks safely packed up in boxes to bury the memories, every viewer can take something away from Eighth Grade (2018).

Excellent casting and an infusion of several cross-genres make this film a fresh and memorable independent comedy/drama deserving of a watch.

Independent Spirit Award Nominations: 1 win- Best Feature, Best Female Lead- Elsie Fisher, Best Supporting Male- Josh Hamilton, Best First Screenplay (won)

Angels of Sex-2012

Angels of Sex-2012

Director Xavier Villaverde

Starring Astrid Berges-Frisbey, Alvaro Cervantes, Llorenc Gonzalez

Scott’s Review #934

Reviewed August 23, 2019

Grade: C

Angels of Sex (2012) is a Spanish LGBT drama that attempts to create an intriguing romantic relationship between its characters but slowly teeters into a plot-driven soap opera mess, leaving the viewer unsatisfied.

Casting good-looking actors and showing plenty of skin only goes so far before one’s attention span begins to wane and one starts yearning for more depth, which never comes in this film.

The filmmakers do get some props for crafting a diverse film, but the story ultimately sucks.

The urban setting of Barcelona, Spain is the backdrop of the film as a student, Bruno (Llorenc Gonzalez), is saved by karate instructor, Rai (Alvaro Cervantes), and begins to question his sexuality as the men grow attracted to one another.

Throwing a hurtle into their blissful affair is Bruno’s girlfriend, Carla (Astrid Berges-Frisbey), who is drawn to both men while shunning their romantic attraction to one another.

The three characters interact and carry on affairs with each other leading to a series of emotions that influence their decisions.

The premise is intriguing, at the beginning of the story anyway, as a “straight man meets gay man” moment immediately occurs, and sparks fly between the men.

When Bruno accepts his attraction to Rai while also continuing his attraction to Carla a unique bisexual premise is offered. Why can’t Bruno spend equal time with Rai and Carla? Which one will he decide to choose or will choose him? Will each of the three be okay with the arrangement?

These are the sorts of interesting questions offered by the film until it slips about halfway through.

Each character begins to crumble and become banal and wishy-washy, especially Carla. She accepts the “time-sharing” relationship but then gets mad when she sees Rai and Bruno kiss, finally falling for Rai and having an affair with him. Huh?

This is character assassination 101. Bruno’s motivations become unclear as he hedges on nearly every decision, while Rai becomes more brooding and indecisive.

It’s as if the writers did not know which direction to take the characters in or thought their good looks would carry the film.

Other gripes include the title of the film having nothing meaningful to do with the story and rather seems like a weak effort at gaining some attention (and viewers) by incorporating such a title.

Another irritant was the constant inclusion of unknown characters break-dancing to the song. Was this necessary? Rai has an interest in the genre, we get that, but the needless scenes seem like attempts to fill time.

Better use of time might have been additional scenes of Carla and her mother. A passing scene or two and a situation involving Carla’s father cheating on the mother is limiting and could have been an interesting sub-plot, perhaps even figuring into the main story.

Carla’s group of friends add little to the film especially her slutty friend bedding two others in the group. The situation seems more like an add-on or a time filler than rich writing.

Props go to any film with the desire to showcase an LGBT-themed story as, despite the film being made in 2012, most LGBT films are still indie projects.

I hoped for and expected more from the film especially the culturally interesting location of a European hotbed of sexuality and parties.

Angels of Sex (2012) starts well until disintegrating into a bad LGBT episode of “As the World Turns” or “Days of our Lives” with poor character writing, unnecessary supporting characters and a feeble attempt at a twist ending that merely turns into a red herring and thereby a disappointment.

Hitchcock/Truffaut-2015

Hitchcock/Truffaut -2015

Director Kent Jones

Starring Wes Anderson, Martin Scorsese, David Fincher

Scott’s Review #933

Reviewed August 21, 2019

Grade: B+

A documentary about film and film-making is a worthy watch for any rabid lover of cinema, and when the subject at hand is Alfred Hitchcock, any fan must certainly chomp.

I remember Hitchcock/Truffaut (2015) appearing at my local independent theater at the time of release but missed my chance to see it.

The misstep having been undone, the work is fine, and the result is an abundance of riches, serving as a fly on the wall for those wishing to listen to two geniuses speak, or merely observe the clips of great films and revel in the creativity.

Already possessing a hefty knowledge of Hitchcock does not dull my perspective, nor do I take for granted the appreciation served.

For an entry-level fan of the director or French film director, Francois Truffaut, the title must be added to one’s “to see” list.

The documentary serves as inspiration and fulfillment for cinema lovers. Billed as side-by-side directors in the title, the documentary treats Hitchcock as the teacher and Truffaut as the student, especially given the age difference between the two men.

Truffaut interviewed Hitchcock in 1962 during a lengthy week-long discussion in a windowless Hollywood office, where the former soaked up the latter’s knowledge and points of view like a sponge.

Truffaut was already a well-regarded filmmaker at age thirty-two, with gems such as The 400 Blows (1959) already under his belt.

Truffaut then wrote a book about the conversations with Hitchcock, and director Kent Jones brings it to life in documentary form, telling his audience why the book had a tremendous impact on cinema while teaching the audience a thing or two about the movies.

The production analyzes film-making from technique to style to clothing, actors, and in between. The main crux is the technique Hitchcock used to create tension and suspense, manipulating the audience every step of the way.

A plethora of his films are featured which is a personal joy to see, most importantly the documentary is clever enough to build to Hitchcock’s most memorable sequence of all, the shower sequence in Psycho (1960), the director’s most recent film, and now, easily his most notorious.

Hollywood titans such as Martin Scorsese, David Fincher, Wes Anderson, and Richard Linklater, arguably geniuses, explain the influence that Hitchcock provided them.

Listening to these formidable directors whimsically praise and dissect Hitchcock’s analysis and explain how he led to their blossoming is a wonderful aspect.

Hitchcock/Truffaut (2015) is a treat for die-hard fans of Hitchcock or Truffaut- or both.

Conversations and interviews with other famous directors show the heavy influence, love, and appreciation for an ingenious suspense director and an equally unique French New Wave director.

A thirty-two-year age difference separated the two men, but they appear as natural as close colleagues.

Great minds do think alike.

You Were Never Really Here-2018

You Were Never Really Here-2018

Director Lynne Ramsay

Starring Joaquin Phoenix

Scott’s Review #932

Reviewed August 19, 2019

Grade: A-

You Were Never Really Here (2018) is an independent psychological thriller that is most reminiscent in tone and texture of the legendary Scorsese film Taxi Driver (1976).

The main characters are worlds apart, but the classic influences the plot and trimmings amid a different period (the present).

A terrific and brooding performance by star Joaquin Phoenix leads the charge, as does the fantastic direction by Lynne Ramsay and the editing team. The dark film is an unusual and impressive choice for a female director.

Snippets of cinematic genius exist during a film that, with a more complete package, might have been a masterpiece.

We first meet Joe (Phoenix) somewhere in Ohio, as we learn he is a hired gun sent to rescue underage girls from sex trafficking rings. He is brutal in his methods of rescue, resorting to gruesome murders to complete his assignments, and is paid handsomely.

In New York City, he cares for his elderly mother, whom he adores, and is contacted to rescue Nina, the daughter of a New York State Senator, Albert Votto, for an enormous sum.

When Joe rescues Nina and waits for Votto, events quickly spin out of control, revealing a sinister web of deception.

When you look at the story that You Were Never Really There tells, it has been told many times before, typically in slick Hollywood conventional standards.

An angry ex-military man unleashes brutality on devious criminals, rescues the girl, and returns her safely to the open arms of her awaiting parents.

Fortunately, the film is more thoughtful than that, adding complexity to the Joe and Nina relationship and a stylistic, poetic quality featuring Joe’s relationship with his mother.

The plot is paced very well so that the events occur over only a day or two, and the film is highly unconventional and dark.

Frequent flashbacks give the film mystique as we see both Joe and his mother abused by Joe’s father, as a young Joe hides in a closet and hyperventilates. Now an adult, Joe is suicidal, frequently fantasizing or practicing his death until he is interrupted.

