All posts by scottmet99

2016 Films, Bradley Cooper, Dan Trachtenberg, Horror, John Gallagher Jr., John Goodman, Mary Elizabeth Winstead, Science Fiction

10 Cloverfield Lane-2016

Leave a comment

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.

2016 Films, Amy Adams, Denis Villeneuve, Drama, Forest Whitaker, Jeremy Renner, Michael Stuhlbarg, Science Fiction, Shawn Levy

Arrival-2016

Leave a comment

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

2013 Films, Drama, German, Hanno Koffler, International, International Drama, LGBTQ+ Drama, LGBTQ+ Films, LGBTQ+ International, Max Riemelt, Stephan Lacant

Free Fall-2013

Leave a comment

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.

2016 Films, Aaron Taylor-Johnson, Amy Adams, Andrea Riseborough, Armie Hammer, Isla Fisher, Jake Gyllenhaal, Laura Linney, Michael Shannon, Michael Sheen, Thriller, Tom Ford

Nocturnal Animals-2016

Leave a comment

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

1961 Films, British, British Horror, Deborah Kerr, Horror, Jack Clayton, Megs Jenkins, Michael Redgrave, Peter Wyngarde, Scott's Top 100 Films, Scott's Top 20 Horror Films

The Innocents-1961

Leave a comment

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.

1952 Films, Best Film of the Year, Fred Zinnemann, Gary Cooper, Grace Kelly, Harry Morgan, Lee Van Cleef, Lloyd Bridges, Lon Chaney Jr., Stanley Kramer, Thomas Mitchell, Western

High Noon-1952

Leave a comment

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)

1977 Films, Action, Barbara Bach, Bernard Lee, Curt Jurgens, Desmond Llewelyn, Edward de Souza, James Bond, John Glen, Lewis Gilbert, Lois Maxwell, Richard Kiel, Roger Moore

The Spy Who Loved Me-1977

Leave a comment

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

1967 Films, Action, Bernard Lee, Desmond Llewelyn, Donald Pleasance, James Bond, Lewis Gilbert, Lois Maxwell, Sean Connery

You Only Live Twice-1967

Leave a comment

You Only Live Twice-1967

Director Lewis Gilbert

Starring Sean Connery, Akiko Wakabayashi

Scott’s Review #636

Reviewed April 23, 2017

Grade: B+

You Only Live Twice (1967) is the fifth in the James Bond film series franchise and also the fifth to star iconic Bond, Sean Connery, in the starring role.

Reportedly growing bored with the role and eager to move on to meatier acting challenges, Sean Connery is not quite as mesmerizing in the role this time around but is still indisputably charismatic and sexy with his delivery of one-liners and various affairs with women.

You Only Live Twice is the last to feature Connery until he would be coaxed into returning to the role four years later with 1971’s Diamond Are Forever.

The film is not tops on my favorite Bond films of all time nor is it even top ten for that matter, but still quite an enjoyable watch, and certainly, the Japanese locales are the highlight.

The film as a whole suffers from a silly story, dated special effects, and a completely lackluster villain, but it does have Connery to rescue it and a nice little romance between Bond and the main girl, Aki, played by Japanese actress, Akiko Wakabayashi- that is until she is unceremoniously poisoned.

The plot involves the hijacking of an American NASA spacecraft by another mysterious spacecraft. The Americans suspect the Russians of the action and the British suspect the Japanese since the aircraft landed in the Sea of Japan.

MI6 (Bond) fakes his death in Hong Kong and subsequently begins to investigate who is responsible. His search brings him to Tokyo where he investigates Osato Chemicals and stumbles upon evidence.

He is aided by both Aki and Tiger Tanaka, Japanese Secret Service leaders. Soon it is revealed that the mastermind is SPECTRE villain, Ernst Stavro Blofeld-in this installment played by Donald Pleasence.

Mr. Bond must destroy his enemy and inevitably save the world from a global nuclear war.

Though a timely storyline since 1967 was in the midst of the Cold War, the plot seems somewhat forced and a bit uninteresting. The countries blame each other for the hijacked ship, but this comes across as extremely plot-driven and secondary.

The “swallowing” of the aircraft seems cheesy and preposterous even considering the year that the film was made and the writing is not as rich as some of the proceeding Bond films like From Russia With Love or Thunderball.

The film also has an overall “cheap” look to it. However, the film does have plenty of positives worth mentioning.

The gadgets that James Bond fixture, Q (the MI6 technical wizard) creates are state-of-the-art and fun. The mini-flying helicopter that Bond uses is creative and allows for even more views to enjoy.

Bond faking his death in the opening sequence is a treat (albeit having been done before) and ceremoniously being cast off into the sea in a coffin only to be wearing a suit and an oxygen mask inside the casket is clever and light.

Donald Pleasence, a storied, fantastic actor, is not well cast in the role of the main villain Stavros and I am not entirely sure why. The fact that his face is not shown until the last act is not helpful and the character (though seen in other Bond films) is not compelling and is underutilized.

I would have liked to have the character be a bit more visible, though surprisingly the character was highly influential in the 1990s spoof Austin Powers films. Adorable yet creepy is Stavros only being seen clutching and stroking a gorgeous white cat.

As for the Bond women, the aforementioned Aki is the best of the bunch. Gone too soon in the story, she is replaced by Kissy Suzuki, who is rather unappealing. Mostly clad in a skimpy white bikini and heels, and appearing to wear a black wig, the character is forgettable and serves no purpose.

Conversely, villainous Helga Brandt, SPECTRE assassin, is very well cast and shares good chemistry with Connery. After an unsuccessful attempt to kill Bond, she is fated with a date with killer Piranhas as payment for her failure.

You Only Live Twice has a myriad of ups and downs, but is worth watching for fans of the franchise, and specifically, fans of the classic Bond films featuring Sean Connery.

Some will argue that the film feels dated and is chauvinistic, and to some degree they are correct, but the film is a large part of a treasured franchise and a fun experience.

2016 Films, Ben Whishaw, Colin Farrell, Comedy, Dark Comedy, Drama, John C. Reilly, Léa Seydoux, Olivia Colman, Rachel Weisz, Romantic Drama, Satire, Yorgos Lanthimos

The Lobster-2016

Leave a comment

The Lobster-2016

Director Yorgos Lanthimos

Starring Colin Farrell, Rachel Weisz

Scott’s Review #635

Reviewed April 20, 2017

Grade: A-

One thing is sure about the puzzling 2016 film The Lobster: It is a film worthy of discussion long after the end credits roll and will leave the viewer pondering its many facets—a great movie to dissect.

This in itself is worth recognition and praise for the power of the film- so many questions abound.

I was immediately struck by how heavily The Lobster contains primary subject matter influences from “message novels” (and films) such as Brave New World, 1984, and A Clockwork Orange, as well as creative, stylistic recent film influences from The Grand Budapest Hotel (2014) and the Moonrise Kingdom (2012).

The story begins outside of Dublin, where David (Colin Farrell) has recently been dumped by his wife in favor of another man.

Now single, he is whisked away by authorities to a luxurious hotel in the woods, where he (and the other guests) are given forty-five days to find a suitable romantic partner, or else they will be turned into an animal of their choice.

David is accompanied by his brother, now a dog, and has decided that he should be turned and that he will become a lobster because he loves the sea, and they tend to live to be over one hundred years old.

The hotel management adheres to strict rules- no masturbation, mandatory temptations by hotel employees, and a strange outdoor hunting game where the guests hunt other guests to win extra days extended to their stays.

As David befriends fellow hotel guests, he is conflicted and desperate to find a mate. Events take a surprising turn when circumstances allow the rules to change for him, and he becomes involved with a short-sighted woman (Weisz).

The film’s plot is strange beyond belief yet incredibly creative and thought-provoking. The subject matter is pure dystopian- a facility, presumably controlled by the government, with a rebel group intent on ruining the “status quo.”

Suddenly, an odd little secret romance between David and Shortsighted Woman appears, beginning only during the film’s final act.

One aspect of the film that I found interesting was the odd monotone dialogue the characters used. They were almost matter-of-fact in whatever they said, even while expressing anger.

This peculiarity perplexed me, but the more I think about it, the more this decision makes the film dark-humored and dry with wry wit.

Another interesting nuance to the film is the multitude of quirky characters, many of whom are mainly referred to by their nicknames. Lisping Man, Limping Man, and Nosebleed Woman, to name a few.

And what viewer would not spend the film’s duration imagining which animal he or she would desire to be turned into and why?

My favorite aspect of the film is the offbeat performance by Colin Farrell- typically a rugged sex symbol, he goes against the grain and plays a pudgy, socially awkward, insecure man, but all the while instilling the character with enough warmth and likability to make the character work- and his chemistry with Rachel Weisz is fantastic.

