All posts by scottmet99

1934 Films, Best Picture Oscar Winners, Clark Gable, Claudette Colbert, Comedy, Favorite Film of the Year, Frank Capra, Romantic Comedy, Walter Connolly

It Happened One Night-1934

Leave a comment

It Happened One Night-1934

Director Frank Capra

Starring Clark Gable, Claudette Colbert

Scott’s Review #824

Reviewed October 25, 2018

Grade: A-

Perhaps the film that best defines the early cinematic romantic comedy and certainly the one most modern genre films can learn from, It Happened One Night (1934) is a lively, fun romp.

The film carted away the Best Picture, Best Director, Best Actor, and Best Actress Academy Awards, a rare feat, and defined what romantic tension and thoughtful dialogue should be in a quality picture. All the elements sparkle into an excellent classic film watch.

Ellie Andrews (Colbert) is a pampered socialite who recently disobeyed her overbearing and wealthy father by eloping with a blue-collar pilot who is feared to be after her money.

Determined, Ellie escapes her father’s clutches and hops on a Greyhound bus headed from Florida to New York, where her husband is. When she crosses paths with an out-of-work journalist, Peter Warne (Gable), they each find an opportunity to use the other to their advantage.

The pair’s adventures along the East Coast lead to antics and schemes as they fall madly in love with one another.

It Happened One Night successfully mixes a good romance with some screwball comedy without ever becoming silly or trite.

The film also serves as a good old-fashioned adventure story as Peter and Ellie face one hurdle after another on their trek north.

Pleasing is how the duo slowly finds romance but first begins as irritants towards each other. The chemistry between the actors is superb and never seems forced or contrived.

Frank Capra, a famous director with successes throughout the 1930s, culminating with the holiday favorite It’s a Wonderful Life (1946), had several Oscar-winning films during the decade.

It Happened One Night seems to have inspired most of them, and the acting, absurd situations, dialogue, and direction all successfully come together.

Shot in black and white and the Motion Picture Production Code, which heavily restricted details deemed too violent or sexual, It Happened One Night pushed the envelope quite a bit.

This is to the film’s credit- who can forget the adorable yet provocative scene in which Ellie shows her shapely legs to enable the duo to catch a ride? The lovable scene, non-risque in today’s modern world, was anything but in 1934.

An interesting, at that time unique, point is that supporting characters are more layered than is typical in romantic comedies. Danker, whom Peter and Ellie hitch a ride with, is seemingly a decent man but ultimately attempts to steal their luggage.

Later, Ellie’s preposterous father turns out to be a decent man, so the film also contains a few character surprises.

While not quite a pure masterpiece, It Happened One Night (1934) is nonetheless an inspired legendary film that can be viewed and enjoyed for the period in which it was made.

The film stands out among the similarly themed romantic comedies of the 1930s and 1940s and is a teachable moment for all filmmakers who explore the same genre territory.

Oscar Nominations: 5 wins– Outstanding Production (won), Best Director (won), Best Actor-Clark Gable (won), Best Actress-Claudette Colbert (won), Best Adaptation (won)

2018 Films, Andi Matichak, David Gordon Green, Haluk Bilginer, Horror, Jamie Lee Curtis, John Carpenter, Judy Greer, Michael Meyers, Nick Castle, P. J. Soles, Slasher, Toby Huss, Will Patton

Halloween-2018

Leave a comment

Halloween-2018

Director David Gordon Green

Starring Jamie Lee Curtis, Judy Greer

Scott’s Review #823

Reviewed October 23, 2018

Grade: B+

Let’s be honest—nobody will ever be able to top or recreate the iconic 1978 masterpiece Halloween, so any real attempt is a moot point.

Throughout the subsequent decades, many sequels or remakes have emerged, largely disappointing or turning the franchise into a joke.

With the latest incarnation of Halloween (2018), director David Gordon Green gets it right by creating a follow-up to the original, skipping all the other films. Scoring Jamie Lee Curtis as Laurie is a significant win and seemingly dozens of neat references to the original gem.

Set forty years to the day (Halloween Eve and Halloween, naturally!), the audience is first given a summary of killer Michael Meyer’s (Nick Castle) time spent in Smith Grove Sanitarium once captured following the 1978 Haddonfield killing spree.

Two journalists visit Myers in captivity and attempt to make him speak after forty years of silence by mentioning Laurie Strode and showing him his notorious Halloween mask.

Conveniently, he will be transferred to a maximum-security prison the following day. We know that Meyers will escape.

Meanwhile, Laurie has been living with post-traumatic stress disorder since her attack and lives in a constant state of paranoia.

With two failed marriages and a daughter, Karen (Judy Greer), who is traumatized by her mother’s anxiety, Laurie’s life has not been easy. As an aside, I love how Laurie dons the same hairstyle she had at age seventeen.