As grisly as the film can be, beautiful and tender moments are laden throughout as Ramsay provides gorgeous style and humanity. a homoerotic moment occurs when Joe lies next to the man who has killed his mother.

As the man is close to death at the hands of Joe, they hold hands as Joe provides comfort to the man in death. Joe then buries his mother in a pond in upstate New York, providing her with a peaceful final resting place. These are unique scenes that feel almost like an art film.

The conclusion is open-ended, leaving lots of questions. Joe and Nina appear to ride off into the sunset together, but what will they do? What is to become of them? Surely, no romantic element can be found, but where will they go from here?

Both characters appear to have nothing left to hang on to other than each other, but is this sustainable?

The film is not the type that is poised for a sequel, but I would be very curious about what Ramsay has planned for her characters.

Joe is not portrayed as wicked; he is too complex for that. Phoenix, a tremendous actor, perfectly infuses the character with brutality, anger, tenderness, and warmth.

The similarities between You Were Never Really Here and Taxi Driver—the grizzled New York portrayals, the political backdrop, and the main characters saving a woeful young girl from the depths of despair—make the two films comparable.

However, Joe and Travis Bickle are opposites, the latter having frenetic humor that the former lacks.

Ramsay has been around for a while, with We Need to Talk About Kevin (2011) being her most prominent film. She is successful at telling stories about deeply troubled individuals who are good people given awful circumstances.

With a tremendous actor like Phoenix on board, she crafts a solid work that has garnered accolades, at least among the indie critics, for You Were Never Really Here (2018). Ramsay seems poised to break out in a big way and shake up the film industry with future works.

Independent Spirit Award Nominations: 1 win- Best Feature, Best Director- Lynne Ramsay, Best Male Lead- Joaquin Phoenix, Best Editing (won)

With Six You Get Eggroll-1968

With Six You Get Eggroll-1968

Director Howard Morris

Starring Doris Day, Brian Keith

Scott’s Review #931

Reviewed August 15, 2019

Grade: B

A film that influenced the creation of the iconic television series, The Brady Bunch (1969-1974), or the reverse, depending on the timeline or who you ask, With Six You Get Eggroll (1968) is a cute family romantic comedy, hardly exceptional fare.

It becomes too silly during the final act.

The film follows the merging of two families into one big blended family, and its heart is the romance between two middle-aged singles looking for new love despite their baggage.

Abby McClure (Doris Day) is a widow raising three boys somewhere in northern California. She dutifully runs her deceased husband’s lumberyard while feeling unfulfilled in the romance department.

When her overzealous sister, Maxine (Pat Carroll), tricks her into inviting widower Jake Iverson (Brian Keith) to her dinner party, the pair do not connect. Still, they are drawn to one another as they become better acquainted.

Predictable obstacles come their way, including misunderstandings and backlash from their kids.

With Six You Get Eggroll is Day’s last film and certainly not one of her best offerings, but it is nonetheless moderately enjoyable.

The filmmaker intends to showcase a romance between Abby and Jake so that the elements are set up in a way that makes the characters likable, leaving a very predictable experience.

When Jake arrives at the party early and sees Abby at her disheveled worst, or after Jake makes up an excuse to leave the evening early but runs into Abby later at the supermarket, it’s the sort of film that has a happy ending.

As such, the chemistry between Day and Keith is palpable, making the film charming. If they had no chemistry, the film would be a bust, but their slow-burning fondness for each other works well for this genre.

They share a spontaneous evening of champagne and small talk at Abby’s house, and excitedly plan a date for the next day, only for Jake to make an excuse, leaving Abby perplexed.

When Abby sees him with a much younger woman, we feel her disappointment. After all, Abby is well past forty in a world where middle-aged women are not the pick of the litter anymore, as sister Maxine annoyingly reminds her.

When the young woman turns out to be Jake’s daughter, we smile with relief, along with Abby, because we like the characters and want them to be together.

The children: Flip, Jason, Mitch, and Stacey (a young Barbara Hershey) add little to the film and are merely supporting characters. They dutifully add obstacles to their parents’ happiness by squabbling over bathroom space or resenting one parent for taking the other away.

Conversely, Maxine and Abby’s housekeeper, Molly (Alice Ghostley), adds excellent comic relief, keeping the film from turning too melodramatic and providing natural humor.

The Brady Bunch comparisons are pretty apparent to any viewer who has seen the television series, and who hasn’t. The blended families and the G-rated dramatic crises are the most certain, and the period and clothes are almost identical.

Molly the maid could be Alice the housekeeper, and the actor (Allan Melvin) who plays Sam “the Butcher” from the television series appears as a Police Sergeant.

I half-expected the musical scores to mirror each other.

The film has some mild flaws aside from its predictability. The introduction of a band of hippies (though cool to see M*A*S*H alums Jamie Farr and William Christopher in early acting roles) and a speeding chicken truck resulting in arrests is way too juvenile and plot-driven.

A much better title could have been thought up for the film; With Six You Get Eggroll doesn’t exactly roll off the tongue, and it has nothing to do with the story.

Finally, Abby’s masculine profession is only shown in the opening scene and has nothing to do with the story.

For a wholesome late 1960s-themed evening, With Six You Get Eggroll (1968) is a moderate affair with cliches and a cheery tone, but also some genuine chemistry between its leads.

The sets and colors fit the times well, and Day is always top-notch. Perhaps one could skip this film and watch a sampling of The Brady Bunch reruns; the experience would be almost the same.

Madame Bovary-1949

Madame Bovary-1949

Director Vincente Minnelli

Starring Jennifer Jones, James Mason

Scott’s Review #930

Reviewed August 13, 2019

Grade: A-

Madame Bovary (1949) is a film adaptation of Gustave Flaubert’s famous novel. Remade a handful of times since this version, Jennifer Jones is cast in the lead role and does a fantastic job with a complicated part.

The title character is central to the controversial film, which will undoubtedly result in mixed opinions of her actions and motivations- whether she will be loved or loathed.

Director Minnelli mixes melodrama and glamour with pain and defeat in her story of one woman’s attempt at happiness.

Cleverly, the story is told within a story as the viewer is immediately amid a compelling and dramatic trial. Flaubert (James Mason) defends his novel depicting an adulterous woman (Jones) ruining the lives of men, deemed disgraceful to France and all womanhood.

He tells the story from his perspective and, through this, Madame Bovary’s perspective. She (Emma) marries a small-town country doctor, Charles Bovary (Van Heflin), and quickly grows disappointed with his lack of status.

Feeling trapped and unfulfilled, she embarks on failed romances with other men as she attempts to ascend the social ladder.

As with the novel, the theme is either understanding or abhorring Emma’s feelings and actions, or perhaps a mixture of both emotions.

Who would not forsake her for being true to her feelings and desiring her piece of the pie? Most women of her day were reduced to matronly statuses or asexual feelings, but Emma wanted satisfaction and life at the risk of her own family.

To counter these lustful feelings, she does not treat her husband very well, resenting his passivity and being disappointed at her daughter being a girl instead of her desired son.

She feels this would have allowed her better status, so her daughter is nearly shunned, preferring the affections of the housekeeper to her mother’s feeble attempts at love.

Is she Hellion or a sympathetic soul? Emma is one of the most complex of all female film characters.

Madame Bovary was written in 1949, and the novel was published earlier, so the progressive slant is rich and worthy of much admiration. The female perspective and the courage to reach for the stars and grasp life are spirited and wonderful to see, especially given the period.

A mixture of romantic drama and torrid affairs is at hand during this experience and always is the character’s center stage.

The film mixes Gone with the Wind (1939) remnants, especially the lavish dance hall sequence. The ball is the highlight, with gorgeous costumes, great cinematography, and bombastic dances.

As Emma cavorts with a dashing aristocrat, Rodolphe (Louis Jourdan), Charles gets drunk and makes a fool of himself, as her genuine disdain for her marriage becomes clear. The smashing windows with chairs moment is ahead of its time because of the effects used, and the constant dance twirls are dizzying.

So much importance occurs in this pivotal sequence.

While more than adequate, Jones would not have been my first choice for the role. Married to influential producer David O. Selznick, it was rumored that many of the actresses’ roles were given to her.