This turns the strange dark comedy into a peculiar romantic drama.

A beautiful forest becomes the backdrop for a large part of the film, as does the city of Dublin itself, contrasting the film in nuanced ways. Combined with the lavish hotel, the film achieves several different settings for the action, each meaningful in its own right.

Without giving anything away, the conclusion of the film- the final scene in particular- is gruesome in what goes through the viewer’s mind, and the resolution is unclear.

Does David do it, or doesn’t he? Much of the film is open to one’s interpretation and imagination.

Black humor and cynicism are significant components of The Lobster, a thinking man’s movie. I continue to think of this film as I write this review.

The film is filled with originality and thought, which is a tremendous positive. Confusing and mind-blowing? For sure. A run-of-the-mill film? Not.

The Lobster (2016) is a film that gives no answers and is not an easy watch but an achievement in film creativity- something sorely needed.

Oscar Nominations: Best Original Screenplay

2017 Films, Children, Disney, Fantasy, Luke Evans, Musical, Stanley Tucci

Beauty and the Beast-2017

Leave a comment

Beauty and the Beast-2017

Director-Bill Condon

Starring-Emma Watson, Dan Stevens

Scott’s Review #634

Reviewed April 18, 2017

Grade: A-

Upon going to see 2017’s spring release offering of the live-action version of the Disney animated classic, Beauty and the Beast, I was not sure what to expect.

Would it be a cheesy or amateurish retread of the 1991 animated smash only with human beings? Why the lackluster March release date? Surely this is telling, otherwise, why not release the film in the coveted fourth quarter with potential Oscar buzz?

I do not have the answers to all of these questions, but this version of Beauty and the Beast is enchanting, romantic, and lovely- a spring treat for the entire family to enjoy.

Our protagonist, Belle, (producers wisely casting Harry Potter legend Emma Watson), is a kindly farm girl living with her father, Maurice (Kevin Kline),  in a quaint village outside of Paris.

Considered a bit odd by her village mates because she loves to read, she rebuffs the advances of the dashing soldier, Gaston, because he is arrogant- the other village ladies (as well as Gaston’s gay companion LeFou) flaunt over Gaston’s good looks.

When Maurice ventures into parts unknown and stumble upon a dilapidated castle, he is locked up by a vicious beast, having once been a handsome prince, since cursed by a beggar woman.

The only way the beast can return to his former self is to find true love before a wilted rose loses all of its peddles- enter Belle to the rescue. Belle convinces the Beast to let her stay prisoner and release her father. Will Beast and Belle fall madly in love?

Of course, they will. The fated romance is part of what makes the film heartwarming and nice.

The now-legendary classic fairy tale feels fresh and energized with the Disney-produced project. Director Bill Condon carefully, and successfully, crafts an honest effort, making sure that while providing a fairy tale happy ending, not to make the film seem contrived, overblown, or overdramatized.

I fell for the film hook, line, and sinker. it is an uplifting experience. The song and dance numbers abound with gusto and good costumes- my personal favorites being the rousing “Be Our Guest” and the sentimental “Beauty and the Beast”.

The crucial romance between Watson’s Belle, and the Beast, earnestly played by Dan Stevens (Downton Abbey fame), works in spades, as their chemistry feels authentic and passionate. As Belle is at first held captive by the misunderstood bad boy instead of Maurice, the pair at first loathe each other, but this is done with innocence and no malice.

Condon wonderfully exudes the right amount of slow build to make the pair beloved by audiences with the correct amount of pacing.

The CGI is heavy in Beauty and the Beast, as is expected. The distraction of the Beast is a bit confusing. Was the Beast a complete CGI creation save for the close-ups or was Watson dancing with Stevens when filming commenced in certain scenes? I am unsure.

The controversial “gay storyline”, which helped the film be banned in the southern United States and Russia, as well as other countries, is pure and utter rubbish.

The subject is explored extremely superficially and not worthy of all the fuss.

Worthier of mention is the wonderful diversity that is featured in the film, most notably in the opening sequence. Interracial couples appear in the form of Madame de Garderobe (Audra McDonald), the opera singer turned wardrobe, and Maestro Cadenza (Stanley Tucci) turned harpsichord.

On the gay issue, how sweet that the implied gay character of LeFlou to find love with another man at the end of the film.

A minor complaint is the scattered authentic French accents by many of the household staff and village people, but Belle and Maurice speak in British tongue. Being a fairy tale, liberties must be taken and suspension of disbelief is certainly a necessity, but this was noticed.

Beauty and the Beast is a lovely experience that mixes fantastic musical numbers with romance with a side of diversity mixed in for good measure.

Since the film will undoubtedly be seen by oodles of youngsters and teens this is a wonderful aspect of the film and hopefully, a shining, positive example in film making.

Oscar Nominations: Best Production Design, Best Costume Design

2015 Films, Andrew Garfield, Drama, Independent, Independent Drama, Laura Dern, Michael Shannon, Ramin Bahrani

99 Homes-2015

Leave a comment

99 Homes-2015

Director Ramin Bahrani

Starring Andrew Garfield, Michael Shannon

Scott’s Review #633

Reviewed April 13, 2017

Grade: B+

99 Homes is a 2015 independent film containing an underlying theme of morality as its central message, bubbling to the surface throughout the run.

Our main hero is faced with a major dilemma.

Set in 2010 amid the dark economic housing crisis where thousands of families lost their homes to foreclosure, the film is depressing but turns uplifting towards the end.

Reminiscent of The Big Short (2015) and Inside Job (2010) in subject matter, we witness a wonderful performance by Andrew Garfield in the lead role, with a worthy supporting turn by Michael Shannon as an opportunist.

Director Ramin Bahrani immediately creates tension with a taut musical score that bombards the screen. We see a poor victim of foreclosure, having shot himself to avoid the humiliation of being evicted from his home, followed by the introduction of a powerful real-estate mogul, Rick Carver.

Carver has wisely capitalized on the slew of Florida working-class families, living well beyond their means and novice homeowners, booted from their homes thanks to adjustable mortgages that they cannot afford to pay.

Andrew Garfield plays Dennis Nash, a struggling construction worker, raising his young son and presumably supporting his mother (Laura Dern).

They are fated to be evicted even though they have tried to win an extension with the court- months behind in their mortgage payments. They feel victimized and are forced to move to a seedy motel that houses many others in the same circumstances.

Desperate for work, Dennis ironically ends up working for Rick and becomes encased in the dishonest world of real estate scheming- manipulating banking and government rules at the expense of homeowners down on their luck.

The main point is the exploitation of the “working man” at the expense of “the man” and Rick is an example of this beast. Dennis represents the goodness of humanity as he wrestles with the moral repercussions of evicting families since he has met with similar circumstances.

Is the money worth the pain and the hardship he causes people? How is it Rick has no morals, but Dennis does? Will Dennis choose money and lose himself in the process? What would the viewer do?

Despite the morality questions, the film does play like a slick thriller, with a few slight contrivances and the “wrapped up in a neat bow” style ending.

This slightly makes the film lose its luster at times. It is implied that it ends happily for Dennis and that Rick gets his “just desserts”, but what about the characters kicked out of their homes?

Sadly, as in real life, they are largely forgotten by the end and play as footnotes in a larger story. Some follow-up as to what happens to them might have been nice.

99 Homes is a thinking man’s film and will undoubtedly leave the viewer asking what he or she would do in many situations that Dennis faces.

The emotions ooze from the face of Andrew Garfield as Bahrani uses many close-ups and enough cannot be said for Garfield’s bravura performance.

In one heart-wrenching scene, he is forced to evict a man and his wife and children from their home, the man is reduced to tears, comforted by his wife-Dennis is pained.

In another, an elderly man with nowhere to go is evicted, and defeated by the side of the road.

These scenes may have played as overwrought, but Garfield convincingly brings honesty and raw emotion to the work.

Laura Dern is good in her role as a young mother, Lynn,  to Garfield’s Dennis and I am perplexed why she was cast- she barely seems old enough to play convincingly as his Mom, but she does pull it off.

However, I could not help but desire more meat from this Oscar-nominated Actress- sure there is one great scene when Lynn realizes the extent of Dennis’s involvement with Rick, but I wanted more.

Still, the acting all around in this film is superb.

What left me so bothered by 99 Homes (2015) is that situations just like the ones that played out in the film are examples of countless real-life occurrences people experienced due to greed, dishonesty, and uncaring fellow human beings and that is a sad realization.

Director, Bharani, surrounded by a stellar cast, brings this realism to the big screen in raw, honest, storytelling.