While she awaits Michael’s inevitable return, Laurie’s secluded house is peppered with traps and guns, allowing her to be at the ready at any moment. Despite her problems, Laurie is close to her granddaughter, Allyson (Andi Matichak).

When the inevitable happens and Michael escapes by presumably causing a bus accident off-screen, the action truly begins. The coincidence of this happening on Halloween night is to be expected and embraced.

Audiences who see the film are certainly not new to the genre. The target audience is the crowd who either grew up with the original or generations who followed and were introduced to it.

Therefore, the film is wise not to try to reinvent the wheel, giving fans what they expect. The opening graphics (the eerie orange writing and the glowing jack-o-lantern) are intact, as is the “introducing” credit for its heroin—in this case, Matichak.

There are several certainties about a horror film like Halloween. We know there will be “kills,” and we know there will be an inevitable showdown between Laurie and Michael Myers to conclude the film.

The fun is in the trip we take to get there. Who will be slashed and how? A butcher knife? Other Halloween delights?

Since there are arguably three female leads and three generations of Strodes, will the film make one of them feel Michael’s deadly wrath?

Halloween works; a significant reason is the countless nods to its past. Many scenes pay homage to attention-paying fans, creating riches and nostalgic memories.

Allyson’s boyfriend’s father’s name is Lonnie—undoubtedly the kid Dr. Loomis scared away from the Meyers’ house forty years ago. Then there is a neighbor woman wearing curlers and slicing a sandwich with a butcher knife, whom Michael steals the knife from an ode to Halloween II (1981).

Finally, as Allyson sits in the back of her class and glances out the window, she sees not Michael, but Laurie standing across the street, staring at her.

These gems are in large part thanks to clever writing and study.

There are a couple of negatives to mention. I am not crazy about Judy Greer’s casting as Jamie Lee Curtis’s daughter. The actresses look nothing alike, and Curtis does not seem old enough to be Greer’s mother.

Furthermore, attempts to add some comic relief moments—two bumbling police officers talking about brownies, Allyson’s goofy father, and the salty tongue of the kid one of the babysitters sits for—do not work.

How great would it have been to include P.J. Soles, Nancy Loomis, or Kyle Richards in cameos? Since Curtis and Castle returned, I wanted more familiar faces.

In wise form, Gordon Green leaves the window open for a potential sequel, so stay for the end credits. My wish would be for this to parlay to the aftereffects of the killings on the same night, which Halloween II (1981) did so successfully.

The possibilities are endless if the box office returns are strong enough and Curtis is on board for another installment.

1931 Films, Boris Karloff, Colin Clive, Favorite Film of the Year, Horror, James Whale, Science Fiction

Frankenstein-1931

Leave a comment

Frankenstein-1931

Director James Whale

Starring Colin Clive, Boris Karloff

Scott’s Review #822

Reviewed October 22, 2018

Grade: A

Those of us who treasure cinematic brilliance in films of the past need to look no further than Frankenstein (1931), a masterpiece in the horror genre.

Some consider it the greatest horror film ever made. The still frightening work is based on the legendary 1818 Mary Shelley novel.

Highly influential to later groupings of horror film sub-genres, the importance of this film must never be forgotten.

In a small European village, a scientist named Henry Frankenstein (Colin Clive) is determined to create human life by stealing fresh body parts from cemeteries and using electrical shock as part of his creation.

He convinces his assistant, Fritz (Dwight Frye), to steal a human brain from a former professor’s laboratory. Due to a clumsy mistake, Fritz must steal the brain of a criminal rather than a “normal” human being, the result being dire when Frankenstein’s monster is created.

The creation of the monster (and no, the monster’s name is not Frankenstein, as some might assume) is astounding, especially given the period of the early 1930s.

With a flattop, heavy eyelids, protruding neck terminals, and his hulking physique, he is a frightening figure with a yearning, childlike nature. The monster’s innocence makes him so tragic.

A compelling scene occurs when the audience sees the monster turn around and face the camera.

What separates Frankenstein from many other horror films is the underlying sadness and empathy we feel toward the monster. The “villain” in most horror films is clearly defined, but who is the villain in Frankenstein?

How can it be the monster when he, unaware of his strength, drowns a young child? We root for the beast when he hangs the dastardly dwarf, and we hate the town of peasants who seek revenge on the monster.

The complexities in this film are endless.

The main character is an interesting study. Title billed: the character is a genius while also teetering on the brink of madness- he is not the film’s hero, nor is he entirely sympathetic.

He is the ruin of a monster who has feelings and sadness in him. Frankenstein’s fiancée, Elizabeth (Mae Clark), is concerned for him, which adds a nurturing element to the dynamic. The intent is for the audience not to despise Frankenstein but to be enthralled with his complexities.

The term “monster film” can conjure feelings of silliness or over-the-top acting, but Frankenstein is more artistic than goofy.

