All posts by scottmet99

Homicidal-1961

Homicidal-1961

Director William Castle

Starring Jean Arless, Patricia Bresling

Scott’s Review #661

Reviewed July 8, 2017

Grade: A-

Homicidal is a 1961 horror film, shot in black and white, that is a direct homage to the successful Psycho, made only a year earlier.

While some would argue Homicidal is a direct rip-off of Psycho, I see the film as containing elements of Psycho but twisted around so that its unique story is created.

Regardless, Homicidal is a fantastic, edge-of-your-seat film that never drags or slows down and deserves recognition.

The surprise ending is terrific.

The story starts when a tall, leggy, blonde woman confidently walks into a local California hotel to request a room.

There is something mysterious about the woman. She appears to be a woman of some wealth and convinces a young bellhop to marry her for $2,000.

Hesitant but enamored by the woman, he accompanies her to the local justice of the peace, who marries them in the middle of the night. The woman (Emily) then savagely bludgeons the justice of the peace and flees the scene.

Later, she brags about the murder of a mute and sickly older woman named Helga, who she is caring for.

From this point, other characters in the small town are introduced, and we slowly learn more about the intriguing Emily (Jean Arless).

Flower shop owner Miriam (Patricia Breslin) and her brother Warren are central to the story. Warren will inherit a fortune on his twenty-first birthday the next day. Miriam’s boyfriend, Karl, is the local pharmacist whom Emily appears to fancy.

All of these characters come into play as the intriguing plot develops. Is Warren’s inheritance a motivating factor? Will he be killed? Why isn’t his sister, Miriam, receiving any money? Could she be secretly plotting something?

The comparisons to Psycho are endless.

The gender-bending twist during the final act is the most obvious. Arless deserves kudos for tackling both roles in a wonderful, compelling fashion.

The fact that Arless resembles Psycho actress Janet Leigh is another similarity. Otherwise, Miriam and Karl resemble characters from Psycho, and Helga could be a dead ringer for Mother Bates. Even some sets, specifically a staircase, resemble the one in Psycho.

Director, William Castle, brilliantly adds a gimmick to Homicidal that works very well as the film is about to reach its shocking climax, the action suddenly stops and the introduction of a “fright break” ensues.

At this point, Castle gives the audience forty-five seconds to leave the room to avoid what comes next. We see the clock countdown in real-time. What a fantastic idea!

Throughout the film, I noticed some actors, most notably Jean Arless, playing their roles within a melodrama. Suddenly, there is a knock at the door, or a car drives up, and the character quickly turns their head in a fast movement to look in an almost cartoonish way.

Rather than see this as a negative, this style works for me and adds a bit of humor to the film.

Another positive is the way the film is gruesome in several parts. As a character descends the staircase from a stairlift, the image of the body is shrouded in dark shadows. When the dismembered head topples down the stairs, it is macabre and compelling.

The justice of the peace death scene is also well done and will please horror fans with its hefty bloodletting. Surprisingly, only two murders occur.

Certainly not as crafty and containing a smaller budget (though Psycho was also small), Homicidal is quite a solid effort in a B-movie way.

Success is primarily due to the fantastic direction of William Castle, who carved a similar story to Psycho (1960) but in a different way so that his film does not feel like a carbon copy.

Homicidal (1961) is a film for fans of classic, solid horror films.

Bullitt-1968

Bullitt-1968

Director Peter Yates

Starring Steve McQueen, Robert Vaughn

Scott’s Review #660

Reviewed July 7, 2017

Grade: B+

Bullitt (1968) is one of the ultimate “guy movies”, hardly a stretch considering it stars the “regular guy” hero of the time, Steve McQueen.

With his macho, tough-guy persona and his cool, confident swagger, he was a marquee hero during the late 1960s and into the 1970s.

While the film is rife with machismo stereotypes and is not exactly a women’s lib film, it is also a good old-fashioned action thriller with plenty of chase and fight scenes to make most guys  (and some girls) happy.

The story is not too thought-provoking, but the film works as escapist fare and is an example of good late 1960s cinema.

Set in San Francisco, Lieutenant Frank Bullitt (Steve McQueen) is assigned to watch a Chicago gangster, Johnny Ross, over a long weekend, before the criminal is set to testify against his brother on Monday morning.

Robert Vaughn plays ambitious politician, Walter Chalmers, who is determined to see the case go off without a hitch and see convictions in the organized crime syndicate.

Predictably, the weekend does not go as planned and  Ross is attacked by hitmen. This, in turn,  sets off a cat-and-mouse game of deception and intrigue. As expected, the action is virtually non-stop with many action sequences lighting up the screen.

The plot of Bullitt does not matter and, one does not need to completely understand what is going on to enjoy the film for what it is. The intent of a film like Bullitt is not good story-telling, but rather good action.

This is not meant as a put-down, but rather good, honest critiquing. One can simply sit back, relax, and enjoy the testosterone-laden affair.

Bullitt contains some riveting scenes that raise it above an average, middling, action flick. The muscle car chase involving a then state-of-the-art and flashy Ford Mustang and Dodge Charger is fantastic and one of the high points of the film.

The quick and edgy camera angles as the cars zip down the windy and narrow San Francisco roads make for compelling tension.

Will one of the cars careen off the side of the road or blow up in an explosion? Since one of the cars holds Frank Bullitt and the other car is the bad guy, it is not tough to guess how the sequence will end.

But it’s good fun all the same and well filmed.

The other spectacular sequence is the finale- as Frank and company overtake a busy San Francisco airport in pursuit of a baddie about to board a transcontinental flight, the chase sequence leads them throughout the airport, onto a taxiing plane, and finally onto the runway, as a plane is about to take off.

It is action at its finest and also a treat for the viewer in that it brings us back to airport days, pre-9/11 when airports were just different. The luxurious flight crew, the innocence, and the glamour- all a distant memory.

The scene is such that it shows all of the airport elements- the people, the employees, the airport, and the planes, giving it a slice-of-life feel, circa late 1960’s airport days.

Appealing is the period in which the film is made. 1968, was a great time for film, Bullitt capitalized on the newly liberal use of blood that films were able to show, so in this way, Bullitt is an influential action film.

Dozens of imitators (some admittedly with superior writing) followed, including classics Dirty Harry and The French Connection. These contain the same basic blueprint that Bullitt has.

A negative to Bullitt is the trite way in which women are portrayed. Female characters are written as dutiful nurses, gasping in fear and helplessly running away when an assailant runs rampant in the hospital, praying for a man to save the day.

Or, they are written, in the case of Bullitt’s girlfriend, as a gorgeous yet insignificant character, given a laughable scene in which she questions whether or not she knows Frank after witnessing the violence in his job- hello?

He is in the San Francisco Police Department after all.

Bullitt is a meat-and-potatoes kind of film-making. An early entry into what would become the raw 1970s and the slick formulaic 1980s action genre, the film deserves credit for being at the front of the pack in style and influence.

The story and character development are secondary to other aspects of the film and Bullitt (1968) is just fine as escapism fare.

Oscar Nominations: 1 win-Best Sound, Best Film Editing (won)

The Beguiled-2017

The Beguiled-2017

Director-Sofia Coppola

Starring-Nicole Kidman, Colin Farrell

Scott’s Review #659

Reviewed July 4, 2017

Grade: A-

A remake of the 1971 film (also adapted from an earlier novel) starring Clint Eastwood, The Beguiled is a 2017 release directed by Sofia Coppola (Lost in Translation), a director ready to burst onto the front lines.

Coppola carefully chooses her films, but each one is different from the others and The Beguiled is no different. A piece fraught with atmosphere and tension, Coppola does wonder from a directing standpoint.

The story has tons of unchartered potential and drags at times, but overall The Beguiled is a hit if nothing more than to look at in wonderment.

The film gets off to a moody start as we follow a young girl, eerily humming as she picks mushrooms, along a deserted southern road. It is Civil War times (1864), and the setting is a mostly deserted all-girls boarding school in southern Virginia.

The girl (Amy) is startled when she discovers an injured, handsome Union Army soldier, Corporal John McBurney (Farrell). Sympathetic, Amy helps the soldier back to the school, led by the headmistress, Martha Farnsworth (Kidman).

Slowly, the females in the school become enamored with John as they develop rivalries with each other to gain the upper hand for his affections.

There is something so sinister and wickedly foreboding about almost every scene as we shrink at the thought that something bad will happen at any moment- sometimes it does and sometimes it does not.

Almost like a horror film would, the camera angles are such that something or someone is bound to suddenly leap out and grab a character.

The colors are muted and almost pastel and there is commonly fog floating through the exterior scenes. Coppola does a fantastic job of portraying a deserted southern landscape. The lighting of the film is also intriguing as lit candles serve to enhance the dimness and the final dinner scene (poison mushrooms anyone?) is gloomy and Shakespearean.

Beyond the look of the film, The Beguiled is well-acted. With heavyweights like Farrell, Kidman, and frequent Coppola star, Kirsten Dunst, as the vulnerable and unhappy teacher, Miss Morrow, the acting is stellar and believable. The audience is unsure if John is manipulating the women for his gain or if he has developed feelings for any (or all) of them.

The lovesick teen, Alicia (Elle Fanning), with hormones raging, sets her sights on John almost from the beginning, sneaking out of musical lessons, to kiss an unconscious John goodnight.

The story, while compelling, is quite slow-moving and left with oodles of possibilities when the conclusion finally happens. Other than the tart, Alicia, the endless romantic potential could have been reached with both Miss Morrow and Miss Farnsworth.

I was left wondering throughout the film when a romance would develop between Martha and John, but only towards the end of the film was this ever addressed and barely skirted over, as they take charge and stoic Martha slowly began to let her guard down.

In this way, the film could have added some further romantic complications and beefed up the very short running time of ninety-three minutes.

As Nicole Kidman is one of my favorite film stars of all time (she can tell a story by facial expressions alone), she has wisely begun to choose fantastic supporting roles as she ages in Hollywood (2016’s Lion immediately comes to mind).

Dunst has aged gracefully into a middle-aged actress chomping at the bit for meaty roles, and Colin Farrell is as ruggedly handsome as ever sprouting a dark and bushy beard for most of the role. The acting in The Beguiled is fantastic.

The Beguiled is a film to watch if only to escape to the joys of great, atmospheric, film-making, and to appreciate the wonderful talents of one of the few prominent female director’s of today (hopefully the mega success of 2017’s female-directed Wonder Woman will begin to change this).

The story has a few issues, but overall The Beguiled is worth the money spent.

The Boys in the Band-1970

The Boys in the Band-1970

Director William Friedkin

Starring Kenneth Nelson, Frederick Combs

Top 100 Films #80

Scott’s Review #658

Reviewed July 4, 2017

Grade: A

An excellent counterpart to the equally brilliant, and equally unpleasant, Who’s Afraid of Virginia Woolf? (1966) The Boys in the Band is also a stage production made into a feature film.