Delicious is to fantasize at what legends such as Bette Davis or Vivian Leigh might have brought to the character. Especially Leigh, given her dazzling performance as Scarlett O’Hara in Gone with the Wind, a follow-up as a similar and arguably more complex character is fun to imagine.

A film that allows for post-credits discussion is always positive, with Madame Bovary (1949) a lengthy analysis of a character begs deliberation.

Minnelli pours love and energy into a work dripping with nuances long before his famous musicals came to fruition. A strong and vital female character suffers a lonely and despairing fate, which is tragic and sad, but she lives her life with a zest that should empower us all.

Oscar Nominations: Best Art Direction-Set Decoration, Black-and-White

Murder on the Orient Express-1974

Murder on the Orient Express-1974

Director Sidney Lumet

Starring Albert Finney, Lauren Bacall, Ingrid Bergman

Scott’s Review #928

Reviewed August 7, 2019

Grade: A-

Based on the 1934 novel of the same name written by famous author Agatha Christie, Murder on the Orient Express (1974) brings the story to the big screen with a robust and eccentric cast of characters all drizzling with suspicion.

The classic whodunit of all whodunits, the film adds a Hollywood flair with rich costumes and an authentic feel to a budget-blasting extravaganza that keeps the audience guessing as to who the killer or killers may be.

The film was recognized with a slew of Oscar nominations that year.

The hero of the film is Hercules Poirot (Albert Finney), a well-respected yet bumbling Belgian detective, who is solicited to solve the mysterious death of a business tycoon aboard the famous and luxurious Orient Express train.

On his way to the train’s destination, he encounters such delicious characters as the glamorous Mrs. Hubbard (Lauren Bacall), the nervous Greta Ohlsson (Ingrid Bergman), and his friend Bianchi (Martin Balsam), the director of the company who owns the enormous vessel.

Many other characters are introduced to the layered story.

As the complicated plot is unraveled, most of the characters have something to hide or a connection to another character or characters.

The fun for the viewer is to live vicariously through Poirot and await the big final reveal after the film that, unless already viewed the film or read the novel, one will not see coming.

With a film of this type, a detective thriller, the audience can be assured of a resolution, like a big murder mystery dinner theater production brought to the big screen.

Formulaic, the film never drags nor feels dull.

Amid the first few minutes of Murder on the Orient Express, the intrigue is unleashed at full-throttle speed leaving one bedazzled and hooked.

The sequence is brilliantly done and thrusts the audience into a compelling back story of plot and the wonderment of what these events have to do with a train pulling out of the Orient.

Quickly edited film clippings of a news story explain the mysterious Long Island, New York abduction and murder of the infant daughter of a famed pilot.

It is suggested that the Orient Express trip embarks from Istanbul, Turkey, and is destined for London. This means that several countries will be included in the trek, creating possibilities for both geographical accompaniments and new cultural experiences which director Sidney Lumet offers generous amounts of.

Moments following the murder, the train has the unfortunate fate of colliding with an avalanche, leaving the passengers in double peril, with a killer on the loose and cabin fever to contend with.

To the compelled viewer this is snug comfort as the atmospheric locales are gorgeous and the thought of a dozen strangers trapped together with so much to hide brings the story to a frenzy.

Who did what to the murder victim is slowly revealed as several red herrings (or are they?) are revealed. Who is the mysterious woman strutting down the corridor shortly before the murder, spotted by Poirot? Is she a staged pawn or merely an innocent victim? Could she be the murderer?

The wonderful part of Murder on the Orient Express is the number of entangled possibilities.

The conclusion of the film turns the thriller into a moralistic story, to its credit. The fact that the murder victim was hateful and diabolical is a key part of the story and makes the viewer wonder if the killer or killers are justified in their actions.

Does the fact that Ratchett was stabbed a dozen times with varying degrees of severity play into the motivation?

A very compelling, and unrecognizable Finney does a fantastic job of carrying the film among such a troupe of good actors.

Murder on the Orient Express (1974) sets out to entertain and succeeds on every level, bringing the book to the silver screen with a fresh interpretation that still honors the intent that Christie had.

Stylistic and thought-provoking, the film has gorgeous costumes, a good story, and fine acting. The knowledge of who the killer is does little to take away any enjoyment that a repeated viewing will provide.

Oscar Nominations: 1 win-Best Actor-Albert Finney, Best Supporting Actress-Ingrid Bergman (won), Best Screenplay Adapted from Other Material, Best Original Dramatic Score, Best Costume Design, Best Cinematography

The Farewell-2019

The Farewell-2019

Director Lulu Wang

Starring  Awkwafina, Tzi Ma

Scott’s Review #927

Reviewed August 6, 2019

Grade: A-

Any film with a dark premise, such as The Farewell (2019), runs the risk of resulting in a bleak and depressing outcome, but the film is anything but a downer.

Surprisingly, to many, the film is classified as both a drama and a comedy, with snippets of humor and sadness prevalent throughout.

Met with widespread critical acclaim, the film successfully furthers the much-needed presence of quality Asian representation in modern cinema well into the twenty-first century.

Young upstart/comedienne Awkwafina, memorable for her humorous turn in Crazy Rich Asians (2018), returns to the big screen in a more subdued role, crafting a passionate and dramatic character that strongly leads the charge in an ensemble project exploring the family dynamic.

The film succeeds remarkably as a multi-generational glimpse into humanity, although it occasionally suffers from a slow pace.

A thirty-something struggling writer, Billi (Awkwafina), lives in New York City near her parents, all of whom are ex-pats from China. Billi is particularly close with her grandmother, Nai Nai (Zhao Shuzhen), who still resides in her birth land as they speak regularly via telephone.

When Billi is informed that her grandmother has terminal lung cancer and has weeks to live, the entire family reunites and decides to hold a mock wedding as an excuse to be all together.

The family makes the decision not to tell Nai Nai she is dying, preferring to let her live out her days in happiness rather than fear.

Awkwafina is the main draw of the film, and much of the action is told from her point of view.

One wonders if perhaps director Lulu Wang drew from personal experience when she wrote the screenplay. The audience is not aware of Billi’s sexuality, nor is it relevant to the film, but the vagueness was noticeable.

She does not date, nor does she look particularly interested in men. She does her laundry at her parents’ apartment and attempts, but fails, to secure a prestigious writing scholarship.

The supporting characters add tremendous depth, making the film more than just Billi’s story, and provide unique perspectives from her mother, father, and aunt, each of whom holds a distinct viewpoint about Nai Nai’s illness.

I adore this technique in rich storytelling, as it not only fleshed out secondary characters but also provides interesting ideas.  Nai Nai is not written as a doting old lady nor a victim; she is strong, witty, and full of life.

Shuzhen, unknown to me before viewing this film, brings tremendous poise to a crucial role, portraying it perfectly.

The Farewell is a quiet film that combines both comic and dramatic elements, often within the same scene, thereby providing relief from the dour subject matter.

Wang strikes the balance just right, ensuring the film does not become too heavy.

A hysterical bowing marathon ensues as the entourage decides to visit the grandfather’s grave, preparing the essentials to comfort him during the afterlife.

In stark contrast to the physical comedy, not a dry eye can be found when Billi and her parents depart China by taxi for the airport. Nai Nai tearfully waves goodbye to them, not knowing that it will undoubtedly be her final goodbye.

Any audience member with an elderly relative whom they seldom see will be deeply moved by this poignant scene. Questions such as “Would you keep a loved one unaware of a terminal disease?” will gnaw at the viewer, the central theme of the story.

Influenced by the buzz and word of mouth surrounding the film, I yearned for a single, powerful, emotional scene, but one clearly defined, bombastic moment never materialized.

Instead, the film offers small tidbits, careful not to overpower the audience or risk making the movie too sentimental or overwrought. I still think a pivotal teary scene might have been added for good measure.

A scene where Billi breaks down in front of her parents was adequate, but never catapulted the film over the top.

The Farewell (2019) is a fantastic film rich with emotion and importance.

Like Black Panther (2017), which brought Black characters to the forefront of the mainstream film genre, this film provides exposure to the Asian population, typically relegated to stereotypical roles such as doctors or Chinese takeout owners.