Independent Spirit Award Nominations: Best Supporting Male-Michael Shannon

1964 Films, Agnes Moorehead, Bette Davis, Bruce Dern, Cecil Kellaway, George Kennedy, Joseph Cotten, Mary Astor, Olivia de Havilland, Robert Aldrich, Thriller, Victor Buono

Hush…Hush, Sweet Charlotte-1964

Leave a comment

Hush…Hush, Sweet Charlotte-1964

Director Robert Aldrich

Starring Bette Davis, Olivia de Havilland

Scott’s Review #632

Reviewed April 8, 2017

Grade: B+

The follow-up film, but not a direct sequel, to the surprise 1962 hit, What Ever Happened To Baby Jane? Hush…Hush, Sweet Charlotte (1964) is a psychological thriller directed by Robert Aldrich.

The film was intended to reunite Aldrich with stars Bette Davis and Joan Crawford. Crawford filmed several scenes, but the tension between the stars proved too much, and Crawford dropped out.

Olivia de Havilland took her place, and reportedly, the filmmakers scrambled to re-shoot the film nearly from scratch.

Shot in black and white, just like What Ever Happened To Baby Jane?, the film is very similar in style and tone, and, rather than Los Angeles as the setting, the setting is now the sprawling southern landscape of the deep south- Louisiana to be exact, a vast estate with a lavish mansion is the featured ominous setting.

The action begins in 1927 at a grand party at the well-to-do Hollis family mansion.

The night is fraught with tension, and secrets are harbored- most notably, southern belle Charlotte (Davis) and her married beau, John (Bruce Dern), plan to elope and steal away into the night together.

When John is threatened by Charlotte’s father, Sam (Victor Buono), he regrettably breaks up with Charlotte, destroying her. Later, John is decapitated and his hand severed, leaving all of the guests only to assume that Charlotte was murdered after she appears wearing a blood-soaked dress.

Due to a lack of evidence, Charlotte is set free.

The remainder of the film takes place during present times (1964) and in the same mansion, now slated to be demolished by the town in favor of a highway.

Charlotte is old and haggard, having lived a life of seclusion. Her father is long dead, and her only company is her dedicated and faithful housekeeper, Velma (Agnes Moorehead).

Frantic at the thought of leaving the safety of her estate, Charlotte asks her cousin Miriam (de Havilland) to visit. Events then become stranger and stranger as past secrets and jealousies are revealed.

Taking nothing away from the talents of Olivia de Havilland, I cannot help but imagine how much better Hush…Hush, Sweet Charlotte would have been if Joan Crawford had settled into the role of cousin Miriam.

The real-life rivalry between Crawford and Davis made What Ever Happened to Baby Jane? It is a compelling work, and the angry emotions are fresh and authentic.

Interestingly, the characters are reversed in this film—Davis plays the victimized Charlotte, while Crawford would have played the villainous Miriam, and the results would have been delicious.

The plot is decent, but nothing spectacular, and not nearly as splendid as What Ever Happened To Baby Jane? , although certain similarities abound between the two films: a giant mansion, black and white cinematography, a mentally unstable (or assumed to be) character, a character being either drugged or victimized, and two female characters who are related.

To compare the two films, which is impossible not to, What Ever Happened To Baby Jane? Wins in spades. It is the more compelling of the two films.

What sets Hush…Hush, Sweet Charlotte, well above mediocrity (with fewer actors, it may have been), is the casting of one of the greatest actresses to grace the big screen.

Bette Davis’s portrayal of the victimized Charlotte is fantastic. She encompasses vulnerability, anger, fear, and energy. Her facial expressions and those passionate eyes give so much to Charlotte.

The clever resolution to the film and the plot twist after the film is pretty well-written and surprising, given that the characters assumed to be involved in the murder are not as guilty as one might think, or at least not in the way one might think, and by the time the credits roll, the story has a satisfying, hopeful ending.

Another success of the film is its use of two gruesome scenes, which is surprising since the film predates the lifting of the film censorship rules.

When a severed head comes tumbling down the grand staircase of the mansion, it frightens and is not in the least campy or over-the-top. As John is hacked to death in the opening sequence, his hand is severed from his arm, and it dramatically tumbles to the floor.

The scenes resonate because they were rarely done in mainstream film as early as 1964.

Hush…Hush, Sweet Charlotte is a fantastic companion piece to the superior What Ever Happened To Baby Jane?

Watching back-to-back is a fantastic late-night viewing.

Successful to the film are top-notch talents such as de Havilland, Victor Buono, Bruce Dern, Agnes Moorehead, and the superior film queen, Bette Davis, which makes any film worth watching.

Oscar Nominations: Best Supporting Actress-Agnes Moorehead, Best Song-“Hush, Hush, Sweet Charlotte,” Best Music Score-Substantially Original, Best Art Direction, Black-and-White, Best Cinematography, Black-and-White, Best Costume Design, Black and White, Best Film Editing

1973 Films, Comedy, Diane Keaton, Woody Allen

Sleeper-1973

Leave a comment

Sleeper-1973

Director Woody Allen

Starring Woody Allen, Diane Keaton

Scott’s Review #631

Reviewed April 5, 2017

Grade: B

One of the earliest of Woody Allen’s enormous list of films that he both directed and starred in, 1973’s Sleeper is a comedic, science-fiction film, and a blueprint for future Allen masterpieces, such as Manhattan (1979) and Annie Hall (1977).

While this film has moments of intelligence and clever dialogue, it too often teeters into straight-up slapstick and silliness to be held in the same esteem as the aforementioned richer films.

Rather it is a juvenile effort as compared to masterpieces to follow, but admittedly with some laughs and creative moments. Sleeper is the first of several to pair Allen with longtime co-star, Diane Keaton.

Allen portrays Miles Monroe, a nerdy jazz musician, and owner of the “Happy Carrot” health-food store in Greenwich Village, New York City sometime in the then present time of the 1970s.

In the hospital for routine surgery, he is cryogenically frozen for two hundred years, waking up in an otherworldly police state and frazzled beyond belief.

The scientists who revive him are part of a rebellion and beg Miles to assist them as they are taken into police custody, pleading with him to search for a secret plan known only as the “Aries Project”.

Miles then poses as a robotic butler and goes to work for Luna (Keaton), a spoiled, bitchy, socialite. The duo ultimately bonded together and spent the rest of the film outrunning and outsmarting their pursuers.

Sleeper succeeds as a novel story, one filled with unique and interesting gadgets from a futuristic world, with clever, witty, crisp dialogue and odes to the past world, now deemed irrelevant.

Amusing are scenes when scientists explain that natural foods and products, at one time thought to be healthy and natural, are not so much.

This makes the world that Miles is used to seem silly and superfluous in their minds.

I also enjoyed the physical humor that the film contains, as when Miles (as his robotic persona) serves dinner to a sophisticated group of Luna’s friends, accidentally destroying their expensive outerwear in a garbage incinerator as well as botching dinner.

As all of the attendees are high on hallucinogenic drugs (including Miles), they fail to realize that he is a human being- they dance with glee and stumble around in a haze, largely unaware of their surroundings.

This is one of the best scenes in the film.

The plot itself is fairly predictable though and almost forced. Miles and Luna are the couples we root for in the film, the introduction of a handsome rebel leader, Erno Windt (John Beck) doesn’t stand a chance and is somewhat of a foil for them.

Much of the time, the pair are on the run and sparring with each other. The actors involved have wonderful chemistry with each other, but the central story is not the strongest suit- rather, the weird and unique gadgets and intricacies of the film, are.

Albeit, an introduction for anyone intrigued by the comic genius that is Woody Allen, other polished Allen gems are a better start than this early offering, but that is not to say Sleeper (1973) is not a good, entertaining film, with imagination, merely that it lacks all of the elements to rank it among other Woody Allen greats.

2011 Films, Drama, Engin Cert, German, International, International Drama, LGBTQ+ Drama, LGBTQ+ Films, LGBTQ+ International, Sinan Hancili, Tor Iben

The Visitor-2011

Leave a comment

The Visitor-2011

Director Tor Iben

Starring Sinan Hancili, Engin Cert

Scott’s Review #630

Reviewed April 4, 2017

Grade: B-

The Visitor is a 2011 LGBT-centered film that is set in Berlin, Germany but features mainly Turkish characters.

While the film tells a nice story and features some cool shots of the metropolitan city, it is rather amateurish in style.

The pieces of the film do not always come together or fit very well and there is no character development to speak of, but still, the film does have good intentions with a nice message and theme that deserves at least a few props.

The story involves a young male and female couple, Cibrial and Christine, who are dating. Cibrail works as a policeman and the pair seem to be in a happy relationship, enjoying walks and dinners together.

One day, when Christine’s gay cousin, Stefan, comes to town, the relationship between Cibrail and Christine sours. The cousin is openly gay and comfortable with his sexuality, while Cibrail secretly harbors feelings for the same sex, which he dares not tell Christine about, though she eventually catches on dramatically.