As such, shot very much like a play and seemingly in one long take, the film is highly effective and delicious in wit and dark humor. With a macabre and bitter element, the characters snipe and ridicule each other during a birthday party.

The Boys in the Band is a groundbreaking film on many levels as it is one of the first LGBTQ+ films to feature gay characters in prominent roles. Furthermore, it has the dubious honor of being the first film to use the word “cunt”.

Regardless, the film is fantastic and a must-see for anyone intrigued by LGBTQ+ film history. All of the actors appeared in the stage production and reprised their roles for the film version.

The setting is the Upper East Side of Manhattan in the late 1960s.

Michael, a writer, is hosting a birthday party for his good friend, Harold. When Michael receives an urgent call from his straight and married college chum, Alan, he begrudgingly invites him over at the risk of having his lifestyle exposed.

One by one, the guests arrive for the party. Emory is quite effeminate and loud, Hank and Larry are masculine and a couple, but with monogamy issues and Hank’s marriage as obstacles.

Bernard, a black bookstore clerk is an amiable, nice guy.

“Cowboy”, a dim-witted hustler, and Harold, the sarcastic, bitter, guest of honor, round out the attendees.

As the night wears on, the party turns into a free form of insults, bad feelings, and vicious conversation. Alan and Emory get into a fistfight, and later a hurtful telephone game forces everyone to call the one person they truly love which results in anxiety and sadness for most of the guests.

The key aspect of The Boys in the Band is that it is shot like a play would be, with a highly effective result. In this way, especially mid-way through the film when the guests are all in the same closed room, the action becomes suffocating and stifling as the fangs are bared by a few of the guests.

Director, Friedkin, uses many close-ups of his characters to further portray their raw emotions.

My favorite characters are Alan and Hank as these characters are the most complex.

Both are married, and both hit it off famously, although Alan’s sexuality is never completely revealed. He is married but troubled, and the audience never learns why, although we could wager a guess that he is, indeed, conflicted by his sexuality.

What will become of him? Will he accept his sexuality or live a repressed existence?

Hank, during a divorce from his wife, lives with Larry as a couple. Hank is complex because he is transitioning from a straight life to a gay lifestyle and that must have been very difficult in the late 1960’s- for this reason, I find the character of Hank quite brave.

The film does not explore this angle as much as it could have, but a character such as Hank fleshes out the cast in a positive way. Alan and Hank are multi-dimensional characters whereas some of the others contain gay stereotypes.

I would have enjoyed a deeper dive into the personal lives of some of the characters, but the film is really about the emotions many of the characters possess and feelings of love, some unrequited, and there are too many characters for each to receive his due focus.

Plus, the main focus of the film is the back-and-forth banter between the characters.

Valley of the Dolls-1967

Valley of the Dolls-1967

Director Mark Robson

Starring Barbara Parkins, Patty Duke, Sharon Tate

Scott’s Review #657

Reviewed July 3, 2017

Grade: A-

Based on the best-selling novel written by Jacqueline Susann a year earlier, the film version of Valley of the Dolls has become rather a cult classic in the years following release- it has earned the dubious description of “it’s so bad it’s good”.

The film dives headfirst into the soapy and dramatic world of Hollywood and Broadway and the trials and tribulations that three young women encounter as they try to “make it” in the backstabbing business.

The film teeters on camp, but is a favorite of mine, as I love the theme of aspiring stars in La La land. The set design and groovy styles of the late 1960s are also noteworthy.

Bored with her life in sleepy New England, Anne Welles decides to move to the bright lights of Manhattan seeking fame, fortune, and excitement.

After she lands a secretarial job for an entertainment lawyer, who handles temperamental Broadway star Helen Lawson (Susan Hayward), Anne meets and befriends two other struggling young actresses.

Neely O’Hara (Patty Duke) is a vivacious, gifted singer, and Jennifer North (Sharon Tate) is a gorgeous blonde with limited talent but looks to die for.

The three women wrestle with the ups and downs of show business as they each achieve various levels of success and failure.

The film centers on both the love and the losses of each woman and at times the film is rather soap opera-like, especially the bitchy feud between Neely and Helen, but the film is a fun, entertaining experience.

Various men come in and out of the lives of the trio. The “dolls” referenced in the title are a nickname for pills that the girls readily pop and alcohol is also used in the film.

One interesting aspect of the film that I am fond of is that the three women are vastly different from one another.

Anne is the most sensible of the three and arguably the most intelligent. Neely is wild, reckless, and constantly battles drugs and alcohol, yet she is both the most successful and the most talented. Jennifer is gorgeous but lacks the talent or the vigor to succeed in Hollywood.

Two of the three women do not experience happy endings to their respective stories.

Some are admittedly a bit uneven, especially the performance of Duke as Neely. She plays the role wildly over the top, especially during her shrieking, drug-saddled tirades, but rather than find the performance irritating (some certainly might), I find the role loud, bombastic, yet sympathetic.

We root for Neely because she has talent despite her shortcomings and she is a likable character to me as I want her to find happiness.

Also playing up the camp is Hayward, as she fills Helen with fire, spite, and gusto, doing everything to make the audience view her as a queen bitch. Helen was scheduled to be played by illustrious star Judy Garland (she would have been perfect!) but was reportedly fired for showing up for work drunk.

An enjoyable aspect of Valley of the Dolls is the humor, though sadly the laughs are not always intentional. The finale involves a catfight between Neely and Helen in the classy ladies’ room of a famed theater.

With sheer delight, Neely yanks off Helen’s bright orange wig to reveal her natural head of hair. In campy fashion, Helen’s real hair is perfectly fine- more shocking would have been if she were bald or had thinning hair, but her hair is bleached blonde and full.

In melodramatic fashion, Helen waltzes out of the theater sans wig.

Valley of the Dolls is a late-night treat that can be enjoyed and not taken overly seriously- the film differs vastly from the actual novel and even the time (the 1960s versus the 1940s through the 1960s) is changed.

The film was followed by a much more campy and satirical film,  Beyond the Valley of the Dolls, made in 1970 and directed by Russ Meyer.

Oscar Nominations: Best Original Song Score or Adaptation Score

Escape from Alcatraz-1979

Escape from Alcatraz-1979

Director Don Siegel

Starring Clint Eastwood

Scott’s Review #656

Reviewed July 2, 2017

Grade: B+

Made during the heyday (the 1970s and the early 1980s) of a slew of action and thriller-type films to star popular actor, Clint Eastwood, Escape from Alcatraz is a gritty, guy-focused film with not one single female character insight.

The film is directed by Don Siegel, who also directed Eastwood in several previous films, most notably, Dirty Harry in 1971, and contains a grittiness frequently used in this genre of film during the period.

Reminiscent in style of 1975’s One Flew Over the Cuckoo’s Nest in its authority repressing and taking advantage of the victimized common man, the film itself is also a good historical account of one of the most famous prison escapes ever achieved, in 1962.

Having recently visited the long since shut down Alcatraz prison near San Francisco, California, the film was wonderful to watch at this time as much of it was shot inside and around the actual prison grounds.

We immediately meet Frank Morris (Eastwood) as he is unceremoniously led to the infamous Alcatraz prison on a stormy, chilly night in foggy San Francisco. The dark, harsh weather perfectly sets the tone for the dreary prison experience he will face.

Morris is stripped, searched, intimidated by the warden and the guards, and paraded around naked, finally taken to his tiny cell, where he will presumably spend the rest of his life.

The film does not reveal what crimes Morris has committed to warrant his tenure in Alcatraz this way the character is more sympathetic.

Slowly, Morris befriends other inmates and formulates an idea to escape the impossible prison by digging through the cement walls with spoons and escaping through pipes.

The other inmates featured in the film are the Anglin brothers, in for robbery, a kindly older man named Doc, who fervently paints the time away, nervous Charlie Butts, and English, an intelligent black man serving two life sentences for killing two white men in self-defense.

All of these men in some way aid Morris in his escape from the torturous Alcatraz.

A side story involves a bully named Wolf, who has designs on Morris from day one. Whether Wolf is actually gay or merely a menace is unknown and not explored. Throughout the film, Wolf and Morris fight and spend time in solitary confinement and their rivalry is an interesting sub-plot.

The film wants the viewer to be on the side of the prisoners and I am not sure if in real life the prisoners would be as sympathetic as portrayed in the film. Most of them seem to be confined to Alcatraz for robberies or crimes they did not commit or circumstances deeming the crimes inevitable in some way.

Furthering a liberal slant to the film is the friendship between Morris and English. An interracial friendship between the men reveals that our hero Morris is progressive-thinking and a “good guy”.

Conversely, most of the guards and certainly the Warden (Patrick McGoohan) are written as terrible, unsympathetic people. When an inmate drops dead of a heart attack, the warden coldly remarks “Some men are destined never to leave Alcatraz alive”.

The Warden is the foil of the film and in the final scene, the Warden gets a bit of comeuppance when a mocking souvenir is left for him.

To further compare Escape from Alcatraz to One Flew Over the Cuckoo’s Nest, the Warden is a similar character to the infamous Nurse Ratched in their mutual, diabolical sadism.

I am unsure if in “real life” the distinctions between the prisoners and the authority figures were so black and white, but it sure makes for good film drama. It is “the heroes versus the villains” but in reverse.

The inevitable escape sequence is predictable but highly compelling as Morris and Company enact their escape plot during an overnight.

The usage of papier-mache dolls to fool the guards is heavily dramatic and compelling.

Escape from Alcatraz (1979) is not high art but works as a historical account of a real-life incident in one of the most discussed prisons in United States history.

The film is also a perfect starring vehicle for Eastwood as he is well cast in the gritty, yet likable role of prisoner Morris.

The film is a good, solid, late 1970s thriller.

Johnny Guitar-1954

Johnny Guitar-1954

Director Nicholas Ray

Starring Joan Crawford, Sterling Hayden

Scott’s Review #655

Reviewed June 15, 2017

Grade: B-

Johnny Guitar (1954) is an interesting film to review for several reasons, but its challenge to the traditional Western mold is the most distinct. Front and center is an aggressive and strong-willed woman, a saloon owner no less, engaged in an antagonistic feud with another woman of a similar disposition.

Of course, since the film stars legendary screen actress Joan Crawford, she is a strong character.

The writing is not brilliant, and other Western stereotypes abound, but Johnny Guitar is a decent watch for Crawford.

In the middle of an Arizona cattle town circa the Wild West, Vienna (Crawford) is a gorgeous woman who owns the local watering hole, which less-than-savory men frequent.

Vienna welcomes the men mostly because one of them is a former boyfriend. The rest of the town, led by Emma Small (Mercedes McCambridge), despises Vienna and her support of the incoming railroad, which makes Vienna rich.