Wang delights with an independent film steamrolling itself across Middle America.

Independent Spirit Award Nominations: 2 wins-Best Feature (won), Best Supporting Female- Zhao Shu-zhen (won)

Lizzie-2018

Lizzie-2018

Director Craig Macneill

Starring Chloë Sevigny, Kristen Stewart

Scott’s Review #925

Reviewed July 31, 2019

Grade: B+

Lizzie (2018) is an odd and macabre interpretation of the life and times of the infamous Lizzie Borden, who was accused and acquitted of hacking her father and stepmother to bits with a deadly ax.

This offering is shrouded in controversy because of inaccuracies and interpretations of the events, specifically Borden’s sexuality, which is called into question. The film is quiet and a tad too slow, but it thunders to a grand climax, more than making up for any negatives.

The casting of its leads is perfect and key to success.

Thirty-two-year-old Lizzie (Chloë Sevigny) lives with her domineering and affluent father, Andrew (Jamey Sheridan), and rigid stepmother, Abby (Fiona Shaw).

Despising both, she lives out a lonely and depressing existence, her only outlet being occasional evenings at the theater. When an Irish immigrant, Bridget Sullivan (Kristen Stewart), moves into the Borden residence to work as a servant, the women form a strong bond, especially after Andrew abuses her.

Sevigny, one of my favorite modern actresses, possesses an astounding range in the myriad of characters she has played in her long career.

Debuting to the masses in the critically acclaimed and depressing Boys Don’t Cry (1999), she has churned out a multitude of independent features portraying one oddball character after another and deserves the strong influence she has achieved over the years.

Director Craig Macneill makes interesting choices with his film, which may or may not please audiences expecting a numbers horror offering. He dives into psychological thriller territory with more of a character study approach that provides layers to the finished product.

Sevigny is center stage, and plenty of camera close-up shots offer an introspective analysis of her feelings rather than from her parents’ perspective. Instead of a crazed killer spontaneously committing the crime, she is careful and calculating in her plan.

Macneill presents Lizzie as the victim and Andrew and Abby as the villains. This is to assume that Borden committed the crimes, which the film never doubts.

Historically, people assume that this is the truth, but Lizzie was set free by a jury refusing to believe a woman of such means would commit such a heinous crime. I wonder if Macneill directed the film with a bit of a smirk at this ridiculous decision of the times when the woman enjoyed the murders.

At the end of the film, what happened to Lizzie and Bridget is explained, which is a good decision and wraps the film up nicely.

Powerful is the quiet subtext that gives a moody and foreboding quality. I adore slow-moving films provided the reward is worth the wait and Lizzie sucker punches once the events begin rolling along.

Another positive is the gnawing feeling of terrible things about to happen but unsure when or how the attacks will occur. Most viewers watching this film will know the context and the reported murders committed.

The atmospheric additions succeed as the late eighteenth-century costumes and daily living are believable. The lavish Borden house is well-kept and brightly lit, offering a friendly New England feel.

Finally, the creaks and noises throughout the house perfectly encompass the danger lurking behind corners, and the fun is in wondering when Lizzie will strike.

Since the film moves back and forth through time, we know she will strike.

The film’s best work is in the relationship between Lizzie and Bridget. Sevigny and Stewart dazzle together with an unleashed chemistry that nearly rivals a similar dynamic seen in 2003’s Monster.

As with Aline Wuornos and Selby, Lizzie is dominant, and Bridget is submissive, following her lead. Both women share a lesbian relationship, and neither pair achieves happiness after the film.

A film sure to fly under the radar and likely to be forgotten before long, Lizzie (2018) is worth the effort. A spooky and controversial interpretation of the events leading up to, during, and after one of the most notorious crimes in United States history is dissected and analyzed from a human perspective.

Macneill makes Borden less maniacal and more sympathetic than some may prefer. He does a fine job and deserves praise for a rich story.

Gloria Bell-2019

Gloria Bell-2019

Director Sebastian Lelio

Starring Julianne Moore, John Turturro

Scott’s Review #924

Reviewed July 29, 2019

Grade: B+

An English remake of the successful 2013 Chilean film, titled Gloria, Gloria Bell (2019) stars Julianne Moore, and the setting is relocated to Los Angeles.

The film is directed by Sebastian Lelio, fresh off a Best Foreign Language Film win for A Fantastic Woman (2017), and both movies contain similar themes of oppression and loneliness.

Preferring the original by only a hair, Gloria Bell is nonetheless a worthy offering with Moore perfectly cast in the title role.

Middle-aged divorcee Gloria Bell (Moore) resides in Los Angeles, working an office job of some respectability, but is unfulfilled. She spends many nights at a nightclub, where she is considered a regular.

The club caters to middle-aged singles who dance and drink while looking for love. When she meets Arnold (John Turturro) one evening and they share a night of passion, the pair begin dating.

However, Gloria realizes that he still supports his ex-wife and grown daughters, which limits his time and commitment to her, leaving her frustrated.

Moore is honest and understated in her performance, and the highlight of the film.

With another casting choice, the character might not have worked so well. She is full of life, singing in her car, attending laughter therapy, and smoking pot in her apartment. She has a warm yet limited relationship with her millennial kids and her ex-husband and his new wife.

Moore gives the character an earnestness and likability that work and get the audience on her side during her trials and tribulations.

This is not to say that Gloria doesn’t occasionally frustrate the audience.

After inviting Arnold to meet the whole crew over dinner and wine at her son’s house, what begins as a meet-and-greet quickly turns into a reminiscing trip down memory lane and whimsical looks at Gloria and her ex’s wedding pictures.

Her disregard for Arnold’s feelings is disappointing, but there is no bad intention behind it.

Gloria has baggage and is caught up in the moment, simply reliving a happier time at the expense of the current moment.

Arnold has his demons and is both likable and unlikable to the audience. Tending to bail on Gloria when either his family requires his assistance or he feels left out, he hardly exhibits grown man behavior or anyone Gloria would want to date.

The first red flag is his confession of being enamored of Gloria over their first dinner date. From there, his on-again-off-again presence makes him the odd man out. Lelio intends to make Gloria the sympathetic one. It’s her movie after all.

Watching A Fantastic Woman sequentially is a wise idea. Numerous comparisons are apparent, beginning with the feelings shared by both central characters.

Both are searching for happiness, but are unsure of how to attain it, especially given that they once had it and it was taken away from them.

Scenes of both characters driving in their cars and singing songs are included, and the look of both films is the same.

Very few comparisons or contrasts can be made between Gloria of 2013 and Gloria Bell of 2019, as both are above average, except that the character is slightly more vivacious in the former than in the latter.

This could be attributed to the Chilean and South American free-thinking and sexual openness compared to the more reserved American way of thinking, but this is merely a suggestion.

It is interesting to note how Lelio remade his film only six years later, rather than another director putting their stamp on it.

Gloria Bell (2019) paints a vivid portrait of a modern woman dealt a bad hand who struggles to find happiness and fulfillment in any way she knows how.

Thanks in large part to Moore’s portrayal and filling the character with kindness and care, she wins over the audience. The character is written as intelligent and interesting, and not desperate in any way for a man; he needs to be the right man.

Pet Sematary-2019

Pet Sematary-2019

Director Kevin Kolsch, Dennis Widmyer

Starring Jason Clarke, John Lithgow

Scott’s Review #923

Reviewed July 26, 2019

Grade: B

In the age of movie remakes, especially within the horror genre, it was only a matter of time before Pet Sematary, first released in 1989, would resurface with its fangs bared.

Paramount Pictures presents Pet Sematary (2019), a by-the-numbers affair that’s perfect for viewing on a late Saturday night.

It is an improvement over the disappointing ’89 version, but hardly recreates the genre, feeling more like a remake than offering much in the way of new storytelling or frightening effects.

The conclusion is somewhat disappointing, offering a hybrid of slasher and zombie genres.

To compare either film to the chilling and suspenseful page-turner written by esteemed novelist Stephen King would be ridiculous. The book is a quick read that will leave its reader breathless and scared, perhaps even fearing their pets, so the bar is set way too high for a cinematic offering to match up with.