Stefan is looking for action, cruising the city and parks for sex and companionship, while Cibrail is both lustful and jealous of Stefan.

Many scenes involve Cibrail looking longingly at Stefan and fantasizing about him. In that regard, the film teeters on being quite steamy and features more than one nude shower scene- this smoldering element helps the film avoid complete doldrums.

Specifically, Cibrail showers alone during one scene, washing and presumably daydreaming about Stefan. But too many other scenes show a character jogging or walking around the park- too much like filler material.

The climax of the film is highly predictable as the two men find their way into each other’s arms, though the passion is not exactly evident to the audience.

The lack of buildup is a negative aspect of the film because there is very little rooting value and too many questions.

Is the film a love story? Is it supposed to be about Cibrail coming to terms with his sexuality? Why do we not see more of a blowup scene between Cibrail and Christine?

He simply moves out once she catches him in bed with Stefan and before we know it, Stefan and Cibrail passionately embrace and the film closes in celebration.

A side story involving a dead body found in the park- a park known for gay shenanigans- is included as Cibrail investigates the crime with his police partner, but this seems to have nothing to do with the main plot unless we are to suspect one of the two men as the killer, but this is hardly focused on.

Another shot of a gay pride parade in Berlin is included, but is this to make it known that The Visitor is a gay film?

Additionally, a statue of two men is shown in several scenes for seemingly no other reason than to reinforce that the film is gay-themed.

The Visitor is a simple story of two men finding each other, which is a nice message, but the film’s run time is a brief seventy minutes, hardly enough time for character development.

A muted, videotaped look does not help the film seem very professional, and seems downright amateurish as an entire film, so much so that I would not be surprised if a film student might have made The Visitor (2011).

2017 Films, Best Feature- Independent Spirit Award Winners, Bradley Whitford, Horror, Keegan-Michael Key, Stephen Root

Get Out-2017

Leave a comment

Get Out-2017

Director-Jordan Peele

Starring-Daniel Kaluuya, Allison Williams

Scott’s Review #629

Reviewed March 28, 2017

Grade: A

Get Out, a modern-day horror film, is a unique film, mixing classic horror elements (especially great camera angles to elicit jumps) with bits of slapstick humor, not done very often in horror.

In the case of Get Out, all of these tidbits come together in a marvelous experience, and the subject matter is rather risqué (see below), a plus for me as I like films that push the envelope a bit.

Certainly, as with most horror films, liberties must be taken in the way of plot points and continuity issues, but this film is an impressive work. Kudos, given the film, is director Jordan Peele’s directorial film debut.

Chris Washington is a young photographer, handsome, educated, and enjoying life. He is black, and his girlfriend, Rose, is a pretty white girl from an affluent upbringing- it is implied that they are opposites on the social scale.

One weekend, they traverse out of the city (presumably New York City) to visit Rose’s parents in the country. Her parents, Dean and Missy, own a sprawling estate with acres of land. Nervous to meet Rose’s parents and make a good first impression, Chris notices that Dean and Missy’s servants are all black and act in quite a peculiar fashion.

Soon, it is revealed that Chris’s mother died when he was a little boy and when Chris is hypnotized by Missy, things begin to go from strange to downright scary.

I adore how the film immediately feels ominous- there is simply something not “right” with the situation-even before Chris and Rose arrive at her parent’s estate, something seems off. They hit and kill a deer with their car, the policeman who aids them seems racist, and despite Rose seeming fresh-faced, she also seems not to be trusted.

There are so many ominous warnings not to approach her parent’s house, that when they finally do arrive the audience is compelled to nervously watch for more, perhaps while biting fingernails.

Jordan Peele’s decision to have everything cheery and bright during most of the film only makes the audience wonder what secrets are lurking about in the grand estate- the setting where most of the action takes place.

When the pair finally arrive at her parent’s house everything is out of whack. The film undoubtedly borrows from The Stepford Wives in the pleasant, almost robotic cheerfulness of some of the characters.

The big reveal and the rather objectification of all of the black characters- specifically black males- can certainly be cause for debate. The racial motives of the characters are also only skimmed over and never discussed or rationalized in detail.

The physical strength and resilience of the black male are mentioned a few times and Rose’s parents being a psychologist and a neurosurgeon are major points in the story, but the intentions are somewhat wishy-washy and hardly plausible.

In a wise move, Peele mixes a hilarious scene amid the doom and gloom. The comic relief of the film, Rod, Chris’s best friend, and proud TSA agent, calls the police and describes in detail his fears of a sex slave operation, which results in the police having a good guffaw- at Rod’s expense. Rod serving as an instrumental part of the film’s conclusion is a fantastic decision- mixing dark humor with more grotesque horror moments.

This succeeds in setting Get Out well above the traditional genre.

The acting by all parties is believable and deserving of acclaim, but newcomer (to me) Daniel Kaluuya carries the film very well, even offering more than one heartfelt dramatic scene, mostly when remembering his mother.

Allison Williams (a dead ringer for a young Jennifer Connelly) is also a marvel, especially as the character changes direction mid-stream and essentially becomes a different character.

Fantastic are the throwback elements of The Stepford Wives, complete with a similar setting. The film does not reveal whether “in the country” is Connecticut or upstate New York-Stepford Wives was Connecticut.

Get Out is a fresh, novel approach to the standard elements of horror, mixing comedy and aspects of race into a story brimming with suspense, good frights, and especially, interesting camera angles.

This film, a great success at the box office, does not seem like the sequel type, but if so, I am intrigued by what more can be done with it.

Oscar Nominations: Best Picture, Best Director-Jordan Peele, Best Actor-Daniel Kaluuya, Best Original Screenplay (won)

Independent Spirit Award Nominations: Best Feature (won), Best Director-Jordan Peele (won), Best Male Lead-Daniel Kaluuya, Best Screenplay, Best Editing

1967 Films, Best Film of the Year, Biography, Crime Drama, Drama, Faye Dunaway, Gene Hackman, Gene Wilder, Warren Beatty

Bonnie and Clyde-1967

Leave a comment

Bonnie and Clyde-1967

Director Arthur Penn

Starring Warren Beatty, Faye Dunaway

Scott’s Review #628

Reviewed March 25, 2017

Grade: A

Bonnie and Clyde is an excellent 1967 crime drama that is not only a great film, but successfully, and surprisingly wound up influencing an entire generation, becoming somewhat of a rallying cry for the youth generation of the time.

Released in a tumultuous period in history (the Vietnam War, the Sexual Revolution, and Civil Rights), the film fits the times and was groundbreaking in its use of violence, blood, and sex.

The film holds up tremendously well to this day and is beloved by intelligent film lovers everywhere.

The film begins with snapshots of the real Bonnie and Clyde- a duo of bank robbers who rampaged the southwest during the Great Depression.

Set in steamy Texas, circa the 1930s, the film tells its story.

Clyde Barrow (Warren Beatty) meets Bonnie Parker (Faye Dunaway) when he tries to steal her mother’s car one hot day. Instantly infatuated with each other, the steamy duo team up and become partners in crime.

Over time they enlist the help of others and become more successful bank robbers with the stakes rising with each heist. Rounding out the crew of criminals are gas-station attendant, C.W. Moss, and Clyde’s older brother Buck, played by Gene Hackman, along with his wife, Blanche (Estelle Parsons), an innocent-minded, and sometimes hysterical, preacher’s wife.

Bonnie and Clyde is a unique film in many different ways- the quick-cut editing style influenced Sam Peckinpah in his films to come, and the film uses a fast-paced rat-a-tat-tat style that symbolizes the gunfire-a major element of the film.

Blood spurts from victims’ bodies in a style never before seen on the big screen and led to many filmmakers’ comfort with using increased violence.

You could say that Bonnie and Clyde took away the innocence of Hollywood films and shook all of the traditional elements inside out.

The conclusion of the film is one of the greatest in cinematic history.

Far from an idyllic, happy ending, traditional with films in those days, the law finally catches up with Bonnie and Clyde with grim results for the pair, and their demise is gruesome but true to form.

We have fallen in love with the characters so their hasty exit from this world is tough to stomach and as they writhe and twitch with each gunshot wound, the bullets pummeling the bodies, the scene is a difficult one to watch.

The love story between Bonnie and Clyde is intense, yet sweet, and the casting of Beatty and Dunaway is spot on. Smoldering with sexuality- as Bonnie fondles Clyde’s gun who does not see this as a phallic symbol- their relationship is fraught with stamina and emotional energy.

The two actors feed off of each other and fill the scenes with gusto. Their chemistry is part of what makes the film so great.

One of the best scenes is the shoot ’em up showdown at a ranch where the group of robbers is hiding out the scene is laden with intensity and violence. As Buck is mortally wounded, Blanche is blinded and captured, soon to make a grave mistake in revealing one of the identities of the others.