After a bank robbery, Vienna is pursued by Emma and the town into a standoff, in which lynchings, shootings, and fires encompass the rest of the film.

Mixed in with the drama is a romance between Vienna and handsome guitarist Johnny Guitar (Sterling Hayden), and some musical numbers, but mostly, the film is a shoot ’em up led by women.

Let’s take the good with the bad surrounding the film—in my book, any picture starring Joan Crawford gets some credit, and the role of Vienna is undoubtedly uncharted territory for the glamorous star.

Tough-talking, gun-slinging, and with a short hairdo, rumors abounded that the character of Vienna was gay and in love with her arch-enemy Emma.

This might have happened decades later, but this was 1950s Hollywood, after all. Crawford still dazzles with heavy makeup and bright red lips and is feminine despite the masculine outfit.

Clever, especially for 1954 westerns, is a tough female character in the central role, bolsters Johnny Guitar above middling. Typically, in a genre that sticks to the tried-and-true, the main female rivalry between Vienna and Emma is the best part, but sadly, the back story is never fully explored.

Why do they hate each other? Were they in love with the same man? Is their hatred simply because they are the only women in the town?

The chase scene and the climax of the film are also quite good. How delightful to see Crawford prancing around in peril, riding a horse, and swimming in a creek.

The film turns into a good, old-fashioned adventure, and the cinematography and exterior sets are not bad.

Two aspects of Johnny Guitar stood out to me as negatives. First, the romance between Vienna and Johnny Guitar does not work. Crawford seems too old for Hayden as Johnny, and I never felt any chemistry between the characters. Second, the backstory scene revealing that they were once an “item” is weak.

There are no other female characters besides Emma (a coincidence?), which is a strange aspect of the film. Does one wonder if this was Crawford’s demand? (But I digress.)

The romance between the duo is lackluster, though admittedly, I did feel a rooting factor for them as the final chapter commenced and the pair was in danger.

The storytelling is mediocre, as I never felt invested in the writing, and the entire script feels silly and cheap. The story is laid out in an introductory way- Vienna is told by (arguably) the leader of the town, Ward Bond, to close up shop and leave town within twenty-four hours or else there will be hell to pay.

When some of the men rob a bank and plan to depart for California, Vienna is blamed for a sloppy, contrived plot device and is set to be hanged.

The script is not the high point of the film.

Johnny Guitar (1954)is worth watching for a gender-bending experience and the fabulous addition of Ms. Crawford. However, do not expect a masterpiece in storytelling or to be dazzled by character development.

Fans of the classic Western may be disappointed.

I Smile Back-2015

I Smile Back-2015

Director Adam Salky

Starring Sarah Silverman

Scott’s Review #654

Reviewed June 13, 2017

Grade: B+

As a fan of Sarah Silverman, the comedienne, I was anxious to see the 2015 film, I Smile Back, which garnered her a Screen Actors Guild Award nomination.

Silverman tackles a heavily dramatic role in a film that teeters on being a pure “downer”. Many fans expecting the actress’s comic wit to be featured need not see it.

Rather, I embraced the performance and found the film to be an independent film treat, thanks to Silverman’s powerful performance. She nails the part and carries it to success.

I Smile Back is a small film that I wish had garnered more viewers.

Laney Brooks (Silverman) appears to have it all. She lives an affluent existence in Westchester County, New York with her handsome husband, Bruce (Josh Charles), and their two young children.

With a gorgeous house, dinner parties, and friends, who could ask for anything more?

Bored and troubled by a tough childhood and “daddy issues”, Laney tends to drink too much, abuse drugs and prescription pills, and carry on an affair with her best friend’s husband, all while managing to run a household.

As she gradually spirals down a darker path, Laney sees her perfect world slowly crumble around her.

Throughout the film, I asked, “Are we supposed to root for Laney or dislike her?”

Director Adam Salky does not make it easy to like her.

In addition to her substance abuse use (or over-use), Laney is rather selfish. From the small scenes when Laney drops off her kids from school and is annoyed when the crossing guard and a teacher refuse to give her special treatment, she mutters insults under her breathe as she grabs a cigarette and heads for her scandalous rendezvous.

But when she is put in great peril later in the film, following one of her benders, I could not help but feel deep sympathy for her.

It is a bit unclear what the audience should feel.

This leads me to conclude that the film belongs to Silverman.

What impresses me most is how believable she is in most scenes. She packs creative lunches for her kids and plays fun birthday cake decorating games with them, but in the next breathe snorts cocaine and rails at a neighbor lady for not celebrating Thanksgiving.

Thanks to Silverman, she plays these scenes with gusto.

Some critics have complained about the script, but I find no real fault. While not the strongest element, it is fine, nonetheless.

I Smile Back is a low-budget indie drama that serves its purpose- it does not delve too deeply into the how’s and why’s of her addiction, and a nice scene with Laney’s father (Chris Sarandon) offers no concrete evidence of why this man drove her to drugs by his abandonment.

The film seems to be more about proving a good performance by Silverman than anything else.

Sarah Silverman commands great respect for her dark portrayal in I Smile Back.

This role, combined with her recent turn in Showtime’s Masters of Sex television series, portraying a pregnant lesbian in the 1960s, proves that she has what it takes to compete with the great dramatic actresses of today.

She is much more than a stand-up comic. Here’s to hoping for more drama from this talented lady in the years ahead.

A Man Called Ove-2016

A Man Called Ove-2016

Director Hannes Holm

Starring Rolf Lassgård, Ida Engvoll

Scott’s Review #653

Reviewed June 12, 2017

Grade: A

A Man Called Ove is a fantastic 2016 Swedish film honored with a Best Foreign Language Film Oscar nomination and is a darling watch.

The film is terrific.

Equal parts whimsical, humorous, and heartbreaking, the film churns up emotions brought to the surface, which is quite telling about the experience.

The film is magical in a sense.

The lovely scenery of Sweden also abounds, making A Man Called Ove an unexpected marvel worth checking out for good film lovers.

Ove (Rolf Lassgard) is a fifty-nine-year-old curmudgeon living in suburban Sweden. He is the keeper of law and order in his quaint, little community of bungalows, regularly ridiculing rule breakers and the oblivious with torrents of shouts and insults.

He despises several neighbors, including a beautiful cat who walks around the complex as if she owns it.

When an interracial family moves in next door to Ove, his life forever changes as he becomes acquainted with the husband, the wife, and their two young girls. In his newfound entertainment, Ove regularly visits his deceased wife’s gravestone, bringing her flowers and plotting his suicide.

Through flashbacks, we are taken on a journey through the past as we learn all there is to know about Ove.

The film is a beautiful experience. I worried that A Man Called Ove would be too lighthearted and sentimental.  The type of foreign language film the Academy far too often recognizes in place of darker, more complex (and, in my mind, deserving) films.

A Man Called Ove is not exactly dark, but it is certainly not trivial or fluff. The film is rich with excellent writing and character development.

Romance is also a significant theme, but not in a corny way. For much of the running time, Ove’s deceased wife, Sonja, is a complete mystery. We only know that Ove misses her terribly and cannot wait to be with her in the afterlife. We only get brief glimpses of her photo on the table.

When finally introduced to the story, we see them both in their younger years, filled with hope and promise. I beamed with delight during these wonderful moments. The scenes of their innocent first dates and the connection they develop are heartwarming.

Later, when Sonja’s story is fully explored, we show a new appreciation for Ove and why he is the way he is today. We understand him better, and the character develops.

Some paths that life takes Ove and Sonja down are tear-inducing and emotional, primarily due to Sonja’s character and personality. Along with the backstory of Ove and Sonja, we are treated to scenes of Ove and his father in the past.

With his mother dying way too young, the pair develop an unrelenting bond that is severed only by tragic circumstances.

Ove’s constant bungled attempts at suicide (he buys poor-quality rope to hang himself, a visitor interrupts his attempt to breathe in toxic garage fumes, and he ends up saving a life when he intends to be hit by a train) are the comic turns that the film mixes perfectly with the heavy drama.

A Man Called Ove (2016) is a pure treat in modern cinema. It perfectly balances drama, comedy, churning emotions, and heartbreaking honesty. It is highly recommended for those seeking a treasure with many characteristics.

Oscar Nominations: Best Foreign Language Film

Fences-2016

Fences-2016

Director Denzel Washington

Starring Denzel Washington, Viola Davis, Jovan Adepo

Scott’s Review #652

Reviewed June 11, 2017

Grade: B+

Denzel Washington and Viola Davis both give dynamic performances in Fences (2016), a film directed by Washington himself and based on a stage play written by August Wilson.

The film reunites several actors from the stage version, and while compelling, Fences does not translate as well onto the screen as hoped. Throughout the movie, I surmised how much better Fences would be on the live stage.

Still, a tremendous acting tour de force transpires, which is well worth the price of admission.

Set in 1950s Pittsburgh, Troy Maxson (Washington) is a struggling fifty-three-year-old black man who works as a trash collector alongside his best friend, Jim Bono.

Troy is married to Rose (Davis). They have a teenage son, Cory (Jovan Adepo), an aspiring high school football player. Troy’s younger brother, a mentally impaired World War II veteran, and Troy’s older son, Lyons, a fledgling musician, are also in the mix.

Everyone lives in a close-knit community, and there is a sense of comradery, though the principal characters are frequently at odds with each other as dramatic situations slowly arise.

Troy is an irate man, frequently going on rants about his time playing in the Negro baseball league and complaining about the unfairness of the world, specifically the racial injustice of the time.

The friction between Troy and Cory is thick. Cory wants to dedicate his life to football, while Troy feels his son will ultimately be disappointed. When Troy drops a startling bomb on Rose, their lives are forever changed, and they work to mend the damage inflicted between them.

At its core, Fences is a family drama, and the story offers conflict. Almost all the action is set in the Maxson family home, a two-story brick house. Scenes frequently play out in the backyard.

The film stays very true to its roots as a stage production, which is good and evil.

The film feels like a play, so I fantasized about how good the production would be on the stage rather than on the screen, especially since some actors (Washington and Davis) starred in that version.

What a blessing and a curse.

The film feels limiting and has a glossy “Hollywood look.” This is good, but the stage version would undoubtedly be more bare-bones, giving the production a raw feel, substantial in several key dramatic scenes between Troy and Rose.

Despite other opinions, I did not find Troy to be a likable character. Washington infuses power and good acting grit into the character, but I found few redeeming qualities. To say nothing of the situation with Rose, he does not treat his son Cory with much respect.

After a while, I found Troy’s repeated verbal rampages and stories irritating and wondered, “Why should we root for this man?”

Viola Davis deserved the Best Supporting Actress award she received for her turn as Rose. Dutiful, loving, and woefully underappreciated, her character rises well above a traditional homemaker, as during one pivotal scene, she explodes with rage.