The book delves much more into the feelings and emotions of all the principal characters, something that is severely limited in the film.

The Creed family, consisting of Louis (Jason Clarke), Rachel (Amy Seimetz), and their children, Ellie and Gage, relocates from bustling Boston, Massachusetts, to rural Maine, allowing Louis the opportunity to practice medicine at a university hospital.

Their friendly neighbor Jud Crandall (John Lithgow) befriends Ellie after she stumbles across a funeral procession of children taking a deceased dog to a cemetery called Pet Sematary.

He warns her and Rachel that the woods are dangerous. When tragedy strikes the family, the cemetery unleashes a supernatural force contained in an ancient burial ground that sits beside it.

The first half of the film is superior to the second as the buildup offers more perilous moments than when all hell breaks loose. Mysterious is when an accident victim in Louis’s care dies and begins to show up in his visions, warning him of something sinister.

The victim is mangled and bloody, and quite frightening are these foreboding scenes. When a curious Ellie traipses throughout the woods with curious wondermen, the audience is nervous about what (or who) she might stumble upon.

The film also earns praise for the suspenseful birthday party scene, which culminates in a grisly death. The scene begins cheerfully with lively party music and festive balloons amid a warm summer afternoon in Maine.

In a clear example of foreshadowing, earlier in the film, Louis curses the truck drivers who drive recklessly past his house at high speed. Excitedly running after their cat named Church, Ellie and Gage pay no attention to the looming truck with the texting driver until it is too late.

The scene drips with good terror.

After the speeding tractor-trailer, the predictability of the surface strikes down one family member. Jud has already warned Louis that “sometimes dead is better”, but we know Louis will surrender to temptation out of desperation and tempt the evil spirits.

When the once-dead character returns with a droopy eye and calm, devious demeanor, the film becomes a standard slasher film and is no longer as compelling.

The final thirty minutes feel very rushed, as if the careful pacing of the buildup is all for naught.

As in most horror films, now deemed a cliché, the last sequence often allows for a sequel if box-office profits are substantial enough. I do not recall a similar ending in the chilling novel or any reference to the family living out their days as a family of the undead.

The apparent attempt at a zombie reference was unsatisfying and much different from what I expected.

From a casting point of view, Jason Clarke (usually cast in supporting roles) gives a strong performance as the main character. He is a good father figure and provides charisma to the film. Well-mannered but also somewhat outdoorsy and a “regular joe,” he is intelligent and humorous with the kids.

The child actors are fine, but hardly the main attraction, and Seimetz as the mother, Rachel, is not the best casting choice.

She plays the challenging role much too brooding and angry for my taste, especially given that she is written as the most sympathetic of all the characters.

Pet Sematary (2019) is a satisfactory horror offering with a solid first half that teeters into difficult-to-believe territory rather quickly.

A stalwart veteran like Lithgow helps immensely, lending the film some respectability, and a child actor cast in a pivotal role is enough to avoid ruining the experience.

There is little reason to see the film a second time, but it is recommended to snuggle with the King novel for some good scares.

Eyes Without a Face-1960

Eyes Without a Face-1960

Director Georges Franju

Starring Pierre Brasseur, Alida Valli

Scott’s Review #922

Reviewed July 23, 2019

Grade: A

Eyes Without a Face (1960) is a macabre and twisted French-Italian horror film co-written and directed by Georges Franju. It is based on Jean Redon’s novel, which is the same name.

The film cover art (see above) is flawless and terrifying. It induces the creeps by only giving a glimpse, causing the recipient to be curious and attempt to analyze the meaning.

The film is nestled into a short one-hour and thirty-minute package that is time to scare the audience to death with many fantastic and gruesome elements, severely limiting the gore, which only adds to the horrific nature.

Because of its subject matter, the film was highly controversial in 1960 and was subsequently either loved or reviled by its audiences.

Eyes Without a Face is riveting because the audience empathizes with the characters and takes action to correct their wrongs despite the main character’s undeniable crazyness.

The complex emotions of guilt and obsession are commonalities, making it a layered and complex horror film that appears on many Top Ten genre lists.

The film is not for the faint of heart.

Doctor Genessier (Pierre Brassier) is a brilliant and successful physician who specializes in plastic surgery. After a vicious car accident that he is to blame for, he attempts to repair the ruined face of his daughter, Christiane (Edith Scob), a victim of the wreck.

But his plan to give his daughter her looks back involves kidnapping young girls and removing their faces. He is aided in his machinations by his assistant, Louise (Alida Valli), who kidnaps the young woman and helps him in the laboratory, acting as a surrogate mother to Christiane.

Louise aids Génessier partly because he helps restore her damaged face in events before the film begins.

Scob is the stand-out character, containing an innocent and quietly melancholy existence as she is the apparent victim of the story. Her defeated posture, while resiliently hopeful and demure, is complex for an actress to carry, and she defines grace and poise.

Brasseur and Valli each deliver the goods in different ways. Valli, haunting in her best horror effort Suspiria (1977), is mesmerized by her doctor and savior so that the relationship is almost cult-like.

Brasseur is strangely heroic, as he steals lives to save lives, so his character is extraordinarily complex.

The surgery scenes are chilling, featuring white, starchy uniforms worn by a doctor, assistant, and victim. The scenes could almost be mechanical tutorials offered to first-rate medical students with scholarly intentions. If this were not a horror film, the look would be documentary-style.

Genessier calmly cuts an entire circular length of his victim as a hint of blood slowly oozes down the sides of her face in an almost tender fashion.

The film, made in 1960, is not the 1980s slasher film image that encompasses non-horror film-goers’ preconceptions. It has a gorgeous texture.

The best scene occurs when one of Genessier’s victims, lying on a gurney, comes to and gazes at a figure leaning close to her. The camera turns to the figure, revealing a blurry but recognizable image of Christiane sans the face-like mask she usually wears throughout the film.

As the victim shrieks in horror, Christiane slowly backs away from her amid a feeling of pain and heartbreak, remembering how much of a freak she must appear to others. The scene is sad and grotesque at the same time.

Horror films often get bad raps, but poetic and stylized horror films are a diamond in the rough.

Eyes Without a Face (1960) achieves its place in the cinematic archives with brilliant black and white cinematography entrenched in a Gothic, chilling story with characters whose motivations can be dissected and studied long after the film ends.

This keeps the viewer thinking and deserves repeated viewings to capture all the gems it offers.

On a Clear Day You Can See Forever-1970

On a Clear Day You Can See Forever-1970

Director Vincente Minnelli

Starring Barbra Streisand, Yves Montand

Scott’s Review #921 

Reviewed July 19, 2019

Grade: B+

On a Clear Day You Can See Forever (1970) is a very obscure film that deserves better than to be relegated to the unknown.

Released during a time when the Hollywood musical had lost its luster, it feels like a last-gasp effort to keep the genre alive, serving as a star vehicle for Barbra Streisand.

The film suffers from severe editing problems with a large portion being cut, so much so that the result is a choppy and disjointed feel, tough to follow as is but left untouched the film could have been a creative masterpiece.

In a particularly convoluted plot that spans two time-periods, chain-smoking New Yorker, Daisy Gamble (Streisand) is convinced by her uptight fiancee Warren (Larry Blyden) to attend a class taught by Marc Cabot (Yves Montand), a psychiatrist.

When she is accidentally hypnotized by Cabot he realizes she speaks in the voice of an early nineteenth-century woman named Melinda, and he becomes obsessed with her while she teeters between two existences.

The screenplay was written by Alan Jay Lerner and adapted from his book for the 1965 stage production.

Film director Vincente Minnelli fuses fantasy with a musical to create an experimental piece extremely left of center- this is not your standard 1950s or 1960s MGM experience with merry or clap-along tunes.

Some of the more memorable numbers include “On a Clear Day” which is a reprise at the end of the film, “He Isn’t You” and “Love with All the Trimmings”.

Casting Streisand is a monumental choice as she carries the film on her shoulders. Belting out numbers is the singer-turned-actress’s forte and she never disappoints. She is fascinating to watch in the neurotic role as she smokes and prances around, usually in a tizzy or a state of peril (self-induced).