Bonnie, Clyde, and C.W. barely escape with their lives and their antics from this point become bloodier and bloodier. The cat and mouse play during this scene makes it the most suspenseful of them all.

Amid all of the violence, a wonderful scene exists when Bonnie and Clyde meet up at a secret location with Bonnie’s mother. A local townswoman and non-actress were cast in the pivotal role of Bonnie’s mother and the scene is an emotional experience.

The woman’s kindness and sensibility and the sheer “regular person” she encompasses humanize Bonnie and Clyde, and ominously, their downfall is soon to occur.

A heavily influential film, Bonnie and Clyde is a film that is still quite relevant, especially for those who appreciate the good film, and rich, intelligently written characters, who are flawed, yet humanistic, layered with complexities.

This is what director, Penn, carves out, and the film is an all-time Hollywood classic.

Oscar Nominations: 2 wins-Best Picture, Best Director-Arthur Penn, Best Actor-Warren Beatty, Best Actress-Faye Dunaway, Best Supporting Actor-Gene Hackman, Michael J. Pollard, Best Supporting Actress-Estelle Parsons (won), Best Story and Screenplay Written Directly for the Screen, Best Costume Design, Best Cinematography (won)

2012 Films, Eamon Farren, Horror, Independent, Independent Horror, Jennifer Lynch, Vincent D'Onofrio

Chained-2012

Leave a comment

Chained-2012

Director Jennifer Lynch

Starring Vincent D’Onofrio

Scott’s Review #627

Reviewed March 24, 2017

Grade: B-

Chained is a 2012 independent horror film directed by Jennifer Lynch, who is the daughter of the brilliant film and television director, David Lynch.

His influence is readily felt throughout.

The film is an exercise in cerebral, psychological horror, and is quite mesmerizing for most of the experience. The ending, however, is the pits and takes away from the enjoyment of the rest of the film in its asinine, quickly wrapped-up, conclusion.

The film is set in an unknown area- all the audience knows is a  decrepit, isolated, cabin in the middle of nowhere and that the shack exists in somewhat proximity to a college town.

Since the film is shot in Canada that is a good enough locale for me to accept.

One day a seemingly happy husband drops off his wife and nine-year-old son at the movies but implores them to take a taxi home as the bus is too dangerous. When they heed his advice, they are accosted by a deranged serial killer, Bob (D’Onofrio), who drives a cab and whisks them away to his remote home.

After he kills the mother, he makes the son, whom he re-names Rabbit, his slave, reducing him to household chores and a somewhat accomplice to the subsequent victims he brings home.

As the years pass and Bob continues to kill, he is determined to have, a now mature, Rabbit, follow in his footsteps.

A large chunk of Chained (and the film is aptly named because Bob commonly keeps Rabbit chained) takes place in Bob’s lonely home and Bob and Rabbit are all each other have for support. Bob presumably earns a living by stealing the cash his victims carry.

Many scenes of a binding nature, albeit perverse, are featured as the two dole away the time between Bob’s kills, almost like a father and son.

Jennifer Lynch wisely moves the film at a slow pace for appropriate build-up.

Bob’s psychologically troubled childhood is told through flashbacks as he is victimized by his abusive father and forced to have sex with his mother, who blames him rather than her husband.

As a result, Bob hates women, and lures victim after victim into his cab and then slices and dices them back at his home.

Bob is sympathetic, like a wounded bird, and whether he rapes the victims before killing them is unclear, as much happens off-screen.

The cabin is purposely suffocating and when Bob teaches Rabbit intellectual facts and encourages him to read and study to become smart, it is a bonding experience.

Slowly, Bob trusts Rabbit more and more.

When Bob makes Rabbit pick out a young girl in a school yearbook to kill, the film kicks into high gear. Suddenly, it becomes vague whether Rabbit is loyal to Bob or still determined to escape. Will he help his intended victim instead of killing her?

David Lynch’s imprint is blatant in both the pacing of the film and more specifically in the low hum musical score, common in his films.

Daughter Jennifer knows her father’s techniques as they continually come into play. A nice homage to Mulholland Drive (1992) appears when a sweet older couple rides in the back of Bob’s cab, reminiscent of the older couple featured in Mulholland Drive.

The gloomy ambiance is highly effective in Chained and the relationship between Bob and Rabbit, not sexual or overly violent, becomes rather sweet in some moments.

The rushed conclusion of the film is disastrous and Lynch’s attempt at a twist goes haywire in the “makes sense” department.

After a compelling fight scene with Bob, Rabbit finally kills him, escapes his clutches, and returns to his father’s open arms (now newly re-married with another son) only to reveal to his father that he knows he orchestrated Rabbit and his mom’s abduction years ago and that Bob is Rabbit’s uncle!

To matters even more confusing, after a dramatic event, Rabbit is sent away yet again and returns to the cabin as his only safe place.

This final act is a real dog, makes little sense, and is tough to digest.

I will give some liberties to 2012’s Chained since the director is spawned from the great David Lynch and the mood and several characteristics mirror his work, but still with her unique vision an obvious characteristic.

Most of the film is a solid effort, but due to the ending of the film being such a letdown, the body of work seems incomplete.

2010 Films, Comedy, Doug Langway, Independent, Independent Comedy, LGBTQ+ Comedy, LGBTQ+ Films

BearCity-2010

Leave a comment

BearCity-2010

Director Douglas Langway

Starring Joe Conti, Stephen Guarino

Scott’s Review #626

Reviewed March 19, 2017

Grade: B

BearCity is a small, independent, LGBT, coming-of-age film that tells of a young man living in New York City, and his exploration of a sub-culture within the LGBT community and the subsequent romance that follows.

The film is a comedy and has a “Sex in the City” or “Queer as Folk” approach to its storytelling- a group of close-knit friends and raunchy and gratuitous to be sure.

The budget is very small and some aspects are rather amateurish, but the film is enjoyable, especially for those exposed to the LGBT lifestyle.

The film is not heavy nor are any of the characters dealing with “coming out” issues, but rather it is a fun sex comedy romp.

Our central character, Tyler (Joe Conti), is a young man in his twenties, an aspiring actor, who moves to New York City to pursue his career, with a mind for casual dating.

His roommates encourage him to date Abercrombie and Fitch types, but Tyler comes to realize he prefers “bear” types- mature, hairy men.

On the sly, he begins to pursue this subculture and makes many friends. The apple of his eye, handsome Roger (Gerald McCullough) is a popular mature man, distinguished in the bear circle, and risks his reputation with “the bears” by falling in love with Tyler.

The two men spend the greater part of the film conquering their respective fears and finding their way into each other’s arms in a predictable ending.

BearCity is a fun farce and nothing very heavy and the feature of a strong circle of friends is a nice, positive portrayal- all of the friends connect well and stick by each other through thick and thin.

Comical sub-plots abound such as one couple (Brent and Fred) awkward parlay into the world of threesomes with unsuccessful results.

Another bear who is unemployed, and grossly obese, decides to undergo weight loss surgery much to the chagrin of his hunky boyfriend.

The main story though belongs to Tyler and Roger and their inevitable reunion can be seen miles away. The film throws various hurdles in their ways, such as a third-person briefly dating Roger, or Roger’s commitment issues, but the climax of the film will be no surprise to anyone.

Tyler and Roger make a nice couple as a whole, but perplexing is how the film makes Roger the undisputed leader of the bear group when he is a lean, muscular man- not a “bear” at all!

This is odd to me, but BearCity is so light-hearted that I suppose I can let this detail slide in favor of a good romance.

Critically, the film is nice but quite amateurish, and super low-budget. The acting, especially by some of the supporting characters (the pre-surgery guy’s boyfriend is the most glaring example), is not great.

I half-expected him to accidentally look at the camera.

Additionally, the film has a low-budget look and feel, which on one level is fine, but combined with the not-so-stellar acting, enhances the inexperience of the cast and crew. The film is tough to take too seriously- if this is even the intention of the filmmakers.

The film is a logistical treat for anyone privy to popular gay hangouts in New York City- specifically The Eagle and The Ramrod, both locales are featured prominently, and the use of many real-life people who hang out at those establishments are used throughout the production.

BearCity (2010) is not a bad experience and a film that is light and comical within the LGBT community seems rather fresh compared to the myriad of dramatic and heavy films that exist.

At the same time, the film teeters towards goofy too much with more than one silly, sex-crazed, stereotypical gay man, that it almost gives a bad impression, so the film has mixed results for me.

1937 Films, Animated, Ben Sharpsteen, Best Film of the Year, Children, David Hand, Disney, Eric Larson, Fantasy, Les Clark, Musical, Wilfred Jackson, Wolfgang Reitherman

Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs-1937

Leave a comment

Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs-1937

Director David Hand

Starring Various Voices

Scott’s Review #625

Reviewed March 18, 2017

Grade: A-

Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs (1937) is Walt Disney’s debut feature-length production and the first animated feature.