Davis, a fantastic “crier”, saves her best tears, in a weepy portrayal. But more than that, she exudes a strong woman during a time when black women had it particularly tough.

I would have preferred an edgier film than Fences (2016) brings to the big screen, but the excellent performances more than compensate for what the film otherwise lacks in darkness.

Sometimes, it is too safe and slightly watered down; the stage version may be the best option.

Oscar Nominations: 1 win- Best Picture, Best Actor-Denzel Washington, Best Supporting Actress-Viola Davis (won), Best Adapted Screenplay

Hacksaw Ridge-2016

Hacksaw Ridge-2016

Director Mel Gibson

Starring Andrew Garfield, Luke Bracey, Vince Vaughn

Scott’s Review #651

Reviewed June 9, 2017

Grade: B+

Hacksaw Ridge (2016) is considered a comeback film for troubled director Mel Gibson, having not directed a film in over ten years.

The film received several Academy Award nominations, including Best Picture, Best Director, and Best Actor (Andrew Garfield).

While the film has a few minor flaws, despite being another exhausting war film, Hacksaw Ridge is quite mighty, primarily because of Garfield’s warmth and convictions into the central character and real-life hero, Desmond Doss.

The film also leans anti-war and pacifistic.

During World War II, Desmond is a young man living in Virginia. With a brother around the same age, they deal with an abusive, alcoholic father and a passive mother.

Desmond realizes he has a talent for medical care. He falls in love with a small-town nurse and enlists in the Army as a non-combat medic.

After refusing to use weapons and train on Saturdays, he is met with contempt by his commanding officers and fellow recruits. Doss and his troops are deployed to the Pacific theater during the Battle of Okinawa, and he becomes a hero when he saves numerous lives on the frightening “Hacksaw Ridge” in courageous form.

For the first half (save for a peculiar opening battle sequence that comes into play during the second half), the action primarily exists in Desmond’s hometown of Virginia or at a basic training facility.

We learn about Desmond’s childhood experiences, love life, and love of country and duty. His father, a retired military man himself, is damaged. He drinks, beats his wife, and hits the boys, though Gibson tones down the abuse by not showing much of it.

He saves the real gore for later in the film.

The film during the earlier portions has a mainstream, safe feel, and I found more than a couple of aspects to nitpick. Desmond’s fellow training recruits are laced with too often used stereotypical, stock characters.

The brooding one, the cocky one nicknamed “Hollywood” for his good looks and tendency to walk around naked, the funny one, the strange one, the list goes on and on.

Drill Sergeant Howell (played by Vince Vaughn, now parlaying from comedy roles to drama) is tough as nails. This is a character we have seen in dozens of war films before, and it feels stale, as do all of the characters.

Some jokes are cheap one-liners like, “We are not in Kansas anymore, Dorothy,” to describe new surroundings.

The masculinity is glaring and serves as a negative, making the film feel like nothing more than standard fare.

However, the second half of Hacksaw Ridge drew me in much more than the first half. Now, in Okinawa, the film grips a much darker tone with the inclusion of battle scenes, some very gruesome with the loss of limbs and life.

Technically speaking, the cinematography and camera work are shaky and move very quickly, effectively shifting from the sun and peace of the United States to the dark and fog of unfamiliar territory.

A sweet scene between Desmond and brooding former rival, Smitty Ryker, inside a foxhole is terrific as we get to know each character much better within that one scene.

Both men discuss their pasts and grow a new affection for one another. This is humanistic and character-driven, making the film much more powerful.

Andrew Garfield is a marvel and deserves the attention received for the role. Coming into his own as an actor after suffering hiccups with Spider-Man (2014), he has returned to character-driven and empathetic roles.

The role of Desmond is a genuinely heroic role for him, and he is wonderfully cast.

A war film with a distinct Anti-war message, Hacksaw Ridge is overall a “guy’s film,” with the female characters taking a backseat to the men. It suffers from some tried-and-true aspects, and some of the hairstyles seem 2016. However, in the end, the film depicts a wonderful human being and tells his heroic story, so that makes the film a good watch.

Oscar Nominations: 2 wins-Best Picture, Best Director-Mel Gibson, Best Actor-Andrew Garfield, Best Sound Editing, Best Sound Mixing (won), Best Film Editing (won)

Strait-Jacket-1964

Strait-Jacket-1964

Director William Castle

Starring Joan Crawford, Diane Baker

Scott’s Review #650

Reviewed June 7, 2017

Grade: B

Strait-Jacket (1964) stars legendary Hollywood film star Joan Crawford on the heels of her successful “comeback” role in What Ever Happened To Baby Jane? Circa 1962.

Following this film, older actresses achieved some semblance of success in camp-leaning B-horror films, and Crawford led the pack.

Strait-Jacket is a perfect example of this subgenre. The glamorous Crawford sinks her teeth into this film with gusto, playing an ax-wielding former mental patient who has been released to the outside world after a lengthy stay in an insane asylum.

William Castle, a popular director of the time, could churn out films quickly and for very little money, a talent marveled at by studios. In the cult vein, Castle created Strait-Jacket on a dime and with one of the biggest stars in the world- now slowly in decline.

In “real life,” Crawford felt the role was beneath her, yet one would never know it by the brilliant performance she gives, a performance that makes Strait-Jacket better than it ordinarily would be.

We first meet Crawford’s Lucy Harbin (twenty years before present times) as she returns home late one night to a remote area, having spent the weekend out of town. Her husband is a philanderer and has picked up a cheap girl at a bar, making love to her while his young daughter, Carol, pretends to sleep.

In a fit of rage, Lucy decapitates them both while a horrified Carol watches. Years later, Carol (Diane Baker), now a grown woman,  prepares to introduce a recently released Lucy to her intended, Michael, and his affluent parents.

Living on a remote farm with Lucy’s brother and his wife, Lucy, and Carol experience strange occurrences: a dastardly child’s song, cut-out faces from a photo album, and “imagined” decapitated heads.

Castle wisely gives Lucy a makeover, changing her graying, matronly appearance to a sexy, youthful one reminiscent of her days before the murders.

Soon, the film, short at one hour and thirty-two minutes, reaches a climax when Lucy appears to begin chopping new victims to bits. But is everything as it seems?

As a viewer, Strait-Jacket’s appeal is watching Joan Crawford tackle the role. Talented beyond belief, and with expressive eyes and facial features, she owns the role and subsequently the entire film, though Diane Baker is no slouch either.

Crawford, never one to phone in a performance, was happy with any role she received at this time in her career. She gives Lucy grit and vulnerability so that the audience roots for her.

As the film progresses, we slowly wonder if Lucy is hallucinating, still unstable, or perhaps being set up by someone else.

Strait-Jacket is laced with several good scares, as a grizzled farmhand and a vacationing doctor meet their fates. The build-up to the kills is quite well done. A slamming door or a figure in the shadows are all used to tremendous effect and elicit suspense.

To Castle’s credit, he uses elements of fright to make the film better than the writing is.

The plot itself is fine, but indeed not high art, nor anything rather inventive. The “big reveal” at the end is rather hokey and seemingly a play on the Alfred Hitchcock classic Psycho (1960), but lacking the high intensity- the ending is also a tad abrupt.

Strait-Jacket (1964) is a terrific little horror film featuring one of the legendary actresses of Hollywood film history- and that is more than enough for me to recommend this film to both Crawford fans and horror film fans, or ideally both.

Fellini’s Roma-1972

Fellini’s Roma-1972

Director Federico Fellini

Starring Britta Barnes, Peter Gonzales

Scott’s Review #649

Reviewed June 5, 2017

Grade: A-

Fellini’s Roma (1973) is a trippy experience through Rome during two different periods

As with all Fellini films, the film is meant to be experienced rather than analyzed.

One must nestle into the life that Fellini offers on-screen- in this instance the fabulous city of Rome, Italy in both positives and negatives.

The experience was very good for me, as both a world of odd characters and of ancient Rome oozed from the screen appealingly and absurdly.

From a plot narrative- there is a rot one. Arguably the only character portrayed is Rome herself. The film takes place in both the 1930s as well as the 1970s and is said to be an autobiographical tale of director Fellini’s experiences growing up in Rome.

We see little Fellini as a youngster, experiencing the vast city for the first time, and as a teenager now living in the city. Interestingly, the film traverses from both sets of periods back and forth with really no rhyme or reason.

Throughout the film, we see both the beauty and the ugliness of Rome- the majestic Colosseum and the dirty entrails of the gloomy city. Scenes of seedy brothels, mainly in the 1930s, and a myriad of strange and scantily clad females prance before the cameras looking for a lucky score amid the droves of men lusting after them.

Another depicts a fashion show, of sorts, taking place at the Vatican, involving nuns and priests in bizarre costumes.

The 1930’s setting is my personal favorite. Gritty, cold, and harsh, the bleakness of Rome is depicted. Unsurprisingly, this has much to do with the historical period Since Mussolini was in power, and on the eve of World War II, the darkness was apparent.

In a frightening scene, bomb sirens wail while a woman shrieks in panic. The brothel scenes are downright creepy and the subsequent theatre scenes involving drunken, rowdy, young men leering and cursing at the entertainment, is a particular slice of a life sequence.

In contrast, the 1970s sequences are layered with more beautiful depictions of the city. Brighter colors are featured, and there appear to be either scientists or explorers digging into ancient ruins and finding gorgeous art that is subsequently ruined by the blowing air. We also see hippy types basking in the sunlight.

Again, much of this film is largely open to interpretation.

I adore Fellini’s Roma in terms of an expression of the city of Rome as an art form, but the film is highly unconventional- another plus for me.

Sure, I may have desired to learn more about the bevy of creepy and potentially interesting characters, but I finished the film with an appreciation of Rome, unlike none I have ever known.

A startling final scene, in which legendary Italian film star, Anna Magnani, appears scantily clad, implied to be a prostitute, was filmed shortly before her untimely death at the age of sixty-five.

As a film, Fellini’s Roma is a wonderful history lesson, but also a lesson in interpretation and film appreciation. Most filmgoers are accustomed to a beginning, middle, and end, as well as some semblance of a plot.

Roma contains none of that, but rather, is mind-opening and still fresh many years after its release, which is a true testament.

The Faculty-1998

The Faculty-1998

Director Robert Rodriguez

Starring Josh Hartnett, Piper Laurie, Salma Hayek

Scott’s Review #648

Reviewed June 4, 2017

Grade: B

Having watched The Faculty, a  teenage horror/science fiction flick,  at the time of release in 1998 (now almost twenty years ago!), I fondly remember sitting in the movie theater watching this soon-to-be cult classic take hold of its audience.

Despite some now-dated (in 2017) special effects, the story holds up well, and what a treat to see some “stars of tomorrow” mixed in with some venerable veterans, take center stage.

The Faculty stirs up a strange hybrid of classic films (Invasion of the Body Snatchers, Alien, and The Breakfast Club) to create a fun, and gory, horror film.