The performance impresses as a different style than many of her other films and she has never portrayed a livelier character. Streisand overcomes a few challenges of the film, winning in spades.

She shares little to no chemistry with co-star Montand who is not only too old for her, but he is not the greatest actor. If the film’s intent, which I suspect, was to make the pair the main draw then this failed.

Streisand’s chemistry with John Richardson, who plays Sir Robert Tentrees to her Melinda in the other time-period, excites her. The duo smolders with passion but sadly, most of the nineteenth-century scenes are the ones that are sacrificed making most of it a jumbled mess.

Much more interesting would have been to leave the entire film intact.

An oddity is Jack Nicholson’s almost nonexistent role of Tad Pringle, a mostly non-described brother of Daisy’s. Is he also her neighbor?

In 1970 Nicholson was only on the cusp of super-stardom and it questionable is whether some of his parts were left on the cutting-room floor, but the limited character is strange and unsatisfying. In another role, there would have been some possibility of romantic entanglement.

Throughout the film, I wondered how On a Clear Day You Can See Forever might have worked with someone other than Streisand in the roles.

I kept ruminating about how good Liza Minnelli might have been in the roles with her non-classic looks (like Streisand) and bombastic voice. Her high dramatic flair and capable New York-style would have made results interesting, but Streisand hits it out of the park.

On a Clear Day You Can See Forever (1970) is a brave attempt at something fantastical, brimming with potential that is left feeling cluttered and messy.

With a delicious leading lady whom the camera adores and enough creative sets and rigorous energy to keep one guessing, the film stumbles with many problems and leaves viewers incomplete.

Free Solo-2018

Free Solo-2018

Director Jimmy Chin, Elizabeth Chai Vasarhelyi

Starring Alex Honnold

Scott’s Review #920

Reviewed July 17, 2019

Grade: B

Free Solo (2018) is a documentary that takes a standard approach, offering a traditional yet informative piece about the perils and triumphs of rock climbing.

More precisely, free soloing is dangerous because it involves the lack of ropes or safety harnesses. One false misstep can (and has) resulted in death.

The film balances the featured daredevil’s humanistic approach with his girlfriend and camera crew’s perspectives.

Having personally scolded the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences (in my mind anyway) for omitting the wonderful Won’t You Be My Neighbor? (2018) from the five documentary nominees, a “WTF” moment on nomination day, Free Solo would not be my choice as the winner, with RBG getting the honor from the choices provided.

Given the current state of United States political affairs, RBG is the timelier and more important of the bunch, but Free Solo has been crowned the champion.

The likable young man at the forefront of the feature is Alex Honnold, a modest athlete from the West Coast of the United States in his early twenties.

He has a low-key, almost morose personality. He shuns organized holidays like Halloween because he “doesn’t want someone else telling him when to have fun.” He is thoughtful, introspective, and even a bit odd, having sought climbing at a young age and never looking back.

It is apparent that he is not necessarily seeking fame and fortune but has nonetheless become respected in his chosen profession, explaining that it is more a calling than any attempt to show off or boast of his achievements.

As he admits to always wanting to climb the dangerously steep and world-famous rock, the 3,000-foot El Capitan in Yosemite National Park, without a rope, he is also concerned about the pressure of performing for camera crews and the responsibility that entails.

The documentary stresses this point as Alex bails from the climb on his first attempt.

Throughout the documentary, the filmmakers focus on tidbits of the story told by his loved ones, specifically his girlfriend and mother, who offer their perspectives on his dangerous activities.

This is a nice added touch. It gives the story heart and layers, making it more humanistic than simply watching an unknown person rock climb for an hour and a half.

The audience gets to know Alex throughout the piece, making us care more about his peril as he attempts to triumph.

The production is superlative and quite engaging, especially throughout the climbing sequences. Vast shots of the fantastic views from the giant rock are plentiful and astounding, making the viewer feel as if they are also climbing the treacherous monument but breathing a sigh of relief when realizing the safety of a sofa or chair is the preferred option.

Seriously though, the camera work is a massive appeal of Free Solo and undoubtedly the primary reason it won the Oscar statuette.

The negatives to Free Solo are only slight, perhaps due to my lack of appeal to rock climbing. During the documentary, I kept asking myself why Alex would attempt to achieve the feat and its possible purpose.

From that angle, my attention tended to wander occasionally so that the target audience would be people passionate about adventurous experiences.

Secondly, there was nary a doubt in my mind that the final moments would result in Alex successfully reaching the pinnacle of his career safely despite the concerns of the crew that he could fall to his death at any moment. Sensible reasoning assured me the project would not have been released if tragedy had occurred.

Free Solo (2018) offers a solid and conventional documentary with enough outdoor sequences amid the standard interviews to satisfy all. The finale, while predictable in showing Alex’s successful climb to Mount, is photographed exceptionally well and professional in spirit.

The documentary suffers from some predictability issues and a lack of a real cliffhanger (pun intended), but it feels fresh and celebrates the human spirit in a big way.

Oscar Nominations: 1 win- Best Documentary-Feature (won)

Bad Times at the El Royale-2018

Bad Times at the El Royale-2018

Director Drew Goddard

Starring Jeff Bridges, Cynthia Erivo, Dakota Johnson

Scott’s Review #919

Reviewed July 10, 2019

Grade: A-

Bad Times at the El Royale (2018), directed by Drew Goddard, known for crafting the horror film The Cabin in the Woods (2012), is a gem that crosses multiple genres with sound results.

With Bad Times, he assumes writing and production duties for the thriller and steals a page from the Quentin Tarantino playbook, most notably from The Hateful Eight (2015).

The resulting feature is clever, perverse, and mysterious. It is a fantastic, edge-of-your-seat experience and a must-see for Tarantino fans.

Set in 1969, the film focuses on seven strangers of different backgrounds who go to a seedy and remote hotel on the California/Nevada border. Each harbors its share of dark secrets, culminating during a deadly macabre showdown one dark and stormy night.

In many ways, each character seeks redemption or forgiveness for a past indiscretion or is otherwise protecting someone or something else. A large sum of money is also in play for the greedier characters to tussle over.

The seven players are as follows: Jeff Bridges plays catholic priest Donald “Dock” O’Kelly, Cynthia Erivo plays struggling soul singer Darlene Sweet, and Dakota Johnson portrays Emily Summerspring, a hippie trying to save her younger sister, Rose, who is devoted to and mesmerized by sadistic cult leader Billy Lee (Chris Hemsworth).

Finally, Jon Hamm plays Dwight Broadbeck, a vacuum salesman who may have a secret identity, and hotel clerk Miles Miller (Lewis Pullman), who runs the hotel alone.

As events roll along, the complexities of the characters grow, which is my favorite aspect of the film. There are so many twists and turns involving the characters’ backstories and motivations that surprises are in store.

Some characters have strange connections to each other, while others meet for the first time and their lives intersect in interesting ways.

The dynamic between all the actors works tremendously well, with the standouts being Bridges and Erivo, who share tremendous chemistry and are the most interesting characters, to mention get the most screen time.

Their characters forge a bond during their lengthy scenes while never wholly trusting each other. Erivo, as Darlene, gets to showcase her wonderful singing voice. The highlight is the grand hotel room sequence as she belts out “This Old Heart of Mine (Is Weak for You).”

Old and burdened with memory loss, Bridges successfully grants more sympathy to his character than he deserves.

The film loses momentum towards the end when introducing the miscast Hemsworth, who is pretty but not the most remarkable acting talent. The actor overacts, playing Billy Lee as sinister and one-dimensional rather than infusing complexities into the character, which doesn’t work.

A better casting choice (and Tarantino mainstays) would have been Leonardo DiCaprio or Brad Pitt, and either actor would have assuredly brought more depth to the role.

Comparisons must be made to The Hateful Eight and the comedy Clue (1985). Godard divides the film into chapters like the former, mostly entitled as the hotel room numbers. With each subsequent room, the events going on in that room and its inhabitants are explored.

As in both films, he brings several mysterious characters with connections together. In Clue, secret passageways that lead to various parts of a building are featured, offering layers of possibilities.