Until their release, animated stories were not features at all but shorts that were shown as gag-filled entertainment not to be taken very seriously.

Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs made animated films something to be appreciated and respected. The 1937 film was re-released in theaters many times until the 1990s and is a blueprint for what animated features would become.

The film is based on the famous fairy tale of the Brothers Grimms, and it is a cherished treasure.

Beautiful inside and out, Snow White is a lonely princess who lives with her devious, wicked stepmother, the Queen. Making the most of her troubled life, Snow White hums and sings with her bird friends, who gather to keep her company as she is forced by her stepmother to work as a scullery maid.

The Queen is a vain woman, jealous of Snow White’s natural beauty. She constantly consults her mirror to ask, “Who is the fairest one of all?”

One day, the Queen decides to put an end to Snow White and orders a henchman to kill her in the forest and return her bloody heart to her in a box. When the henchman cannot do the deed, he pleads with Snow White to flee.

She winds up in a bit of cottage housing seven dwarf men whom she befriends as the Queen is determined to take drastic measures to find her.

Circa 1937 and for years to come, animated features were not created as they are today. Instead, they were simplistic- and excellent- in using storyboards and drawings in their creation.

This daunting task and the creativity involved make them just lovely to look at.

Since Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs was the debut animated feature, the drawings are fantastic to view- like pictures- and to appreciate the craftsmanship involved.

The characters are richly created, with bright, vivid colors that distinguish them from one another—Snow White’s bright red lips and the blue and gold colors of her dress contrast with the regal purples used on the Queen, to say nothing of the deep red color of the poison apple.

The color makes the apple appear delicious but also dangerously blood red. These nuances make the characters deep with texture.

The friendships Snow White makes with the dwarfs and the animal life in the forest are whimsical and filled with love, and the animal element later becomes a staple of Disney’s works- Dumbo and Bambi.

The animals are naturally fond of Snow White because she is joyous and kind. They, in turn, warn her of impending danger as the Queen turns herself into an old woman and lumbers towards Snow White, snug in the cottage.

Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs features an old-style romance. The handsome Prince takes a shine to Snow White, noticing her natural beauty as she sings, and is later determined to save her—which he does when he magically kisses her in the film’s finale.

The songs featured only enhance the love story—”Some Day My Prince Will Come” is a lovely ode to romance, tenderly sung by Snow White as she longs for the Prince’s touch, frustrated with her life.

The seven dwarfs are created magically, and seven little men living together seem quite natural in those innocent times.

Each is distinctive—Dopey is my personal favorite in his innocence and playfulness—and Happy, Doc, Grumpy, Sneezy, Sleepy, and Bashful are all written with great zest. We fall in love with each of them from the first moment we meet them as they belt out “Heigh-Ho” in unison.

Since Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs deserve merit for being Disney’s first, overlooked can be the omission of any family members of Snow White’s besides the evil Queen. Where are Snow White’s father and mother? Any siblings? Indeed, they are presumed dead, but they are never mentioned.

Also, why does the Queen have a Magic Mirror and has special powers that nobody else has?

At one hour and twenty-three minutes, Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs is a quick film but does not feel underdeveloped. The story and the characters are rich with appeal and intrigue, making the film a classic that should be shared with all youngsters.

It is a classic tale of good versus evil and a great love story, and it sets the tone for other Disney masterpieces to follow.

Oscar Nominations: Best Scoring

1933 Films, Adventure, Best Film of the Year, Bruce Cabot, Ernest B. Schoedsack, Fay Wray, Horror, Merian C. Cooper, Robert Armstrong

King Kong-1933

Leave a comment

King Kong-1933

Director Merian C. Cooper, Ernest B. Schoedsack

Starring Fay Wray, Robert Armstrong

Scott’s Review #624

Reviewed March 11, 2017

Grade: A

The original, black-and-white 1933 version of King Kong (a few other remakes or reboots followed) is a masterful achievement in special effects never before done in film. It is also a great horror/adventure film that is timeless in its look and feel, capturing 1930s New York City, especially in majestic fashion.

Some of the dialogue and scenes are now dated or slightly racist, but the film still holds up well as an overall lesson in film exploration and is a treasure to watch again and again.

The film is a take on the classic tale Beauty and the Beast, sans the happy ending.

In the watery harbors of New York City, filmmaker Carl Denham (Robert Armstrong) prepares to embark, via ship, on a journey to film his latest picture.

Known for films about exotic wildlife, he has a film to end all movies in mind and, reluctantly, is talked into casting a female lead in the part. He scours the streets of New York City, finding broke and hungry Ann (Fay Wray)—a struggling actress unable to find work. She agrees to the role and heads off to a destination unknown.

Weeks later, he reveals to the crew that they are headed for Skull Island, a secret island known for pre-historic creatures and a beast only known as “Kong.”

Amid the voyage to the island, Ann and First Mate Jack Driscoll (Bruce Cabot) fall madly in love, giving the film a nice romantic slant along with the male-driven adventure story.

The adventure begins when the crew arrives at Skull Island to find a weird, ancient ritual marriage occurring among the tribal people. All hell breaks loose when the dangerous “King Kong” escapes from captivity and falls in love with Ann.

Mixed in with the story are enormous dinosaurs who destroy everything in their paths, including many of the men from the island and the film crew.

As I watched the film in 2017, not too far from 100 years after its incarnation, I often sat in wonderment, amazed at how the filmmakers achieved the luminous special effects throughout the second half of the film.

Given that the film is in black and white, the contrast between the dark, enormous ape (Kong) and the bright New York City and the majestic Empire State Building is prominently featured in the final, climactic act.

The scenes of a struggling Ann in King Kong’s hand seem flawless and believable. I marvel at how these scenes were shot and the enormous amount of effort it took to make them dramatic and not hokey-looking.

Since the film was made “pre-code”, several shocking scenes exist- when Kong rips off Ann’s clothes as she struggles in his palm and Kong’s stepping on and squashing men are featured sparing no graphic details.

In addition to the great adventure story of King Kong, there is also a tender love story and a bit of melancholy. King Kong is not so much a dangerous creature; instead, he has fallen in love with Ann and serves as her protector.

He is a scared animal, chained and confined, and subsequently shown to a stuffy Broadway crowd as entertainment—he becomes angry. I find Kong to be a sympathetic, misunderstood character. Because the human beings in the story are frightened, he becomes their enemy. He adores Ann and would not harm her in any way, but he is perceived as vicious, which he is not.

It can be argued who the real villain of the story is. Would it not have been filmmaker Carl, intent on exploiting King Kong and gaining profit from it? Is it the tribe people who keep Kong locked up, or is it for their protection?

My favorite scene is the climax of the film. After taking Ann from a hotel room, he scales the Empire State Building and is pursued by four military airplanes.

When he sets Ann down on the rooftop ledge, he battles the planes, only to sadly topple down to the ground- dead. As he swipes at the aircraft and succumbs to gunshot wounds, it is a sad and powerful scene.

King Kong (1933) is a legendary film. Audiences will empathize with the “villain” of the story, be impressed by the technical nuances, and enjoy the conventional and unconventional love stories presented.

One thing is sure: King Kong is one of the most influential films ever made.

2016 Films, Aaron Eckhart, Anna Gunn, Biography, Clint Eastwood, Drama, Katie Couric, Laura Linney, Tom Hanks

Sully-2016

Leave a comment

Sully-2016

Director Clint Eastwood

Starring Tom Hanks, Aaron Eckhart

Scott’s Review #623

Reviewed March 10, 2017

Grade: B

I think most film critics would agree that each modern film directed by Clint Eastwood would accurately be described as a compelling film yet safe film, and the 2016 Eastwood offering, Sully, fits into both of these categories snugly- just as Sully feels like a snug film.

Everything seems to fit into a nice package when the credits roll.

While the film is sympathetic and has leanings of a character study, it is also shrouded in a wholesomeness that is incredibly safe and “Hollywood.”

This is not a knock or a detriment to the film, as it is very good, well-made, and has a high budget. However, edginess is not its forte, and it might have been better off with a bit more grit.

The actual film recounts the lively, perilous recent United Airways flight 1549, on which the now-famous Captain Sully successfully landed in New York’s frigid Hudson River one January morning.

Tom Hanks is the subdued and unassuming hero to perfection as his calm demeanor and grounded persona make him a likable chap, to say nothing of saving 155 lives aboard the would-be doomed flight that day.

Instead of going in a purely linear direction, building up the events (gravitating passengers, takeoff) in sequential order until the inevitable crash, Eastwood wisely decides to begin directly after the crash.