The action takes place in a small town said to be somewhere in Ohio, though the film is shot in Texas. A football town, and home to the Hornets, sports are central to Herrington High school- both to students and faculty.

It becomes immediately evident that some of the staff is not “right” after two of the teachers stab Principal Valerie Drake (Bebe Neuwirth) with a pencil and scissors and flee with no emotions late one night after a faculty meeting.

Later, student Casey Connors (Elijah Wood) confesses to his group of friends that he believes the teachers are being controlled by aliens. Naturally, they are skeptical until strange events among the staff begin to take shape once the students watch the staff’s activities closely.

The film then turns into a clever whodunit as one student after another is revealed to be infected and therefore an alien.

A highlight of The Faculty is its stellar casting- there is the younger set of actors, who share great chemistry- Josh Hartnett (Zeke), Wood (Casey), Jordana Brewster (Delilah), Clea Duvall (Stokes), Laura Harris (Marybeth), and Shawn Hatosy (Stan) all make up the troupe of characters thrown together due to unlikely circumstances to figure out the big mystery- who amongst the staff is an alien and where they come from?

All of the students are from different social classes, which makes their antics unique- Zeke, the rebel, Stan, the jock, Stokes, the “weirdo”, and Casey, the nerd. In this way, the film reminds me of The Breakfast Club, a mid-1980s “coming of age” high school film.

Additionally, the staff comprises some of the best in the business- stalwart Piper Laurie appears as the drama teacher, luscious Salma Hayek as the sexy school nurse, comic Jon Stewart as the science teacher, and rugged Robert Patrick as Coach Willis.

What a treat for film fans to watch a film such as The Faculty to see a bevy of popular film and television stars amongst the cast.

Director, Robert Rodriguez, most notably known for creative left-of-center work such as Machete (2010) and Sin City (2005) and for being a frequent collaborator of Quentin Tarantino in his edgy collection of films, helms a rather mainstream piece of work in The Faculty.

The film is targeted at your typical, mainstream audience, but with the right blend of clever quirks added in.

Delicious is the ode to the classic science-fiction classic Invasion of the Body Snatchers (1956 and 1978), only set in a suburban high school. Clever still is the revelation of the teachers as the robotic “pod people” or aliens from outer space.

This cute reference, in 1998, and still today is an innocent knock on authority figures as the high school kids slowly get their comeuppance against some of the staff.

There comes a point in the film where nearly everyone is an alien and the film runs out of gas. However, the final scene is wonderfully constructed as the film ends as just another day in the life of a small-town high school- life goes on and all is well.

The Faculty (1998) is a treat to watch in present times as a “trip down memory” lane experience.

White Chicks-2004

White Chicks-2004

Director Keenen Ivory Wayans

Starring Shawn Wayans, Marlon Wayans

Scott’s Review #647

Reviewed May 29, 2017

Grade: D

Anything but high art, though at the time of release (2004), seeming like a clever, yet silly, slapstick farce, White Chicks was a film that I found rather enjoyable.

Watching the film in 2017, some thirteen years later, however, the film feels dated beyond belief and as dumb as can be.

The film also contains Paris Hilton’s gimmick characters and racial overtones that were lost on me when I first saw the film.

Influenced by the drag comedy (and classic) from 1959, Some Like It Hot, the premise sounds interesting and comical.

Kevin and Marcus Copeland (played by the comical Wayans brothers) are a pair of black,  masculine, F.B.I. agents who bungle an undercover investigation and are given one last chance to redeem themselves before being booted from the bureau for good.

They are assigned the task of protecting the mega-rich cruise-line heiresses Brittany and Tiffany Wilson, who are in town (at the Hamptons) from a planned kidnapping plot over Labor Day weekend.

Kevin and Marcus don blonde wigs, and freakish makeup, and awkwardly pose as the Wilson sisters to save their jobs.

As the story goes on, Kevin and Marcus (as Brittany and Tiffany) develop relationships with various characters including millionaire Latrell Spencer (Terry Crews), who takes an interest in Marcus (thinking he is Tiffany, and white).

Other antics occur as the “girls” try their best to form friendships with the heiress’s snotty friends as they attempt to foil the kidnapping plot.

Similarities to the classic Wilder hit, Some Like It Hot, are tough not to notice, and director, Keenen Ivory Wayans, is smart to borrow from a film considered one of the greatest comedies of all time.

Just as Joe and Jerry (Tony Curtis and Jack Lemmon) go on the lam to escape mafia figures out of desperation, Kevin and Marcus are desperate to keep their jobs, causing both sets of “impersonators”, to suffer from dire circumstances.

Also worth mentioning are similar conclusions in both films as love interest Osgood Fielding III, also a millionaire, as is Spencer in White Chicks, each is not phased by the “big reveal” as the men are de-masked as actually being males.

Clever in 2004, the incorporation of celebrity Paris Hilton, in 2017 now all but faded, seems dated and of the past. In real life being a hotel heiress, characters Brittany and Tiffany (cruise line heiresses) mirror Hilton as spoiled, self-centered, and oblivious to everyone around her.

The aspect was a good idea at the time of the release of the film, but now is irrelevant, not even as a nostalgia gag- perhaps in the year 2037 White Chicks might be appreciated more, but I would not hold my breath.

The overall tone of White Chicks is also fraught with silliness and with one gag after another. Rather than being believable as females, the Wayans brothers look downright frightening and robotic as Brittany and Tiffany.

In comedies, suspension of disbelief is required, but the producers should have done a bit more to feminize the characters instead of playing them as goofs.

The ending of the film is no-frills and formulaic with no real twist or surprise ending to speak of. The ridiculous misunderstandings with Kevin and Marcus’s real significant others, foolishly believing the men are having affairs with other women seem forced and amateurish.

Predictably, when the men profess their love for the girls earnestly, they fall for it hook, line, and sinker and the film wraps in disappointing, standard fashion.

Cute and fresh feeling at the time, White Chicks (2004) now feels stale and tired with racial overtones, deemed amusing back in the day, but now seems mean-spirited and unnecessary.

The film is an attempt at recreating a classic comedy for a younger audience, but I would recommend seeing the original Some Like It Hot (1959) instead- it is much more enjoyable.

Live and Let Die-1973

Live and Let Die-1973

Director Guy Hamilton

Starring Roger Moore, Jane Seymour

Scott’s Review #646

Reviewed May 25, 2017

Grade: A-

When Live and Let Die was released in 1973, it began a new chapter in the James Bond film franchise with the introduction of a new Bond.

Sean Connery refused to do any more Bond pictures, and Roger Moore was crowned the new film hero and successfully made the role his own during his tenure.

My personal favorite Bond from top to bottom- I enjoyed the wry humor Moore added- he makes Live and Let Die more than it otherwise might have been with a less charismatic actor.

The story and the subsequent elements of the film have issues, but this installment holds a soft spot for me as it was one of my first exposures to the mountainous franchise that is Bond, and I adore the period of the mid-1970s.

Bond (Moore) is summoned to duty by his leader, M after three MI6 agents are simultaneously killed in the Caribbean, New Orleans, and at the United Nations in New York City. Bond is then tasked with figuring out who killed these agents and how the deaths are connected.

The adventure takes Bond from Harlem to an unnamed island in the Caribbean, and back to the bayous of southern Louisiana as he tangles with a heroin drug lord, Dr. Kananda.

Bond’s main love interest in the film is the virginal tarot card reader, Solitaire, played by Jane Seymour.

Live and Let Die is a breakthrough in some ways, though the film admittedly contains both positives and negatives worthy of discussion.

Since the film was made in 1973, following a successful run of “Blaxploitation” films like 1971’s Shaft and 1972’s Super Fly, the film is influenced by those in style (for better or worse).

This means that all of the villains are black, from the main villain, Kananga, to various henchmen and even background criminals growing the massive amounts of heroin shipped to the United States for distribution.

Having such representation among a minority group is fantastic and feels cutting edge, but stereotypes such as derogatory racial epithets, a pimpmobile, and the addition of weird voodoo, exist.

Another major flaw to the film, and despite my overall warmth for Live and Let Die, is the goofiness that the film turns into towards the end of the film.

At a certain point, the film feels like a different film from what it starts as, which becomes quite jarring-the introduction of Sheriff J.W. Pepper during a Louisiana chase scene turns the film into more of a cheesy Dukes of Hazzard episode, with bumbling law enforcement officials, rather than a quality film, and the southern stereotypes run rampant.

Why does a throwaway scene of a speedboat racing through an outdoor wedding feature all high society white folks with nary a black character existing other than as servants?

Some diversity in this scene would have been nice considering the film goes out of its way to feature black characters.

Still, many positives do exist. Live and Let Die has the honor of containing the first-ever black Bond girl- the CIA double agent, Rosie Carver, who sadly meets a grisly ending far too soon.

Gloria Hendry’s chemistry with Roger Moore is readily apparent, though the film chooses to make the character inept rather than a true equal. The smoldering sex scenes between the duo are wonderful and groundbreaking to watch so the film gets major props for pushing the envelope in this way.

Memorable is the terrific title theme song, “Live and Let Die”, by Paul McCartney and Wings. The success of this hit song, especially decades later, does wonders to elevate the film and keep it relevant in pop culture.

Also great to see are the location sequences and good action car chase scenes along the West Side Highway in New York City and into Harlem.

A treat for this retro fan is the inclusion of early 1970s Chevrolet Impalas and Chevy Novas throughout the entire feature film- was Chevy a financial backer?

Classic cars are a major inclusion in Live and Let Die, which as a current-day viewer is a cool treat and quite retro.

In the way of the primary villain and primary Bond girl, the film misses. Jane Seymour is a dud as Solitaire, a character that really should have been played by a black actress. Seymour and Moore have zero chemistry and her character is weak and simpering, lacking any sort of backbone.

Similarly, Yaphet Kotto as Dr. Kananga seems miscast and lacks any real qualities that make him neither devious nor dangerous, and his inevitable swan song underwhelms.

Live and Let Die (1973) is not the greatest in the Bond collection and suffers from some problematic, now-dated aspects, racial issues, and a silly overtone, but, perhaps more so as a terrific childhood memory, I hold a particular fondness toward this film despite many negatives.

Oscar Nominations: Best Song-“Live and Let Die”

Spa Night-2016

Spa Night-2016

Director Andrew Ahn

Starring Joe Seo

Scott’s Review #645

Reviewed May 19, 2017

Grade: B+

On the surface, Spa Night (2016) may seem like a straight-ahead independent LGBTQ-themed film (of which, in recent years, there has been no shortage), but the film’s plot is twofold.

Sure, it tells the coming-of-age story of a young man’s sexuality. Still, Spa Night is also a story of the boy’s Korean parent’s financial struggles and their desire to raise a son into a successful young man, sacrificing their happiness.