The hotel itself is styled and dressed brilliantly, nearly a character with glossy decals and shiny trimmings but with a solemn and melancholy gloominess. The establishment has seen its share of heartbreak, schemes, and even death. Clever is the division of the hotel into either the sunny and cheerful “California” section or the less posh “Nevada” section, purple and costing one dollar less.

The viewer is sucked into its web within the first sequence when a man is shown hiding money under the floorboards and then subsequently shot to death.

Despite being labeled a Tarantino rip-off, this does not bother me as I was enthralled with the characters, the details, and the vast nuances offered.

Unfortunately, the film was a box-office disappointment, suffering from a lack of awards buzz and a lofty running time. Bad Times at El Royale (2018) will entertain, intrigue, and keep one guessing until the credits roll.

Be prepared for a bloody good time!

Imitation of Life-1959

Imitation of Life-1959

Director Douglas Sirk

Starring Lana Turner, Juanita Moore

Scott’s Review #918

Reviewed July 9, 2019

Grade: A-

The original film production, made in 1934, is based on a 1933 novel by Fannie Hurst. Imitation of Life (1959) is a relevant dissection of race relations, class systems, and gender roles, all of which still feel timely decades later.

The film is a fresh, progressive effort that sometimes teeters too much into soap opera land but is an important story to be exposed to.

The dynamics between the central characters in deliciously raw scenes are the most significant part of the film.

Lora Meredith (Lana Turner) is a widowed, stylish New York woman with dreams of becoming a Broadway star. One day, she meets a lovely black woman, Annie Johnson (Moore), on the beach, and the women become fast friends, each having a daughter around the same age.

The women decide to move in together for financial reasons and to further Lora’s chances for success in the entertainment industry. Lora begins a casual romance with handsome Steve Archer (John Gavin).

Eleven years pass, and Lora is now a big star, living in a luxurious New York house and flocking to film locales in Italy. Annie continues to live with her, serving as her housekeeper and confidante.

The girls are now teenagers with issues of their own. Susie (Sandra Dee) has developed feelings for her mother’s boyfriend, while Sarah Jane (Susan Kohner), of mixed-race ethnicity, is ashamed of her black heritage and frequently can pass for white.

The trials and tribulations of all are played out throughout the film.

Imitation of Life has two key distinctions and focuses on each separately. Since the time of the story is said to be 1947 and the picture was released in 1959, before the Civil Rights movement of the 1960s, the racial story is very poignant and truthful and the main draw.

Sarah Jane is embarrassed to be black, and her eventual abandonment of both her life in New York and of her mother can be deemed reprehensible if not for the times. Her regrets come too little too late, but Kohner nonetheless infuses much sympathy into her complex role.

The second central aspect of Imitation of Life is more mainstream and dramatic, easily more accessible to the public than the former. This is why some misunderstood or even dismissed the film as melodramatic.

Lora is glamorous, well-dressed, always stylish, and poised, and soon, Susie grows jealous and resentful of Lora’s achievements and the attention she receives from men at every turn.

This invokes a female rivalry with pure 1950s Hollywood glitz. It seems manipulative and naughty, using bright colors, dazzling costumes, and flair to promote excess drama.

As tremendous as Kohner is, Juanita Moore knocks it out of the park and does the best acting job out of all the principal performers. Her frequent dramatic scenes are filled with emotional bombast without the actress ever going over the top.

Instead, she keeps her composure, earning her well-earned Best Actress Oscar nomination for no other scene than the heartbreaking mother/daughter showdown in a California hotel room.

When Moore’s Annie is mistaken for Sarah Jane’s maid instead of her mother, the pain and worry can be seen as she realizes she has lost what she knew of her daughter for good. She returns to New York an older woman with a broken heart and spirit, both defeated and deflated.

The last sequence is challenging to watch as tragic results and a coldness encompass the film.

The prevalence of more than one suitor for Lora and the implication that she could have up to three, including her agent Allen and playwright David, while Annie has none, is absorbing.

This point is slightly bothersome, and a missed opportunity—or at least the potential for one—as a male companion for Annie might have changed her life forever.

The film is faithful to the novel, but how wonderful it is to imagine Annie being treated to a more admirable life while finding true love.

Imitation of Life (1959) is a film treasure with subtle and not-so-subtle nuances and bold, powerful story-telling enveloping the entire experience.

Although the film suffers from a sometimes too sudsy mass appeal approach and too much focus on melodrama, it nonetheless does not abandon its social issues theme, especially given the harsh treatment of minorities during this period.

No other film deals with the psychological turmoil of mixed race like Imitation of Life does.

Oscar Nominations: Best Supporting Actress-Susan Kohner, Juanita Moore

Do Not Disturb-1965

Do Not Disturb-1965

Director Ralph Levy, George Marshall

Starring Doris Day, Rod Taylor

Scott’s Review #917

Reviewed July 8, 2019

Grade: C+

Singer and actress Doris Day put her stamp on the romantic comedy genre during the 1960s, becoming synonymous with wholesome film characters. She had spunk and charm and always wore sensible shoes.

Do Not Disturb (1965) is a lightweight, forgettable work with a silly premise, a juvenile script, and a meandering plot.

The film is somewhat saved by the interesting locales of London and Kent, England, but those seeking better quality should seek out the gems The Man Who Knew Too Much (1956) and Pillow Talk (1959).

Day and Rod Taylor star as Janet and Mike Harper, an American couple who relocate to England as part of a transfer for the company he works for. They immediately disagree over where to live; Mike prefers the excitement of London, but Janet favors the rustic quality of Kent.

After she gets them a house thirty miles outside London, the plan backfires when the couple grows further apart due to Mike’s need to commute to London every day. Lonesome and isolated, Janet worries incessantly that Mike is having an affair with his new secretary, Claire Hackett (Maureen McGivney).

Prompted by her busybody landlord, Vanessa Courtwright (Hermione Baddeley), Janet meets an Italian antique dealer, Paul Bellari (Sergio Fantoni), who she hires to redecorate her house. The antics begin with Mike spending more time with Claire, Janet, and Paul in equally close quarters.

Janet and Mike may be innocent, but Paul and Claire could have designs on their potential mates, especially as the foursome faces one compromising situation after another.

The heart of an authentic romantic comedy is good, old-fashioned chemistry between the leads, and Taylor and Day exhibit adequate sparkle but hardly sizzle.

Mediocrity in the setup and writing can be forgiven if other elements, like crackling moments, exist, but those are rare in Do Not Disturb.

Some Like It Hot (1959) embodies a great comedy with romantic wrappings featuring fantastic leads Jack Lemmon and Marilyn Monroe. Still, the former does not come close to finding its footing amid cliche after cliche.

The film is plot-driven and heavy on story-dictated situations rather than character development. The ending is predictable. The jokes fall flat or feel distinctly canned and cheap, and the laughs never catch on.

During a tepid sequence, Janet and Paul visit a remote town to look at antiques. She ends up drinking too much bubbly and becomes drunk and foolhardy.

What should have been comic relief does little to further the plot or flesh out the characters.

Director Ralph Levy makes little effort to steer the film beyond a slick mainstream “affair” despite the release year being 1965 when more edgy works replaced the polished and familiar.

Rather than dare to go to a less-than-cheery place and perhaps decide to have Janet or Mike cheat on their significant others, Levy chooses not to go there, instead attempting to satisfy those seeking a happily-ever-after wrapping.

Not to be entirely negative, Do Not Disturb features remarkable and stunning locale sequences of bustling metropolitan London, quaint English cottages, and wilderness, oozing with culture and sophistication as well as down-home comforts and rich flavor.

The combination of an American couple thrust into a different setting with a new set of rules and regulations to follow makes the film fun and offers a sprinkle of good scenery.

Do Not Disturb (1965) is a mid-1960s mainstream release buried among nests of other similar-themed but better-written films. Even appealing and bankable stars of the time like Taylor and Day could not succeed in spicing up tired gimmicks and plot devices.

The film will forever be relegated to the romantic comedy shelves, teetering on the brink of obscurity.