The famous line “It’s alive!” was paid tribute to in later years, but an equally spectacular horror film, Rosemary’s Baby (1968), when Rosemary feels her haunted baby kick. To say nothing of the tribute Mel Brook’s classic Young Frankenstein (1974) paid to the original.

Given that the film was made in 1931, the effects and lighting techniques are beyond impressive. The overall tone of the film is stylistic, with a prevalent fairy-tale beauty unlike any films made at the time, save for perhaps Dracula, the 1931 horror-vampire masterpiece.

Frankenstein and Dracula would make a delicious double feature on Saturday evenings. Director James Whale creates a magical environment, holding up thriving generation after generation, never seeming dated.

Frankenstein (1931) was followed by numerous sequels, the best of which is Bride of Frankenstein (1935). Undoubtedly, the film influenced campy yet influential monster films to follow- most notably the “Hammer Horror films” of the same tone.

Despite teetering on the one-hundred-year-old mark, the brilliant film is timeless and must be introduced to young filmmakers everywhere (especially in the horror genre).

2016 Films, Anya Taylor-Joy, Betty Buckley, Bruce Willis, James McAvoy, M. Night Shyamalan, Neal Huff, Thriller

Split-2016

Leave a comment

Split-2016

Director M. Night Shyamalan

Starring James McAvoy, Anya Taylor Joy

Scott’s Review #821

Reviewed October 18, 2018

Grade: B-

Split (2016) is the second part of a planned trilogy; the first is Unbreakable (2000), and the third is to debut in 2019.

This point confused me because I did not notice any correlation between the films until the final scene, which was unclear.

Split has its ups and downs, mainly because of James McAvoy’s spectacular performance, which is the highlight, but the film is sadly riddled with many plot holes and nonsense.

I do not predict the film will be remembered all too well.

Casey (Joy) is a withdrawn teenage girl with an abusive past at the hands of her uncle, who raised her after her father died. She, along with two other girls, is accosted by a man (McAvoy) who chloroforms them and takes them to a hidden basement.

The girls quickly learn that their abductor is Kevin Wendell Crumb, a man suffering from Dissociative Identity Disorder (DID).

His personality ranges from that of a nine-year-old child to that of an effeminate artist, a well-dressed woman, and Kevin.

The audience (but not the girls) learns that Kevin is in therapy under the care of Doctor Karen Fletcher (Betty Buckley), an established Philadelphia psychiatrist. Fletcher is aware of Kevin’s other personalities, including an additional personality deemed “The Beast.”

She assumes this is a fantasy superhero figure.

Karen slowly pieces together the frightening depth of Kevin’s disorder and must race against time to save the girls.

McAvoy, best known for his outstanding performances in The Last King of Scotland (2006) and Atonement (2007), is also a central figure in the X-Men film franchise (2011-2019). He knocks it out of the park.

What a challenging role (or roles!) for the handsome Scottish actor.  He is as convincing as the stoic and confident Kevin and provides the perfect swagger as “Patricia” and “Dennis.” Finally, he plays nine-year-old “Hedwig” with childhood innocence and insecurities.

The casting of McAvoy is a treat and a success.

How lovely to see film and television stalwart Betty Buckley back in the game with a central film role. The actress is a legend in other genres, not to mention her achievements on stage in play after play.

Eagle-eyed horror fans will undoubtedly remember Buckley’s role as the sympathetic gym teacher in Carrie (1976). In Split, she portrays another benevolent character as she is concerned for her patient’s well-being, not realizing the sinister sides he keeps hidden. The role is perfect for the warm Buckley.

Written, co-produced, and directed by the acclaimed M. Night Shyamalan, Split is no masterpiece like The Sixth Sense (1999) or even on par with The Village (2004).  Instead, the result is a peculiar and uneven effort- the fascination is with McAvoy’s twenty-three different personalities, granted we only see four or five of them.

The film misses the numerous backstory scenes of Casey and her uncle hunting in the woods. These scenes slow down the action and seem overly lengthy. She was abused and can now handle herself- we get it.

This point could have been achieved within one scene.

The relationship between the three girls is okay, but the story point of Casey being an outcast and different from the other two girls seems unnecessary and thrown in.

The final scene of Bruce Willis (as Dennis Dunn from Unbreakable) is a nice nod to the previous film but is lost on anyone who has not seen it since it premiered well over a decade ago.

More of a connection between the two stories should have been featured.

In addition to McAvoy’s impressive performance, a positive is that no male characters are designed to “save the day,” which is still typical of mainstream films.

The film’s heroes are Casey (a teenage girl) and Karen (a woman in her sixties). Despite all the story pieces not aligning, attempts to make Split a more progressive-minded film must be credited.

The film’s result is fair to middling. Split (2016) is not a great effort but a decent watch. The highlights are McAvoy, a worthy role for veteran Buckley, and some good tension and moments of good peril. The story is not the high point, and Shyamalan has made better films.