The film’s tone is very subtle, and the action moves slowly, but it is a sweet and relevant story.

David Cho is a shy Korean-American high school student on the cusp of going to college. His parents (who only speak Korean) have sadly recently lost their take-out restaurant in Los Angeles. The parents struggle to make ends meet (she by waitressing, he by doing odd moving jobs), while David takes SAT classes to ensure he gets into a great college.

David is also struggling with his sexuality and one-night visits a local male spa with drunken friends. He gets a job there and begins to experience male-on-male shenanigans taking place on the sly in the spa, all the while developing his blossoming sexual feelings.

David’s development in the story is key- he is resistant to coming out as gay because his parents are traditionally Korean, constantly mentioning David finding a girlfriend and succeeding in school, becoming what they have failed to achieve.

When, at one point, he fools around with another male in the spa, David insists on a no-kissing policy. This reveals to the audience that he has issues with intimacy with another male, and in one compelling scene, some self-loathing occurs.

When he stares too long at a buddy in the bathroom, while both are inebriated, this clues in the friend, who is then distant towards David.

The film is enjoyable because it tells two stories rather than one, which helps it succeed. We also care greatly about David’s parents, who are compassionately portrayed rather than the stereotypical “tiger mom” and rigid father.

Wanting only the best for him and having no clue about his sexuality struggles, they trudge along with their issues. The father drinks too much, and the parents frequently squabble.

This is a clue to the film because it explains why David hesitates to mention anything to them, even though he is close to his parents.

I also enjoyed the slice-of-life and coming-of-age appeal that the film possesses.

Several shots of day-to-day life in Los Angeles are shown, mainly as characters go about their daily routines.

The budget allotted for Spa Night must have certainly been minimal. Still, the lesson learned is that some fantastic films are made for minuscule money, but as long as the characters are rich and the story humanistic, the film succeeds- this is the case in Spa Night.

Almost every character is of Asian descent- I am guessing all Korean actors. This is another positive I give to Spa Night.

In the cinematic world, where other cultures and races are woefully underutilized or still stereotypically portrayed, how refreshing is it that Spa Night breaks some new ground with an LGBTQ-centered film with Korean characters?

Spa Night has deservedly crowned the coveted John Cassavetes Award at the 2016 Independent Spirit Awards (for films made for under $500,000), and director Andrew Ahn is undoubtedly a talented novice director to be on the watch for.

He seems destined to tell good, interesting stories about people.

Independent Spirit Award Nominations: 1 win-John Cassavetes Award (won), Acura Someone to Watch Award

Elle-2016

Elle-2016

Director Paul Verhoeven

Starring Isabelle Huppert

Scott’s Review #644

Reviewed May 17, 2017

Grade: A-

Sure to evoke both disgust and intrigue from viewers brave enough to watch it all the way through and hopefully ponder the character dynamics, Elle is a titillating French film that was showered with heaps of praise upon its release in 2016.

Controversial without question, in large part by the film’s main character, Elle, will undoubtedly divide film fans- some heralding the picture as greatness, others detesting it as too exploitive.

It is not an easy watch by any measure, but one aspect is cemented in truth-Isabelle Huppert gives a fantastic performance in a complex and perverse role.

Unique even in its first scene, Michele Leblanc (Huppert) is a ruthless, alpha businesswoman who is raped and beaten by an intruder in her lavish Paris home.

The violent act occurs in the first scene, immediately giving the film an “in your face” presence. When the rapist, who wears a ski mask, flees, Michele shakes off the incident with nary an emotional scar.

Through backstory, we learn that years ago, Michele’s father brutally murdered many people and was imprisoned for life. Michele’s mother is an aging glamour girl who hires sexy male escorts. Michele’s son is engaged to a domineering pregnant woman, and her ex-husband is dating a younger woman.

Michele lives a complicated life.

At first, Michele seems sympathetic, and we feel her pain as she is taunted by a woman in a coffee shop for her father’s past deeds.

To say nothing of her rape, we cringe when Michele hears noises and imagines the masked intruder returning to rape again, empathizing with the character.

When the mystery man harasses Michele, he sends notes and leaves “gifts” in her home, and we are scared for her. However, as the film goes along, Michele’s obsession and other questionable actions make the character challenging to like.

I also began to wonder if Michele was perhaps dreaming the entire film!

As a fan of acclaimed film director Claude Chabrol, Elle appears to be heavily influenced by him.

Director Paul Verhoeven certainly must have studied his works. He is no slouch himself—female-empowering sex films such as Basic Instinct (1992) and Showgirls (1995) that he directed come to mind. He gives Elle a sleek and sexy feel.

The fact that it is set in romantic Paris helps make the film glamorous and cultured. Verhoeven even weaves a whodunit into the story for much of the movie until the rapist is revealed shockingly.

If the film had ended with the big reveal, this would have made for a compelling, if not mainstream, Lifetime television-type film, but Elle takes off from this point. Michele, already fancying her handsome rapist, actually begins a macabre relationship with the man, going so far as to act out the rape again- her fantasies coming true!

This story turn may repel the average viewer, but to me, this turns the film into a completely left-of-center, layered, psychologically themed story.

Elle is not a revenge tale or a film about a victimized woman; it is much more.

What a dynamic performance Ruppert gives, and here is why- she successfully makes Michele both sympathetic and reviled.

Besides the aforementioned rape complexities, she despises her mother and sleeps with her best friend’s husband. In a scene that arguably makes Michele cross the line in reprehensible behavior, she confesses her affair to a best friend, Anna, when Anna is at her happiest moment- this is downright cruel!

So, no, the audience does not entirely sympathize with this character, but how layered this makes the character, and what a treat it is for actress Ruppert to sink her teeth into a character like this one.

With a wounded yet cold central character, partly thanks to exceptional direction by Verhoeven and a brilliant portrayal by Huppert, he takes Elle into largely unchartered territory and brave waters to create a film that will make the viewer both think and loathe.

Part nymphomaniac wounded bird and vicious shark, Elle contains a complex and memorable leading character.

Oscar Nominations: Best Actress-Isabelle Huppert

Independent Spirit Award Nominations: 1 win-Best Female Lead-Isabelle Huppert (won)

10 Cloverfield Lane-2016

10 Cloverfield Lane-2016

Director Dan Trachtenberg

Starring Mary Elizabeth Winstead,  John Goodman

Scott’s Review #643

Reviewed May 11, 2017

Grade: B+

10 Cloverfield Lane is a 2016 psychological thriller billed as somewhat of a successor to the 2008 hit Cloverfield, though I fail to see the apparent correlation between the films.

Furthermore, the two stories seemingly have little or nothing to do with one another.

Despite these pesky details, 10 Cloverfield Lane is a perfect, edge-of-your-seat type film that is unpredictable and thought-provoking.

By the time the credits roll, it is a film worthy of discussion—an excellent quality for a movie.

Without any dialogue during the opening sequence (a clever move), we meet Michelle (Mary Elizabeth Winstead), a twenty-something woman presumably on the outs with her boyfriend, who we never see.

Alone, she flees their residence and drives into the night to parts unknown. The couple is metropolitan, living in central New Orleans.

Now in the middle of Louisiana, and hearing radio reports of strange blackouts, Michelle is soon involved in a terrible car accident. When she awakens, she finds herself chained to a bed inside a small bunker inhabited by two men, Howard (John Goodman) and Emmitt (John Gallagher, Jr.).

They insist that the outside world is no longer and all human beings are dead as a result of a catastrophic attack. Initially skeptical, Michelle slowly uncovers various clues that baffle her about the truth.

10 Cloverfield Lane may very well be John Goodman’s best film performance.

He plays Howard with gusto and mystery, and the audience is primarily baffled about whether to trust this man. Is he a vicious abductor, creating a make-believe world to keep Michelle hostage-or is he telling the truth?

He plays the character as creepy and surly but with a tinge of vulnerability and sadness.

I certainly was both fascinated and confused by Howard and could not determine his true motivations.

Winstead also deserves credit for portraying a strong yet sympathetic female character who is never reduced to playing a victim, a testament to the actress’s ability.

Over the years, Winstead has appeared in several duds (Black Christmas, 2006, and The Thing, 2011), so seeing her in a film worthy of her talents is nice.

Michelle is intelligent and determined to deduce her surroundings and formulate a clever escape plan. However, in a nice twist, the filmmakers ask whether she wants to leave the safety of her bunker after all.

Producer J.J. Abrams weaves a story with twists and turns, keeping the tension and interest high throughout the film. The primary question that reoccurs is, “What on earth lies outside of the bunker?”

I enjoy that this film is not the typical, cookie-cutter fare in which we root for the female victim to escape the clutches of a male maniac—it is much deeper and more complex than that.

Most enjoyable is how events slowly unfold, and we, the audience, begin to question thoughts we have harbored throughout the run of the film.

A perfect example of this comes in the final chapter, when events take off in an entirely different direction than the rest of the film. I felt a bit suffocated inside the bunker. What a relief to finally have some action occur outside of this location and into the fresh air.

But what lurks in this new setting?

One slight oddity is that the film includes Bradley Cooper’s voice as Michelle’s boyfriend, Ben, who is heard only by telephone. I did not notice this until the credits rolled, and it seemed like a silly and unnecessary inclusion.

Also, we never know the turmoil between Michelle and Ben. Is their domestic trouble simply plot-driven antics, or does it have a deeper meaning?

In a nutshell, 10 Cloverfield Lane (2016) is a film best watched when one does not know the first thing about the plot or circumstances surrounding events.

The film was enjoyable because I did not know the twist, the conclusion, or even who starred in it. This kept all of the elements of surprise from me, making it more enjoyable.

Arrival-2016

Arrival-2016

Director Denis Villeneuve

Starring Amy Adams, Jeremy Renner, Forest Whitaker

Scott’s Review #642

Reviewed May 9, 2017

Grade: B-

Arrival (2016) is the latest in a recent trend of science fiction-themed films garnering Academy Award praise, either for technical achievements or, in the case of Arrival, a surprising Best Picture nomination in addition to the more traditional awards notice for categories like sound effects and editing.

Traditionally, science fiction gets little or no recognition in significant categories; this makes the inclusion of films in the under-the-radar style with the big guns all the more surprising.

Similar in style to recent films such as Interstellar (2014) and Gravity (2013), Arrival ultimately proves a disappointment as a complete film, succeeding only in specific avenues like its musical score and a sort of surprise twist ending that the film presents, but at times is downright to say nothing of its tedious moments.

Needless to say, I wholeheartedly disagree with its Best Picture nomination.

I am not claiming to be the world’s greatest science fiction fan. At times, Arrival does have glimmers of success (mainly in the first act) and some high points in the vein of 2001: A Space Odyssey (1968), the greatest of the greats in the genre. However, the good moments ultimately fade as the story lumbers on, only to show a brief resurgence in the final act.