Spider-Man: Far From Home-2019

Spider-Man: Far From Home-2019

Director Jon Watts

Starring Tom Holland, Jake Gyllenhaal, Samuel L. Jackson

Scott’s Review #916

Reviewed July 5, 2019

Grade: B

Having not seen the first two installments of the latest Spider-Man franchise, nor with any prior knowledge of the Avengers franchise or the cross-sectional connections of the characters to other films, I walked into Spider-Man: Far From Home (2019) with little expectation.

And an admittedly limited understanding of the Marvel universe altogether.

The film is no better or worse than a summer popcorn flick with enough adventure and lovely locales to keep a non-super-hero buff entertained for over two hours without fidgeting too much.

The film begins with a nod to a past film, where a mysterious “Blip” occurred, erasing people for five years, and then returning them to normalcy, with no aging.

Shots of various Avengers characters, including Tony Stark (Iron Man), who have died, appear on the screen amid a musical tribute to Whitney Houston’s “I Will Always Love You.”

Peter Parker (Spider-Man) (Tom Holland) still mourns his mentor as he embarks on a two-week European vacation with his classmates as part of a school trip. He plans to confess his love for MJ (Zendaya) atop the Eiffel Tower in Paris.

Peter’s Aunt May (now reduced in age and sexy with the casting of Marisa Tomei) quickly packs his Spider-Man suit as Nick Fury (Samuel L. Jackson), a former director of S.H.I.E.L.D. attempts to enlist Peter’s help on a mission and provide him with Stark’s special glasses, named E.D.I.T.H. which possess all the databases of Stark Industries.

Quentin Beck/Mysterio (Jake Gyllenhaal), a master of Illusions, is recruited to help Spider-Man and serve as a fabulous Uncle figure.

These events all happen as Peter travels abroad.

The film is undeniably light and fun, with a bright and safe ambiance. The perilous scenes are not particularly scary or dangerous, despite the characters being at risk of death.

The teen romance angle enhances this assessment as it is a central component of the film, even as much as the adventure and superhero antics are.

Even before the teenage classmates traverse Europe, a triangle develops between Peter, MJ, and Peter’s hunky high school football rival, as does love at thirty-five thousand feet between lovebirds Ned and Betty Brant.

Tom Holland is very well cast in the lead role and is charismatic and believable. Charming with youthful innocence, he is part nerd and part hero, yet always empathetic and benevolent without feeling forced.

As a viewer unfamiliar with the first two chapters, I was immediately catapulted into his world of teen angst, romance, and his responsibility of saving the world. The young actor could have a promising future ahead of him if he avoids typecasting and chooses well-chosen roles.

The guts of the film, meaning the action sequences and the standard genre elements, are palpable and worthy of admiration on their own merits.

The visual effects are tremendous and crowd-pleasing, especially whenever Mysterio is involved. With a twisting, tornado-like blue and green swirling motion, he flies in and out of sequences with enough pizzazz to put the Wicked Witch of the West to shame.

Similarly, the gusty, unnatural storm, Earth Elemental, and the dangerous Fire provide magical and atmospheric power that enhances the film’s look.

Comedy, rather than dark and foreboding scenes, appears to be the filmmakers’ goal with this project.

As class trip chaperones and the students’ teachers, the comic duo of Julius Dell and Roger Harrington trade barbs with themselves and the kids, part bumbling and part incompetent, always offering comic moments of relief.

When Harold “Happy” Hogan becomes smitten with Aunt May, his awkwardness is cute and fresh rather than sappy and clichéd. The supporting characters have the substance to do so, but I would have preferred a bit more darkness or gloominess.

The sequences that raise Spider-Man: Far from Home above mediocrity are the excellent and plentiful European scenes, a feast of riches for this fan of world travel and culture.

The canals of Venice and the magnificence of Prague are nearly rivaled by the sophistication of London and the history of Berlin. Sadly, the film does not culminate in Paris as I had hoped and was hinted at, causing a slight hiccup in my vicarious travel pleasures.

Spider-Man: Far From Home (2019) is a film perfectly crafted for summer, and it was fittingly viewed on a scorching hot July day.

The film is not a masterpiece, sticking to a tried-and-true formula and limiting the dangerous possibilities when one threatens to destroy the world in favor of humor.

The cast is likable, the villain is compelling, and the romance showcases more than just the main couple, being careful not to limit the cash cow of special effects and adventure that the film provides in abundance.

First Man-2018

First Man-2018

Director Damien Chazelle

Starring Ryan Gosling, Claire Foy

Scott’s Review #915

Reviewed July 4, 2019

Grade: B+

First Man (2018) is a reteaming of efforts by director Damien Chazelle and actor Ryan Gosling, following the 2016 critical and commercial smash hit La La Land.

The former could not be more different from the latter, and the direction is unrecognizable for those expecting a comparison. First Man is a mainstream Hollywood production with good camerawork and edgy quality.

The necessary full-throttle action approach is interspersed nicely with a personal family story and humanistic spin that is never too sappy nor forced.

The focus of the story is on Neil Armstrong (Gosling) and the events leading up to the historic Apollo 11 mission, which made him the first United States astronaut to walk on the moon.

Buzzy Aldrin (Corey Stoll), the second man to walk on the moon, is featured to a lesser degree, and his character is portrayed as self-centered and complex, though screen time is limited.

The overall message is of the triumphs and the costs to families, the astronauts, and the country during an already tumultuous decade in history.

The events of the film begin in 1961, as we see Armstrong as a young NASA test pilot struggling with mishaps due to his problems, and culminate in 1969 after the successful mission concludes.

Chazelle wisely balances human and personal scenes with the inevitable rocket take-offs and outer space problems that the astronauts face.

Both segments turn out well and keep the action moving, allowing for tender moments between the characters, mainly showcasing the relationship between Neil and his wife, Janet (Claire Foy).

Lacking (thankfully) are the scenes of machismo or “guy talk” that sometimes accompany films in this genre.

During one of the first scenes, the audience quickly witnesses the couple’s two-and-a-half-year-old daughter Karen retching and suffering from learning disabilities, only to promptly die from a brain tumor, forever destroying the couple.

This critical aspect reoccurs as Neil imagines his daughter playing with neighborhood kids and enjoying life.

In a wonderful moment, he tearfully drops Karen’s tiny bracelet into a giant crater, hoping to keep her memory alive forever.

These additions give the film a character-driven quality.

Worthy of analysis before and after viewing the film is the young director’s decision to tackle such a project, heartily appealing to the mainstream audience undoubtedly in mind.

Legendary director Clint Eastwood was initially slated to direct, and the historically rich story seems right up his alley.

It’s interesting to wonder if, during the 1990s, Tom Hanks might have been cast as Armstrong in his younger days, playing a similar part in Ron Howard’s 1995 film Apollo 13.

Well-known character actors appear in supporting roles, fleshing out the production and further adding name and face recognition. Kyle Chandler, Jason Clarke, and Ciaran Hinds appear as astronauts or various NASA Chiefs. Viewers who may not be able to name the actors will certainly recognize them as actors seen in other films.

This only brings First Man to the big leagues with a hearty and talented central cast.

Gosling and Foy are the main draws, and both actors were mentioned as possibilities for Oscar nominations throughout awards season, but a slot in the big race did not come to fruition.

While the film drew a couple of nominations for Best Editing and Best Score, a Best Picture nomination was not to be, probably due to the film not being as big a blockbuster success as expected.

The film is also more brooding and less patriotic than a Howard or Eastwood production would have been.

To expand on this, First Man came under attack by Senator Marco Rubio from Florida and President Donald Trump for Chazelle’s decision to omit any mention of the famous planting of the American Flag on the moon by Armstrong and Aldrin.

Chazelle refused to admit that this was a political statement, instead insisting that he chose to focus more on the lesser-known aspects of the moon landing rather than facts that everybody already knew.

Young director Damien Chazelle proves to be a multi-faceted filmmaker by changing course and creating a historic biopic that is quite different from a story of singing and dancing in Los Angeles.

He proves to be no one-trick pony and gets the job done, creating a brave and robust effort that does not limit action at the hands of humanity, successfully weaving a good dose of both.

First Man (2018) may not be a classic in the making, but it deserves to be seen.

Oscar Nominations: 1 win- Best Sound Editing, Best Sound Mixing, Best Production Design, Best Visual Effects (won)