Captain Sully, clearly jarred by the events, is startled awake by nightmares. He dreams of crashing into midtown Manhattan instead of safely landing the jet.

The hero is beginning to suffer from symptoms of PTSD.

He is kept in New York City for days on both a press tour, interview after interview, as well as being questioned by The National Transportation Safety Board, who wonder why Captain Sully did not return to a nearby airport for an emergency landing as simulated computer recreations show that he could have.

This leads to both Sully and First Officer Jeff Skiles (Aaron Eckhart) being put under a microscope and questioned.

I was a bit caught off guard and got slightly bored, as the film takes about thirty minutes to focus on the actual crash or show an airplane scene rather than building up the events by concentrating on Sully and Skiles’s mental health. However, in retrospect, Eastwood made a wise decision.

The entire film is barely over ninety minutes total, so the action comes fast and furious mid-stream.

Still, the film is not quite all that it could have been. Despite the potentially horrific consequences faced by an airplane blowing both engines due to the flocks of birds, I never got many extremely perilous moments during the film.

While technically well done, the danger scenes as Sully navigates the plane into the river lack much in the way of the punch.

Sure, there are a few quick shots of passengers praying or appearing frightened, but we never get to know any of the passengers very well.

A “don’t blink or you might miss it” scene of an elderly mother and her daughter shopping for a snow globe at the airport or three men rushing to catch the plane to catch a golf game in Charlotte is not enough for the audience to become too enveloped in their characters.

They almost seem thrown at the last minute as a way of personalizing the passengers.

As I mentioned above, the film’s point surrounds Sully (and arguably it should; there is nothing wrong with that) and, to a lesser degree, Skiles. The supporting characters contain no character development, and even Skiles’s personal life is not explored well.

Scully’s wife is only seen through phone conversations (played by Laura Linney), and he is happily married with two daughters. There is a brief talk about money trouble, but the wife is underdeveloped.

Additionally, the NTSB agents are portrayed as quite antagonistic towards Sully and Skiles (rumors abound that this was embellished for movie making), which makes sense.

I enjoyed the ending of the film- in tandem with the credits rolling- of seeing not only the real-life Sully but his wife and the passengers and crew of the actual United Airlines Flight 1549 through interviews and photographs.

This offering in true-life biography films is now a standard feature to look forward to as it brings a humanistic conclusion to the story just watched.

The film’s focus centers on Captain Sully, which is fine by me- the man is a hero- but as a film, and more than a biography, it might have added depth to have richer supporting characters and a more substantial background of the man that is Sully.

A few rushed childhood aviator and battle plane scenes seemed somewhat out of place.

Still, the film is pleasant and immensely watchable. It will not set the world on fire or be remembered as much more than a decent film based on a true story.

Oscar Nominations: Best Sound Editing

2016 Films, Andrea Arnold, Drama, Independent, Independent Drama, Riley Keough, Sasha Lane, Shia LaBeouf

American Honey-2016

Leave a comment

American Honey-2016

Director Andrea Arnold

Starring Sasha Lane, Shia LaBeouf

Scott’s Review #622

Reviewed March 6, 2017

Grade: A-

American Honey (2016) is an unconventional coming-of-age drama that deserves kudos for being shot on a shoestring budget and having something of substance to tell.

The film is mainly shot outdoors in heat-drenched Oklahoma, Nebraska, and Kansas during the summer. It follows a group of rebellious, lonely teenagers who attempt to sell magazines as part of a shady con organization.

Their female leader uses cult-like rallying techniques to achieve loyalty.

The film is shot mainly with hand-held cameras and uses only natural light, which is an admirable feat in filmmaking.

The film’s central character is an eighteen-year-old girl named Star, played by novice actress Sasha Lane.

Saddled with a deadbeat boyfriend with two young kids that she is forced to care for, she takes food from dumpsters to survive.

One day, she is approached by a charismatic, handsome bad boy, Jake (Shia LaBeouf). Jake and a group of teenagers offer her a job in Kansas.

Hesitant but realizing her dead-end existence, she accepts the mysterious job and travels with other unsavory characters across the states, where they prey on wealthy, religious types willing to lend a hand under the guise of selling them magazines.

The central story envelopes Star, her romantic feelings for Jake, and the quandaries she faces on the road. She drinks, smokes, curses, and is sexually active, yet also savvy and wise beyond her years.

The audience wonders if she will continue this lifestyle and worries when she meets older men—all rather well-mannered and affluent.

Will they pay her for her magazines or some other form of entertainment? How will Star handle propositions and scrapes in and out of precarious situations? Throughout the film, Star grows up and becomes kind and confident.

American Honey is extremely lengthy at two hours and forty-three minutes long, especially given that the film is an independent feature and does not seem to contain many concrete plot points or much of a conclusion.

It seems to go on and on and on.

Despite this, the film never bored me. I was pretty enraptured by the antics of the story’s characters, and I found myself quite fond of the surprising love story shrouded in the hip-hop and rap soundtrack.

Star and Jake (thanks mainly to the talents of Lane and LaBeouf) have genuine chemistry and likability as a couple.

The mystery surrounding Star is we know nothing about her parents or family or how she came to this existence at such a young age. At one point, she does mention her mother dying of a meth overdose, but it is unclear whether she makes this story up for the benefit of a magazine sale or if it is the truth.

Star is rebellious but brilliant and capable, all the while exhibiting kindness to strange children and her “colleagues.”

Two key aspects of American Honey are interesting to note: the film uses almost all non-actors. Director Andrea Arnold scouted and offered roles to most of the kids at local malls or various hangouts, so the film has a powerful rawness and energy, given that it is largely improvised.

Also, the film is almost entirely shot using a hand-held camera or cellphone, which creates a shaky, documentary-style feel. However, these characteristics do not give American Honey an amateurish feel; instead, they give the film an authentic quality.

The left-of-the-center approach of featuring male frontal nudity and same-sex relations gives the film much credo as an alternative film- the teens also swear and use drugs quite a bit, which could turn some off.

Receiving a heap of 2016 Independent Film award nominations (but winning none), my reason for watching American Honey (2016) breathes some fresh air into the world of independent cinema, where sometimes too many big-name stars appear in the indies to garner some credibility.

Watching a film of novices or individuals with no acting aspirations creates a good story that is worth something. And kudos to Arnold for spinning such a fresh tale.

Independent Spirit Award Nominations: Best Feature, Best Director-Andrea Arnold, Best Female Lead-Sasha Lane, Best Supporting Male-Shia LaBeouf, Best Supporting Female-Riley Keough, Best Cinematography

1981 Films, Glenn Ford, Horror, J. Lee Thompson, Melissa Sue Anderson, Slasher

Happy Birthday to Me-1981

Leave a comment

Happy Birthday to Me-1981

Director J. Lee Thompson

Starring Melissa Sue Anderson, Glenn Ford

Scott’s Review #621

Reviewed March 4, 2017

Grade: A-

Happy Birthday to Me is a 1981 slasher film that I fondly remember scaring the shit out of me as a little kid-too young to be watching a film of this nature, but sneaking into my parent’s bedroom with my brother to catch it on HBO.

Certain that the film helped shape my passion for the horror genre, I hold a fondness for it- critics be damned. My opinion is that the film is a small treasure in the land of 1980s slasher films, containing a neat whodunit and a grotesque ending.

Melissa Sue Anderson, desiring to break out of her nice television persona thanks to the wholesome Little House on the Prairie, is cast in the lead role.

Happy Birthday to Me also achieves some merit since the film is directed by acclaimed British director, J. Lee Thompson (Cape Fear).

Anderson carries the film quite well in a challenging part and Glenn Ford co-stars as a Doctor.

Virginia Wainwright is a pretty and popular senior at exclusive Crawford Academy- a school for elite, rich kids. She is part of the “Top Ten”, the most popular and richest kids in the school. The ten friends meet nightly at the local pub.

One night, Bernadette, one of the top ten, is murdered by an assailant on her way to meet her friends.

This murder sets the tone as, one by one, the others are subsequently killed off, sending the school and local townspeople into a frenzy of panic.

To thicken the plot, Virginia was involved in a horrible car accident four years earlier, which killed her mother, and caused Virginia to only have sparse memories of the accident.

This piece is key to the film’s mystery.

There are many comparisons I can make to slasher classics that heavily influenced Happy Birthday to Me, but the most prominent must be 1978’s Halloween.

The character of Virginia is very similar to Laurie Strode (Jamie Lee Curtis), in their somewhat virginal, good girl characters, and both have an almost identical hairstyle!

Also, Happy Birthday to Me successfully uses the killer’s point of view as the camera frequently serves as the perspective of either the killer or somebody lurking around spying on someone else.

The film also just “looks” similar to Halloween.