Sadly, the rest of the film is rather middling.

In a role seemingly written just for her, Amy Adams stars as Louise Banks, a linguist professor living and teaching in Massachusetts.

One day, a series of twelve extraterrestrial aircraft appeared across the world. Louise is summoned by an Army Colonel (Forest Whitaker) to travel to a remote area of Montana where one aircraft has taken up residence and assist a physicist, Ian Donnelly (Jeremy Renner), in communicating with the aliens.

Their goal is to determine why they have come to planet Earth.

Interspersed with the main story are strange flashbacks of a life Louise briefly spent with her daughter, who appears to have died of cancer as a teenager.

The film’s premise is reminiscent of another film named Contact, made in 1997, starring Jodie Foster.

The film seems to borrow aspects from several other famous science fiction films, such as the creepy, ominous score that harkens back to 2001: A Space Odyssey in its mysteriousness to the oddity of The Day the Earth Stood Still (1951).

So much so that the film reminds me too much of other films, it, therefore, has little identity, especially throughout the film’s mid-section.

Other than Louise’s character, there is no character development, and this is glaring among the male cast of top talents like Whitaker and Renner. The roles are glorified throwaway roles.

Except for Renner’s limited involvement in the film’s climactic “twist,” which admittedly barely raises the movie above mediocrity, neither character serves many purposes and could be played by any actor.

Whitaker’s G.T. Weber has little motivation other than convincing Louise to participate in the mission. The film also seems unsure whether to fully explore a romantic entanglement between Louise and Renner’s Ian.

Indeed, a flirtation exists on the surface, but the film never hits a home run with it. Couldn’t a meatier story be created for these two storied actors?

The unique extraterrestrial, a hybrid of tentacles, fingers, and funny eyes appearing as a pair humorously nicknamed Abbott and Costello, is impressive from an artistic perspective, and this does help the film.

The characters’ unsureness about whether Abbott and Costello are friends or foes is also slightly intriguing. However, the film’s main negative is that nothing much happens other than Louise’s repeated attempts to communicate, whimsically staring into the camera in wonderment and ultimately figuring out the alien’s messages and purpose.

Worthy of mention is a fantastic and ominous musical score that gives the film some climactic and dark elements that feel like its highlights. It adds chilling, practical elements, bringing the movie up a notch from complete blandness.

The film’s best part is its ending, which sent a chill down my spine. The unique and inspired big reveal made me a bit shiver.

This way, Arrival saves itself from being completely lackluster, but too little, too late. I would have preferred the film to balance the emotions, surprises, and thrills more rather than exist mainly as a tedious, uninteresting film.

Overall, the outcome of Arrival (2016) is more of a retread than anything new or original.

Oscar Nominations: 1 win-Best Picture, Best Director-Denis Villeneuve, Best Adapted Screenplay, Best Sound Editing (won), Best Sound Mixing, Best Production Design, Best Cinematography, Best Film Editing

Free Fall-2013

Free Fall-2013

Director Stephan Lacant

Starring Hanno Koffler, Max Riemelt

Scott’s Review #641

Reviewed May 3, 2017

Grade: A-

Free Fall is a 2013 German-language film that is very reminiscent of the highly influential LGBT film, Brokeback Mountain (2005), only set in Germany- during present times.

The loneliness, struggles, and deceit that the characters face are similar in both films and both are arguably bleak as overall films. I, however, truly enjoyed this film and embraced the touching aspects and truthful writing.

In the case of Free Fall, as compared with Brokeback Mountain, only one of the male characters is a family man- coming to terms with his sexuality at very bad timing, while the other male character is more comfortable in his skin.

A case could be made that a similar characterization is apparent in Brokeback. In both films, a love story develops between two men, and outside forces thwart their happiness.

The film is a very good watch and the love scenes are particularly steamy and emotional.

Marc Borgmann is a young police officer, fresh out of the academy, living with his very pregnant girlfriend, Bettina. They are temporarily staying with Marc’s parents until the baby is born.

Seemingly happy, Marc befriends a recruit, Kay, and they begin a ritual of jogging together in the forest.

Both men are young and handsome and very masculine- an aspect in an LGBT film that I find as a positive. Kay is much more brazen about his sexuality than Marc, and they eventually fall in love with the added pressure of their very macho surroundings, and Marc’s pregnant girlfriend to contend with.

Free Fall, as the title implies, is not a cheerful, romantic film, as a whole- nor is it completely bleak either. Yes, the love affair between Marc and Kay has some happy moments, but more often than not they face some sort of peril and do not get much time to relax and enjoy each other.

As circumstances begin to unravel, Marc’s girlfriend slowly suspects something is going on with Marc, but when Kay is outed (the film suggests he purposely outs himself) during a gay nightclub raid, their lives spiral out of control.

The film itself is very realistic and does not come across as forced or plot-driven. The acting by both principal actors (Koffler and Riemelt) is quite strong and I buy their attraction instantly.

The scenes where Marc questions whether the pair are buddies while internally fighting his attraction for Kay are excellent and very passionate. The range of emotions on the face of the actor, Koffler, is excellent.

Passion is felt during every scene the pair share together.

The way many of the supporting characters are portrayed, however, is disappointing,  yet also a brutal strength of the film. Marc’s parents are quite unsympathetic to either Marc or Kay and are written as stereotypical, anti-progressive, and rigid.

When Marc’s mother catches Marc and Kay kissing, she coldly chastises Marc for being “raised better than that”. In her mind being gay is bad- the father wholeheartedly shares her beliefs.

Another of the cops in the police academy is written as homophobic, but the film wisely writes Marc and Kay exceptionally well, proudly with none of the unfair effeminate qualities films and television still seem to cling to.

The characters are not written for laughs, nor should they be. They are strong men.

The film wisely throws in a handful of supportive characters, like the police force as a whole- teaching and recognizing diversity and inclusion, and a fellow cop who is supportive of the situation with Marc and Kay, but most of the characters come across as harsh and unfeeling to same-sex attraction.

The conclusion of the film is slightly disappointing as the story ends abruptly and in a rather unsatisfying way- rumors of a proposed sequel have circulated the film.

Shot on a very small budget, the funding for a follow-up film must still be raised, which hopefully will occur. A nicer (and happier) ultimate resolution would be great.

American LGBT films, sometimes going too much the comical, or worse yet, the sappier route, can take a lesson from this treasure of a German-language film.

Free Fall (2012) is a humanistic, realistic, and brave film that I hope more people find themselves experiencing. The film will touch those who are either involved in or sympathetic towards the LGBT community.

Nocturnal Animals-2016

Nocturnal Animals-2016

Director Tom Ford

Starring Amy Adams, Jake Gyllenhaal, Michael Shannon

Scott’s Review #640

Reviewed April 30, 2017

Grade: A-

Nocturnal Animals (2016) blurs the lines between fantasy and reality in a revenge-themed thriller directed by Tom Ford, in only his second directorial effort- 2009’s A Single Man was his first.

While not constantly hitting the mark and, at times, very difficult to follow, the film is unusual, mesmerizing, and lovely to look at from a visual perspective. Some scenes blur together splendidly, so they seem interposed—a brilliant touch.

David Lynch influences the film in tone and style.

Events are divided between “The Real World” and “The Novel”.

The film begins strangely as a bevy of nude, obese women prance and dance on video screens during an art exhibit opening.

The gallery is owned by Susan Morrow (Amy Adams), a successful woman living a glossy life in Los Angeles. We quickly learn that Susan is involved in a loveless marriage with hunky Hutton (Armie Hammer), a business person who is inattentive towards Susan.

Before Hutton, Susan was briefly married to Edward (Jake Gyllenhaal), a novelist who dedicates his latest manuscript to Susan, received via mail. As Susan reads the manuscript, she is transported down a dark path of memories and fantasies concerning Edward and their past.

The film’s locales are mainly between Los Angeles (the real world) and western Texas (where the novel occurs). This compelling aspect of the film separates the two worlds.

Los Angeles is featured mainly at nighttime as Susan, presumed to be suffering from insomnia, is compelled by her reading. She also rubs shoulders with sophisticated artist types and colleagues at her studio.

Conversely, western Texas is worlds apart from the Los Angeles setting—like night and day. In Texas, we are introduced to the protagonist of the story Susan reads.

Tony, traveling through Texas with his wife, Laura, and their daughter, India, are accosted and terrorized, bypassing local motorists.

Clearly from out of town, the family is stranded in the middle of nowhere and kept at bay by the rednecks- the story has a tragic ending. The stories intersect interestingly as we see the differing worlds.

The scenes in western Texas were frightening and tense—so much so that my heart beat quickly. I pictured myself as Tony in a situation of peril and danger.

As the family attempts to reason with the thugs, they get deeper and deeper into trouble. The feeling of being vulnerable and unsafe with no help around is tremendous in the film.

The acting in Nocturnal Animals is excellent overall, which is no surprise given the tremendous cast. Adams and Gyllenhaal are especially worthy of mention. Through flashbacks, we see their scenes and find them both sympathetic and vulnerable (at first— he is a sensitive writer, and she is a college girl with aspirations of love and family life.

As the plot thickens, both characters become more nuanced and complex- the subject of betrayal and revenge certainly comes into play, and both characters, now older and more pessimistic, intersect again as mature adults.

Michael Shannon, though believable as Detective Bobby Andes, assigned to Tony’s case and suffering from stage four lung cancer, is not the standout for me. I disagree with his Oscar nomination for Best Supporting Actor.

Indeed, it is an acceptable performance. I would have much rather Gyllenhaal or Aaron Taylor-Johnson (as one of the rednecks) be awarded the nomination.

I was reminded of David Lynch’s masterpiece, Mulholland Drive (2001), mainly during the Los Angeles scenes. The slick night air and the trials and tribulations of the wealthy mirrored each other quite readily.

The sequences contain a gothic, haunting, moody vibe.

The central theme of revenge is present in both worlds. Tony and Bobby seek revenge on the criminals in western Texas, while revenge also focuses on Los Angeles, though much more subtly.

A hint is given several times in Susan’s art gallery, where a large ” Revenge ” exhibit is a focal point. However, what the Los Angeles revenge is is not revealed until the very last scene.

One thing is sure about Nocturnal Animals- the film is dreamy, complex, and worthy of conversation.

Tom Ford is an up-and-coming director with visual sensibilities and a dream-like vision. I hope we see more from this fascinating director.

Oscar Nominations: Best Supporting Actor-Michael Shannon

The Innocents-1961

The Innocents-1961

Director Jack Clayton

Starring Deborah Kerr

Top 100 Films #98        Top 20 Horror Films #19

Scott’s Review #639

Reviewed April 29, 2017

Grade: A

The Innocents is a 1961 British psychological horror film that is a ghost story of sorts and based on the novella, The Turn of the Screw by Henry James.