1988 Films, Animated, Bette Midler, Billy Joel, Cheech Marin, Children, Dean DeBlois, Disney, Dom DeLuise, Glen Keane, Joey Lawrence

Oliver & Company-1988

Leave a comment

Oliver & Company-1988

Director George Scribner

Voices Joey Lawrence, Billy Joel, Cheech Marin

Scott’s Review #818

Reviewed October 8, 2018

Grade: B

Oliver & Company (1988) is a darling animated film released by Walt Disney Pictures, the twenty-seventh Disney feature film to be produced.

The film is based on the Charles Dickens novel Oliver Twist, but Oliver is now a homeless kitten who joins a gang of dogs, and the setting moves from London to the dangerous streets of New York City- present times.

We meet Oliver (Joey Lawrence) as he huddles with other homeless kittens in a cardboard box, chilly from a driving New York rain. As all of the other kittens are snatched up by adoring animal lovers, Oliver is inexplicably left on his own.

He eventually meets up with Dodger (Billy Joel), a mongrel with street smarts, and the duo steals hot dogs from an abrasive food vendor.

When Dodger swindles Oliver out of his share, the kitten follows the dog to a barge, which turns out to be the hideout of Fagin (Dom DeLuise), a human pickpocket. Fagin houses a gang of assorted dogs as he is bullied by loan shark Sykes.

As Oliver bonds with the miscreants, his life suddenly takes a positive turn when he is rescued from the streets by a kindly, wealthy little girl named Jenny and her bumbling butler, Winston.

Jenny’s parents are on holiday in Europe, leaving her and Winston running the house. Along for the ride is Jenny’s sophisticated and spoiled pet poodle, Georgette (Bette Midler), who takes a dislike to Oliver.

By the 1980s Disney films were hardly the hot commodity they once were, and the small budget is evidence of that. Oliver & Company is not on par with classic, lovely offerings such as Pinocchio (1940), Fantasia (1940), or Dumbo (1941).

The film has a severe and decidedly “1980s quality”, mostly due to the upbeat soundtrack, which decades later makes the film feel rather dated.

Speaking of the soundtrack, the highlight is a treat entitled “Why Should I Worry?”, a tune sung by the ensemble cast and impossible not to hum along to.

The film features an array of famous voices that are perfectly cast. The filmmakers wisely cast plenty of native New Yorkers, which results in a huge measure of authenticity. Brazen voices like Midler’s, Joel’s, and Cheech Marin’s as feisty chihuahua Tito, give credibility to their characters.

The odd romantic pairing of Georgette and Tito, on the surface completely mismatched, gives a good dose of comic relief to the story.

The story written for Oliver & Company is the best part of the entire production.  Anyone familiar with the famous Dickens novel or Oliver! (1968), the most famous of the film incarnations knows how the story will end.

This did not hinder my enjoyment of the animated film though, a compelling and charming experience. Sykes makes a great villain, drawn with a long face and enormous chin, interesting, but not too scary to frighten young children.

One conspicuous omission is the elimination of the important character of Nancy. As fans know, Nancy played a vital role in the original story. Perplexing is the decision not to include her, but perhaps her ultimate death would have made the story too dark, so this can be overlooked.

Surely not the best in the Disney bunch, Oliver & Company (1988) is nonetheless a decent offering sadly overlooked by fans and critics alike.

The film is nearly forgotten and suffers from a dated quality if not for the widespread knowledge of the classic novel. The film is not one of the storied Disney treasures, nor should it be dismissed altogether.

The result is a darling, innocent experience meant for pure enjoyment.

2018 Films, Documentary, Donald Rumsfeld, George W. Bush, Michael Moore

Fahrenheit 11/9-2018

Leave a comment

Fahrenheit 11/9-2018

Director Michael Moore

Starring Michael Moore

Scott’s Review #817

Reviewed October 5, 2018

Grade: B+

Controversial filmmaker Michael Moore, who has been at the helm of other topical and lively works, does it again with a politically charged documentary, Fahrenheit 11/9 (2018).

Known for other substantial offerings like Roger and Me (1989), Bowling for Columbine (2002), and Fahrenheit 9/11 (2004), the left-wing activist continues his aggressive and thought-provoking ways with an excellent effort.

After the gloomy and divisive 2016 United States Presidential election, it seems inevitable for Moore to create another politically infused documentary.

This critical point in history is the primary focus of his work. Moore asks and analyzes two crucial questions: How did we get here, and how do we get out? In pure Michael Moore controversy, he adds a couple of expletives for good measure.

The documentary itself begins with the surprising, and (to most), now dire buildup to the 2016 election with clips of Hillary Clinton’s assured victory and election night festivities interspersed with the expected loss of Donald Trump.

The Republican Party was not crazy about Trump as a candidate, and the unexpected victory due to the electoral college rule left the United States shocked, appalled, and in a state of peril.