The whodunit aspect is the most effective of all the qualities of the film. There are a multitude of likely suspects and the film does not shy away from this, purposely casting doubt on several characters- could it be the creepy Alfred, who carries around a pet mouse and creates a fake head of the murdered Bernadette?

Or the suave French student, Etienne, who snoops in Virginia’s bedroom and steals a pair of her panties? Finally, could it be Head Mistress, Mrs. Patterson, a harsh, no-nonsense woman harboring resentment for the snobbish, elitism that exists at her school?

When the killer is finally revealed a measure of pure shock and confusion will undoubtedly transpire- how can this be? But by the time the ultimate finale is played out, all will make sense.

The conclusion does disappoint slightly in the implausibility factor, and the original ending is much more logical and compelling than what was actually in the final cut- rumors have run rampant that the screenplay of the film was rewritten numerous times well into the production- never a good thing.

So, the motivations of the actual killer are quite weak, but the buildup is amazing.

Not to be outdone by the whodunit, the kills themselves are superlative: a shish kabob to the throat, falling gym weights, a scarf caught in the spokes of a bike, and the traditional fireplace poker are done in macabre and fantastic fashion.

We always see the killer’s gloved hands and we are aware that the victim is friendly with the killer, so we continually try and deduce who it could be.

The gruesome “Birthday party” finale is gruesome and gleeful at the same time. Each murder victim is propped up around a dining room table, each with a party hat on and all in various forms of dismemberment or blood-soaked from their murder wounds.

It is a grim and hilarious reveal. The murderer parades out of the kitchen wielding an enormous birthday cake, cheerily singing “Happy Birthday to Me”.

This is one great finale.

Happy Birthday to Me (1981) is a wonderful trip down memory lane and still holds up as a key, perhaps overlooked part of the slasher genre that should be rediscovered by fans and followers everywhere.

1961 Films, Audrey Hepburn, Drama, Fay Bainter, James Garner, LGBTQ+ Drama, LGBTQ+ Films, Miriam Hopkins, Shirley MacLaine, Veronica Cartwright, William Wyler

The Children’s Hour-1961

Leave a comment

The Children’s Hour-1961

Director William Wyler

Starring Audrey Hepburn, Shirley MacLaine, James Garner

Scott’s Review #620

Reviewed March 3, 2017

Grade: B+

The Children’s Hour (1961) is one of the earliest films to center around an LGBTQ+ theme and the subsequent scandals the subject would provoke in the innocent year of 1961-pre Civil Rights and pre-Sexual Revolution.

However, since the film was made in the year that it was, homosexuality was presented as something dark and evil rather than something to be accepted or even embraced.

Still, the film and its director, William Wyler, are brave enough to recognize the topic. Still, they cannot create a compelling film rich with well-written characters and some soap opera-style drama.

The Children’s Hour is based on a play from 1934 and written by Lillian Hellman.

The setting appears to be New England, perhaps Connecticut or Massachusetts, though the film never identifies the exact area.

College friends Karen (Audrey Hepburn) and Martha (Shirley MacLaine) open a private all-girls boarding school catering to their affluent community. They run the school with Martha’s Aunt Lilly, a faded Broadway actress who often hen-pecks the women.

Karen has been dating handsome obstetrician Joe (James Garner) for two years. When he proposes marriage, she hesitantly accepts, which saddens Martha.

All the while, spoiled brat child Mary, furious over being punished by her teachers, plots revenge against Martha and Karen and embellishes a heated discussion between the ladies into a scandalous lie she whispers to her grandmother (Fay Bainter).

The grandmother promptly tells the parents of the other students, who remove their children from the school en masse. The lie is that Karen and Martha are lovers, and Mary witnessed the two women kissing.

Meanwhile, Mary is blackmailing a fellow student, Rosalie (Veronica Cartwright), over a stolen bracelet.

The town ostracizes Martha and Karen.

The Children’s Hour becomes even more compelling when one of the women begins to realize that she does indeed have homosexual feelings towards the other woman and has always harbored anger and resentment as well as feeling “different” from other women.

As well-written as the film is, the fact that the audience does not get to hear what Mary whispers to her grandmother is instead telling and prevents the film from being even more powerful than it is.

Also, the downbeat conclusion to the film sends a clear message that in 1961, audiences were not ready to accept lesbianism as anything to be normalized or to be proud of.

The decision was made to make it abundantly clear that one of the central characters is not a lesbian. Any uncertainty may have risked freaking out mainstream audiences at the time.

Since the traditional opposite-sex romance between Karen and Joe is at the forefront of the film, I did not witness much chemistry between actors Hepburn and Garner. Still, I might have been at the point of achieving a subliminal sexual complexity.

The Children’s Hour and William Wyler deserve heaps of praise for going so far as to suggest that censorship in film in 1961 would allow them to offer nuggets of progressivism mixed into a brave film.

Incidentally, Wyler made another version of this film in 1936 named These Three. Because of the Hays Code, any hint of lesbianism was forbidden, causing Wyler to create a standard story of a love triangle between the three, with both Martha and Karen pining after Joe.

What a difference a couple of decades make!

MacLaine and Hepburn must be credited with carrying the film and eliciting nice chemistry between the women. However, it is too subtle to be realized if the chemistry is of a friendship level or a sexual nature.

And I adore how Wyler makes both characters rather glamorous and avoids stereotypical characteristics.

Oscar Nominations: Best Supporting Actress-Fay Bainter, Best Sound, Best Art Direction, Black-and-White, Best Cinematography, Black-and-White, Best Costume Design, Black-and-White

2016 Films, Aldis Hodge, Biography, Drama, Glen Powell, Janelle Monáe, Jim Parsons, Kevin Costner, Kirsten Dunst, Mahershala Ali, Octavia Spencer, Taraji P. Henson, Theodore Melfi

Hidden Figures-2016

Leave a comment

Hidden Figures-2016

Director Theodore Melfi

Starring Taraji P. Henson, Janelle Monae, Octavia Spencer

Scott’s Review #619

Reviewed February 26, 2017

Grade: A-

Hidden Figures (2016) is a mainstream, “Hollywood” style film produced, written, and acted very well.

The film tells the story of three female African American mathematicians who faced many struggles and were somewhat overlooked in the early 1960s.

The women achieved historical success and allowed John Glenn to orbit planet Earth.

From a film perspective, the story is feel-good but not contrived. It feels quite fresh and features an excellent ensemble cast with good chemistry.

I enjoyed this film immensely.

Blessed with good smarts, Dorothy Vaughan (Spencer), Mary Jackson (Monae), and Katherine Johnson (Henson) were fortunate enough to work for the Langley Research Center – in 1961.

In those days, segregation still existed, and the women worked as temporary workers and used separate “colored” bathrooms and were largely excluded from the white workers.

The three women are best friends and drive to work together- each has an individual specialty, and the film focuses on each woman’s story.

The more prominent role and main story are about Katherine. Since the Russians had already achieved success in outer space, the race was on for the United States to follow suit. Katherine is assigned as a “computer” in the Space Task Group, led by Al Harrison (Kevin Costner).

Initially, Katherine is dismissed by her colleagues but eventually is accepted due to her smarts.

In subplots, Dorothy struggles to be given a Supervisory position. Mary aspires to be the first female engineer despite needing to enter an all-white school to take the necessary classes.

My favorite of the three performances is Taraji P. Henson.

The actress impresses with her spunky, well-mannered portrayal, specifically her fantastic scene when she has had enough of the segregation and difficulty performing her job.

She loses it in front of the entire team and rails against them- expecting to lose her job, instead, her boss Al, (a fantastic nice-guy role for Costner), sees her point and declares NASA will see no distinction of color.

Henson is the lead actress in the film and carries it well.

The chemistry between the three actresses makes Hidden Figures work so well and appear believable. The women always have each other’s backs and are friends outside of work, attending church and picnics together.

The film is wise to feature women’s lives outside of their professions.

A nice side story of single mother Katherine (her husband, who has died) meeting and being courted in lovely fashion by handsome National Guard member Jim Johnson (Mahershala Ali) is a sweet story, genuinely told.

The two also have nice chemistry together.

The film’s finale, as the attempted launch of John Glenn is met with problems, is compelling. Due to their genius of Katherine, she must save the day as Glenn trusts only her judgment and calculations of the ever-so-important numbers.

The scene is a “just desserts” moment for Katherine as the country rallies patriotically behind the events.

Hidden Figures plays it safe, and the actual struggles of the real women undoubtedly had darker and meaner situations, as the discrimination they faced had to have been more intense.

Still, the film strives to downplay some of the grit in favor of light-hearted, crowd-pleasing fare, but I fell for it hook, line, and sinker and enjoyed the film ride that I was given.

Oscar Nominations: Best Picture, Best Supporting Actress-Octavia Spencer, Best Adapted Screenplay