Though horror, it contains few traditional elements, such as contrived frights, jumps, and blood. Instead, the film succeeds by using lighting and magnificent cinematography by Freddie Francis.

And, of course, fantastic storytelling and direction from Jack Clayton.

Deborah Kerr gives an excellent turn as a beleaguered governess hired by a wealthy bachelor (Michael Redgrave) to tend to his young niece and nephew- Flora and Miles.

The setting is a lavish, yet creepy, mansion outside London. As the Uncle goes away to India on business, Miss Giddens, with no previous experience, is left to tend to Flora and Miles, who both begin acting strangely.

To complicate matters, Miss Giddens sees sinister ghosts lurking around the property. The ghosts are former household servants who have died, whom Miss Giddens has never met.

Miss Giddens is assisted only by the kindly housekeeper, Mrs. Grose, who tells her about the servant’s tragic deaths.

The Innocents, shot in black and white, uses sound to its advantage. This, combined with the interesting camera angles and focus shots—mainly of the ghosts Miss Giddens sees—makes the film unique and scary.

When she hears strange voices, she becomes convinced that Miles and Flora are playing tricks on her, engaging in games. The whispers’ sounds are haunting and do wonders for the effects and chill the viewer will undoubtedly feel as the film progresses.

Is Miss Giddens imagining the voices and visions, or is this an actual reality? Could the children be sinister and playing a vicious prank on her? Could Mrs. Grose be evil?

Nobody else within the household sees or hears anything amiss- or admits to it.

Kerr, a treasured actress, plays the part with emotional facial expressions and genuine fear, so much so that she will win the audience over as we side and empathize with her character. Still, is she a woman on the verge of a mental breakdown? Does she have past mental problems?

Like the uncle, we know nothing of her past, only that she claims to be a minister’s daughter. How, then, does she have stylish, expensive clothes? Could she only be pretending to be a governess? Has she run away from her past?

The Turn of the Screw is a true ghost story, but The Innocents is a bit different- it relies upon, successfully, as more of a character-driven story.

As Miss Giddens becomes convinced that both children have become possessed by the servants’ spirits, she makes it her mission to rescue them from the spirits. We have an ominous feeling that events will not end well, and they do not.

Several scenes will frighten the viewer- as Miss Giddens sees a haggard ghost (the female servant) quietly standing in the distance near a lake as Flora dances chirpily, the image of the faraway ghost figure is eerie and well-shot.

The film draws comparisons to the classic Hitchcock film Rebecca (1940). Each is British, takes place in large mansions, and features dead characters as complex villains.

Also, the sanity of the main character is in question.

With a compelling story and the nuts and bolts surrounding the tale to add clever effects and a chilling conclusion, the film succeeds as an excellent and intelligent horror film.

With great acting all around, including fantastic performances by child actors, The Innocents (1961) scares the daylights out of any horror fan and uses exterior and interior scenes to make the film an all-around marvel.

High Noon-1952

High Noon-1952

Director Fred Zinneman

Starring Gary Cooper, Grace Kelly

Scott’s Review #638

Reviewed April 28, 2017

Grade: A

Billed as a standard Western but much more complex than a film as traditional, basic Western, High Noon accomplished what no other Western did in 1952- adding complexities from different genres, such as suspense and drama, to a film form.

Additionally, High Noon challenged typical Western themes, such as male-driven fights and chases, in favor of a moral and emotional approach, and oh, is the film ever character-driven.

The results are astounding, and to understand and appreciate all its elements, the film should be studied in film school.

High Noon heartily breaks the mold. It was released when mainstream Western was quite popular in the film, adding enormous risk, and the results paid off in spades.

Marshal Will Kane (Gary Cooper) has just wed his beloved bride, Amy (Grace Kelly), in a small ceremony in a tiny town in New Mexico. He plans to turn over his badge and retire to the prairie land with his new wife.

Suddenly, the town receives word that a dastardly villain, Frank Miller, whom Kane once sent away, has been released from a Texas prison and plans to exact revenge on Kane.

Miller is to arrive on the noon train as his three accomplices await his arrival, much to the chagrin of the rest of the town, who become panicked with each passing moment.

The film begins at approximately ten-thirty in the morning and ends shortly after Noon.

High Noon has subtle political themes and clear examples of McCarthyism. However, some dispute this McCarthyism was a campaign launched by Senator Joseph McCarthy, which ended up blacklisting many artists suspected of communism.

The central theme is how people become frightened and blame the attack on one another because of this fear. Our main protagonist (Kane) faces the dire feat of facing four angry gunmen, with revenge on their minds, alone, as an entire town of people chooses not to get involved.

Brilliant is that High Noon more or less takes place in real-time. The inclusion of clocks in the film, and specifically of pendulums swaying back and forth, creates a defined level of tension as character after character nervously glances at the time, knowing full well that with each passing minute, they inch closer and closer to a fantastic and deadly showdown- much blood will be shed.

Cooper, old enough to be Kelly’s grandfather, is noticeable if one chooses to be nitpicky, but the couple works well together, and I bought the happily wedded couple as genuine.

I adore the character of Helen Ramirez, played by actress Katy Jurado. A Mexican character, Ramirez is a prominent businesswoman in the small town, owning a saloon. She is empowered and confident, a character to admire regardless of gender.

A strong female character of Mexican heritage in a 1952 film was relatively uncommon, considering the film is set in the Wild West.

Equally impressive and completely backward for the time, the events of Amy coming to the rescue of Kane, instead of the standard, gender-specific, “man rescues woman,” challenge the norm. Further groundbreaking is that Amy is written as a Quaker woman, not the traditional Christian woman, nor is she skittish or silly.

Western stereotypes are entirely turned upside down, which is arguably way ahead of its time.

Eerie yet highly effective is the use of a “theme song” either sung or in another form (musical score or background music) throughout the film—the song is “Do Not Forsake Me, My Darling,” which became a hit for Texas Ritter.

It is worth mentioning that the success of this added “theme song” encouraged subsequent Westerners to add similar songs to their films.

Challenging the standard in many ways, High Noon sets the bar very high in its thoughtfulness, message, and conflict.

The film exemplifies people who take the world and turn it upside down with fantastic and inspiring results.

Oscar Nominations: 4 wins-Best Motion Picture, Best Director-Fred Zinnemann, Best Actor-Gary Cooper (won), Best Screenplay, Best Scoring of a Dramatic or Comedy Picture (won), Best Song-“The Ballad of High Noon (“Do Not Forsake Me, O My Darlin”)” (won), Best Film Editing (won)

The Spy Who Loved Me-1977

The Spy Who Loved Me-1977

Director Lewis Gilbert

Starring Roger Moore, Barbara Bach

Scott’s Review #637

Reviewed April 27, 2017

Grade: A-

The Spy Who Loved Me (1977) is pure James Bond- an installment of the franchise that successfully contains all of the elements of an exceptional Bond film- and then some.

By this time Roger Moore was firing on all cylinders and had made the character of James Bond his own- Sean Connery who?

With his third appearance in the role, Bond exudes charisma and wry wit, combined with a fabulous story, sexy Bond girls, and a villain worthy of his role, The Spy Who Loved Me achieves near perfection, save for too drawn out of an ending- otherwise, an excellent, memorable film that does not feel dated in the least.

When Soviet and British submarines begin to vanish, the two sides team up and send their best agents forward to uncover the circumstances surrounding the disappearances.

Barbara Bach plays Major Anya Amasova, also known as Agent Triple X, a Soviet agent, and naturally Bond becomes enamored with her beauty and intelligence.

Together they face off against a megalomaniac named Karl Stromberg, who is intent on destroying the world with nuclear missiles and creating his underwater world. Stromberg’s sidekicks are Jaws, a giant with steel teeth, and a deadly vixen named Naomi.

Interestingly, if watched as a companion piece to a Bond film of the 1960s, as I did this time around (You Only Live Twice), the viewer will notice the change in how Bond female characters are treated.

No longer servile and obedient to the male characters (Bond specifically) Bond women are now his equals in every way, matching him in career success and intelligence.

The main “Bond girl”, (Anya), is a shining example of this, which the film immediately offers. In one of my favorite scenes, Anya is in bed with a handsome man- when “Agent Triple X” is paged, we assume the agent is the man until Anya slyly responds to the message- it is nonchalant, yet a brazen way to make the point that women have emerged as powerful and sexy figures in the modern Bond world.

The chemistry between Moore and Bach is immeasurably important to the success of the film and their romance is dynamic- they simply have “it” and their scenes smolder with sensuality. To complicate matters, Bond has killed an agent whom Anya was in love with and she plans to kill Bond as soon as their mission is victorious.

Director, Gilbert, also adds a slice of Bond’s back story- giving truth and rich history to the story and mentioning Bond’s deceased wife (married and killed in On Her Majesty’s Secret Service), a subject Bond deems off-limits.

This ode to the past only enhances the connection between these two characters.

Villains play an important part in the success of The Spy Who Loved Me.

Take Stromberg- he is sophisticated, mature, worldly, and rich- and quietly insane. He also has a lavish dining room in his underwater submarine with exotic fish swimming about through visible tanks- a gorgeous element to this film.

Through a trap door,  victims meet their demise by a vicious killer shark swimming about. One unlucky female assistant, who has double-crossed Stromberg, meets her maker in bloody fashion. Later, Bond sees a severed hand floating about in one of the tanks.

This is great creative writing and adds nuances to the film.

Hulking henchman, Jaws, who would return in the next installment, Moonraker, dazzles and impresses with his deadly, steel teeth.

A great scene, aboard a high-speed train, and a throwback to 1963’s From Russia With Love, is action-packed.

Naomi meets her demise after an ill-fated helicopter chase scene. I would have liked to have gotten more screen time and gotten to know this character. Her brief, but obvious flirtation with Bond is all too short- and he never even gets to share a bed with her!

Not to be outdone, the locales in the film are lavish and gorgeous- Egypt and Italy are countries explored, and scenes are shot on location in each country in grand fashion.

The Egyptian pyramids are featured as a chase and a murder occur during a nighttime exhibit- also fantastic are the gorgeous shots of Sardinia- a beautiful region in Italy, where Stromberg’s hideout is set.

A mini gripe is a lengthy conclusion to the film. As Bond struggles to recalculate the two nuclear missiles set to destroy New York and Moscow, Bond must rush to make sure they do not hit their intended target.

The “final act” of the film just goes on too long with way too many soldiers and men running around in a panic. The action is great, but enough is enough by the end.

Roger Moore once commented that The Spy Who Loved Me (1977) was his favorite of all the Bond films to make- it is easy to see why he felt this way.

The film contains all of the necessary elements to make it one of the top entries in all of the film franchises and has a magnificent feel to it.

Oscar Nominations: Best Original Score, Best Original Song-“Nobody Does It Better”, Best Art Direction