Moore does not simply create a documentary about the election, though. Instead, he crosses into territory including the creation of a dictator (Trump) and how this man’s rise to the presidency mirrors Adolf Hitler’s rise to power in 1930s Germany.

Hitler used a sense of fear and populism among the German people to his advantage and successfully created an “us versus them” mentality.

Trump is doing the same with sour and hateful propaganda.

As many of Moore’s other documentaries do, Fahrenheit 11/9 feels very personal to Moore. It spends a lot of time exploring the poisoned water situation in Flint, Michigan (Moore’s hometown), and the ensuing cover-up by the Governor of Michigan, Rick Snyder.

The largely working-class city (already decimated by numerous GM layoffs) faced a public health emergency due to lead contamination.

So that the subject matter is not completely dour and depressing (though admittedly, I was depressed watching most of the documentary for personal reasons), Moore gleefully adds some humor.

As a camera shot of the director lumbering towards the Snyder headquarters to confront him about the poisoned Flint water and the governor’s reported cover-up, a Snyder employee refuses to drink the water Moore insists is directly from Flint and therefore must be safe.

Moore later waters the lawn of the Governor’s home with a giant fire hose when Snyder refuses to be interviewed.

As liberal-minded as Moore is, he is not afraid to call out members of his party- the Democrats. He shames President Obama for once appearing in Flint, which was viewed as a “saving grace” for the city folks, only to pretend to drink a glass of Flint water while insisting it was safe to drink.

Moore surmises that this stunt turned off the people of Flint, who stayed home on election day, causing Clinton to lose the state of Michigan.

Moore has perhaps never made a more relevant or emotional documentary than he has with Fahrenheit 11/9 (2018). In a tumultuous time in the United States’ history, his documentary is quite opportune to implore people to care about what is happening.

With the 2018 mid-term elections looming, the country is again at the forefront of a pivotal moment in history. Moore’s timing is flawless.

2017 Films, Agnès Varda, Documentary, JR

Faces Places-2017

Leave a comment

Faces Places-2017

Director Agnes Varda, JR

Scott’s Review #816

Reviewed October 3, 2018

Grade: B+

Fans of French culture, landscape, and sophistication will assuredly enjoy Faces Places (2017), a documentary that explores art and creativity.

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

Some scenes of Paris, especially the French countryside, make this a personal treat.

The documentary begins by showing its two main characters, thirty-something JR and eighty-something Agnes Varda, who do not know one another beforehand and miss each other in a coffee shop.

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

Both Varda and JR co-directed this documentary.

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

Paris gets short shrift, but this can be forgiven as rural France (not known as a tourist hotbed) is featured mainly. We experience many local French people living ordinary lives but bringing something treasured to the film.

As Agnes and JR cavort around the rural roads in his pickup truck, they stop in small towns where they have heard of an interesting story.

In one town, a farmer works alone and supports his village—a superhero of sorts. In another town, Varga and JR honor an old woman who has lived in the same house for decades by brandishing her portrait on the exterior of her house. The woman is tearful and emotionally touched.

The dynamic between Agnes and JR is the high point of the documentary.

With more than one generation between them, they begin as acquaintances, but their bond flourishes and grows as the documentary moves along.

Think of the relationship between Ruth Gordon and Bud Cort in the 1971 masterpiece Harold and Maude, save for the romantic element. In a touching moment, JR introduces Agnes to his quite elderly grandmother, and the two women hit it off tremendously.

Varda is particularly interesting because of her contribution to the 1950s French New Wave cinema.

Her usage of location sequences and non-professional actors was unconventional at the time and highly influential. In a tender scene, Varda attempts to visit friend Jean-Luc Godard, but he refuses to see her, evidently now living as a recluse.

Faces Places (2017) is a rich and soulful experience with enough imagination and creativity to inspire viewers.

Although the documentary does not offer as much of the vast French landscape as I had anticipated, it does offer a lesson in the importance of life.

With a startlingly connected duo contributing a whimsical approach to their passion, the result is an inspirational journey everyone can enjoy.

Oscar Nominations: Best Documentary-Feature

Independent Spirit Award Nominations: Best Documentary Feature (won)

2017 Films, Adel Karam, Arabic, Drama, International, International Drama, Kamel El Basha, Ziad Doueiri

The Insult-2017

Leave a comment

The Insult-2017

Director Ziad Doueiri

Starring Adel Karam, Kamel El Basha

Scott’s Review #815

Reviewed October 1, 2018

Grade: B

A Lebanese film nominated for the Best Foreign Language Film Academy award, The Insult (2017) offers its audience what I would categorize as a message film.

A battle of cultures and religions leads to chaos and controversy, culminating in an embattled court case as we also get to know supporting characters.

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

Still, the film is a worthy watch.

The main character, Tony Hanna (Adel Karam), lives with his pregnant wife, Shirine, in a small Lebanese village. Tony works as an automobile mechanic but is a proud member of the Christian community, attending rallies and events.

His village employs Palestinian refugees to perform maintenance repairs, which irritates Tony. When a verbal altercation with middle-aged refugee Yasser (Kamel El Basha) occurs over a broken gutter, a failed apology results in physical violence as the situation rapidly escalates.

The courtroom drama, while compelling, seems a very familiar story.

Other recent foreign-language films, such as A Separation (2011) and Gett: The Trial of Vivian Amsalem (2014), use similar plot devices of family conflict that end up in the courtroom.

Those films are better written and feel more authentic and raw than The Insult. Throughout the film, I kept telling myself I was not watching a Middle Eastern version of Law & Order, but that is what it felt like.

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

I assume the intent was to soften the character over the film’s length when he briefly comes to Yasser’s aid and helps start the man’s car. However, Tony soon reverts to his original stubborn nature.

Yasser is a much more likable fellow, albeit with a temper. Hurling curse words at Tony is why the tension between the two men begins in the first place, and attempted apologies only lead to miscommunication between everyone.

But Yasser gets my vote for the most compassionate character.

In the supporting roles, an interesting (though perhaps not completely necessary) side story exists as the embattled lawyers are revealed to be father and daughter.

The major problem with The Insult is that the entire story seems plot-driven, and each step is created to create a way to build or add tension.

For example, a speeding motorcycle angrily side-swipes Tony and his wife.  The partners are then in peril because their daughter is born prematurely due to stress.

Situations and tensions could have been quickly resolved or smoothed under different circumstances. Therefore, despite some good drama, the tone of the films feels less than authentic and manipulative.

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

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

The Insult (2017) is not a bad watch. It compels the viewer to witness a fascinating story of differing cultures and warring religious beliefs churning two men inside out when faced with conflict.

The film also does a fine job of emitting a peaceful message of coming together as human beings.

An overall rating of “B” is a nice score. Still, given the dozens of potential Best Foreign Language finalists, I am not sure the film entirely “cuts the mustard” for me- indeed, there were superior entries.

But then, this Oscar category’s nominating process has always been a mystery.

Oscar Nominations: Best Foreign Language Film

2017 Films, Claes Bang, Comedy, Dark Comedy, Dominic West, Drama, Elisabeth Moss, International, International Comedy, International Drama, Michael Gracey, Ruben Östlund, Satire, Swedish

The Square-2017

Leave a comment

The Square-2017

Director Ruben Östlund

Starring Claes Bang, Elisabeth Moss

Scott’s Review #814

Reviewed September 28, 2018

Grade: B+

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

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

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

The film’s primary setting is the X-Royal Art Museum in Stockholm, Sweden. The action centers mainly around the museum’s new creative director, Christian (Claes Bang), attempting to introduce a new installation called “The Square.”

A misunderstanding with a youthful public relations firm hired to make the exhibit as accessible as possible leads to controversy.

The film also interjects various subplots that are generally interesting but do not always make logical sense.

Bang is quite compelling in the lead role and the film’s best part for me. He is charismatic and a good father to his two daughters. He helps people experiencing homelessness- even going so far as to help a young woman when nobody else will, only to find his wallet stolen- an unfortunate victim of a scam.

Furthermore, Christian’s desire to create “The Square” is humane and admirable- a safe zone for trust and compassion. The character is a good guy but is also concerned with his status.

Common themes of satire and human beings’ natural hypocritical nature abound. For example, in one scene, Christian, proud to drive his flashy Tesla car and give money to the homeless, is afraid to be seen in a run-down apartment house.

Later, a man with Tourettes syndrome disrupts an interview at the museum and is looked down on by “open-minded people” as a result. The latter scene is quite amusing as the man erupts with various expletives at the most inopportune times.

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

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

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

But what the scene means is perplexing.

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

This experience was so fresh that it brought back wonderful memories of not only the museum but also the gorgeous city of Stockholm itself.

The chemistry between Christian (who is Swedish) and an American reporter, Anne (Elisabeth Moss), does nothing for the film. It feels wholly disjointed and unnecessary, and there is little connection between the two characters.

Engaging in a one-night stand, the duo has a dispute about a used condom. Does Christian think that Anne is desperate enough to use his sperm and impregnate herself? The resulting spat between the two seems meaningless.

The Square (2017) is a very tough film to review.

Oftentimes disjointed and impossible to make heads or tails of, one would be wise to simply “experience” the film on its own merits. I am not sure.

I mainly need to view it again and try to figure out the plot because I am uncertain if that was the intent of director Ruben Oslund.

Having directed the wonderful Force Majeure (2014), a more straightforward and superior film, The Square is worth a watch in its own right.

Oscar Nominations: Best Foreign Language Film

1999 Films, Alyson Hannigan, Casey Affleck, Chris Klein, Chris Weitz, Comedy, Eugene Levy, Jason Biggs, Jennifer Coolidge, Mena Suvari, Natasha Lyonne, Paul Weitz, Seann Williams Scott, Tara Reid

American Pie-1999

Leave a comment

American Pie-1999

Director Paul Weitz

Starring Jason Biggs, Alyson Hannigan

Scott’s Review #813

Reviewed September 23, 2018

Grade: B+

With each generation of film, there seems to be a gross-out comedy that speaks to a young, coming-of-age generation- of the mostly male and jock persuasion.

American Pie (1999) finishes the 1990s strongly with a raunchy story that feels fresh and genuinely funny with precarious situations facing the cast, specifically the protagonist and “everyman”, played by Jason Biggs.

The film is a teen sex comedy of the crudest nature yet engulfed with characters audiences like- not mean-spirited, but rather fun-loving and endearing.

An enormous box office hit at the time, the film was all the rage and brought tawdry new meaning to the Americana staples of apple pie and band camp.

Spawning several sequels throughout the next decade, the franchise successfully brought back the teen comedy genre with strong and highly recognizable characters.

American Pie also brought back the fun to R-rated films and put a nice cherry on top of a creative decade in cinema. The film is not high art, but what it aims to do, it does quite well.

Living a middle to upper-middle-class existence in the suburban USA (presumably Michigan), five high school seniors make a pact to lose their virginity by the time they graduate. Most of the group are nerdy, insecure, and sexually naive, the central character being Jim Levenstein (Biggs).

Most events are taken from his point of view and he is continually advised by his very nerdy father, Noah (Eugene Levy).

The setup is an age-old premise with lots of room for jokes and precarious situations in hilarious form. As Jim has the hots for a sexy foreign exchange student, Nadia, she is out of his league.

In a hilarious scene, a “warm apple pie” incident leads to a webcam setup attempt to watch Nadia change clothes. When events go amiss everyone gains access to the webcam link, and Nadia is sent back to Czechoslovakia in shame.

This leads to a new pursuit for Jim, in geeky band camp girl, Michelle (Alyson Hannigan). Surprisingly, they fall madly in love and have fantastic chemistry.

Some of the supporting characters add energy and sometimes hilarity. Jennifer Coolidge is great as the mother of Stifler (the jock of the group), who has eyes for younger men, specifically Finch.

As they finally consummate their relationship on a basement pool table, Stifler walks in at the worst time and faints in horror. These antics are genuine and fresh, with great acting by all principals.

Coolidge, Hannigan, and Levy are arguably the best secondary characters. Each, in a different way from the others, provides comic relief by crafting interesting nuances to the characters.

Levy, as Jim’s father, is well-meaning, yet bumbling. Every teen cringes at the thought of having a father like Noah, yet the pair share a close bond and a classic father-son relationship, so the character is therefore enamoring.

American Pie was successful at coining new pop-culture phrases such as “warm apple pie”, “milf”, and “this one time in band camp…” that the young generation of the time (myself included) enjoyed giggling over and repeating in glee.

The film set the tone for other similar genre films, but none of them lived up to the chemistry and the charm that American Pie had. This film was better than it ever should have been!

The turn-of-the-century version of Animal House, American Pie (1999) introduces a new generation of young people into the world of comedic, R-rated, raunchy fun. Films like this have been churned out by the numbers, but rarely any are as authentic as this film feels.

The franchise was able to sustain its popularity with well-written sequels, most notably American Pie 2 (2001), which developed the situations more, but the original is a fine blueprint for what good comedy can achieve.

2018 Films, Corin Hardy, Demián Bichir, Gary Dauberman, Horror, Jonas Bloquet, Taissa Farmiga

The Nun-2018

Leave a comment

The Nun-2018

Director Corin Hardy

Starring Taissa Farmiga, Demian Bichir 

Scott’s Review #812

Reviewed September 19, 2018

Grade: B-

A film such as The Nun (2018) is best described as a genre horror film strong on atmosphere, scares, and effects but weak on story, dialogue, or satisfyingly integrating much of the other films.

To stress, the set pieces and foreboding convent where most events occur are tremendously thought out, adding to the stylistic filming; however, the story stinks, making the overall result barely above mediocre.

This story point, which is said to be connected to The Conjuring (2013) and Annabelle (2014), is all but laughable.

Theoretically, The Nun is a prequel, but since the film is set in 1952, the only connection is a super-quick scene in later years. Ed and Lorraine Warren use a character in The Nun as a case study for their audiences.

Admittedly, I have not seen The Conjuring 2 (2016), but from what I can surmise, what remains of The Nun is a stand-alone film. Was the demonic nun in The Conjuring 2? This may make more sense.

The creepy setting in Romania is a superb choice, given its association with Transylvania and Dracula. The film begins with the suicide of a Roman Catholic nun in a gloomy and largely abandoned Monastery.

Having been visited by an unseen force who kills another nun, a vicious demon appearing in the form of a nun looks on menacingly. Father Burke (Demian Bichir) from the Vatican arrives with Sister Irene (Taissa Farmiga) to investigate, where they meet flirtatious local, Frenchie (Jonas Bloquet).

The atmosphere used throughout almost the entirety of the film is spot on and highly effective.

Most of the scenes are set at nighttime (naturally!) and in or around the vicinity of the spooky, gothic monastery. To double, a gorgeous castle in Romania was used. From the dark and narrow hallways to the crucifixes and obvious religious decor, the props and set design shine through.

The best scenes occur within the grounds of the statuesque building, where dozens of graves can be seen. When bells from the graves begin to ring on their own and spirits can be seen lurking, the audience is in for a good scare.

Even the scenes in daylight hours are fraught with creepy tension. When Frenchy comes upon the nun, dead for days, she dangles from the monastery, eyes gouged and covered with feasting crows, as her blood drips onto the front porch.

The camera close-up of the shot is highly effective, as are others involving the typical jolts and creaky floors that have become a cliche in horror films, but somehow feel fresh and invigorating in The Nun.

And the demonic nun, a grimacing Marilyn Manson-type ghoulish figure, is downright scary.

Unfortunately, along with praise must come some criticisms. The story and the logic do not make much sense, and I stopped trying to figure out the plot points halfway through.

Why the Father and Sister are chosen to go alone to investigate is implausible. A silly, brief mention of a Duke in the old days, evoking a curse in the monastery that was “conjured” up during World War II and must be contained again, is hardly a compelling story.

The plot-driven device (and frankly done to death at this point) attempt to forge a romantic connection between Irene and Frenchy never works. How many times in film have we seen a handsome, young man trying to woo a pretty nun away from her calling?

Filmmakers may have added this for humor, and (hopefully) the characters’ intentional or unintentional religious exclamations of “Oh My God!” or “Mother of God!” are laugh-out-loud silly. With a film like The Nun (2018), riveting writing is not on the wish list- great atmosphere and effects are.

The film delivers excellent content and makes for an enjoyable experience with good thrills and scares. Thankfully, for the horror genre, the film is rated a solid “R” and not watered down for PG-13 audiences.

Just be prepared for some hokey writing.

1999 Films, Comedy, Dark Comedy, Gary Cole, Jennifer Aniston, Ron Livingston, Stephen Root

Office Space-1999

Leave a comment

Office Space-1999

Director Mike Judge

Starring Ron Livingston, Jennifer Aniston

Scott’s Review #811

Reviewed September 16, 2018

Grade: B+

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

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

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

But over time will the film become dated?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

She’s cute, but hardly anything more.

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

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

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

2018 Films, Betsy West, Documentary, Julie Cohen, Ruth Bader Ginsburg

RBG-2018

Leave a comment

RBG-2018

Director Betsy West, Julie Cohen

Starring Ruth Bader Ginsburg

Scott’s Review #810

Reviewed September 10, 2018

Grade: B+

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

This production features eighty-four-year-old Ruth Bader Ginsburg. It discusses the inspirational woman’s early life, rise to the top, and views on the current Trump administration, offering a fleshed-out chronicle of the inspirational figurehead.

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

More than once, it is pointed out that Ginsburg, with her tiny stature, pulled-back hair, and thick glasses, was not to be taken seriously in a world of men. Despite her serious demeanor, she nevertheless proved herself against many odds.

The documentary wisely emphasizes Ruth Bader Ginsburg’s current state. It discusses her childhood, parents, family, and friends in detail, but the heart of the film is positioned in the present.

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

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

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

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

RBG—the film—shares sweet moments alongside the legal courtroom facts so that it is not oversaturated by legal jargon and terms.

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

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

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

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

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

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

2018 Films, Björn Runge, Christian Slater, Drama, Elizabeth McGovern, Glenn Close, Jonathan Pryce, Max Irons

The Wife-2018

Leave a comment

The Wife-2018

Director Bjorn Runge

Starring Glenn Close, Jonathan Pryce

Scott’s Review #809

Reviewed September 8, 2018

Grade: A

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

It is mesmerizing to watch her calm demeanor border on cold and calculated in her responses to Nathaniel’s questions.

Joe and Joan’s son David play key roles in all of this. As with Joan, David harbors resentments towards his father, but his rage is more blatant. He yearns for his father’s approval of a newly written story and is angry with every comment his father makes.

Is he simply experiencing jealousy over his father’s talents?

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

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

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

The Wife (2018) is an excellent film that appreciates the talents of its cast.

Stalwarts such as Pryce, Slater, and newcomer Max Irons flesh out the supporting roles, which only enhances Queen Bee Close’s bravura performance.

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

Oscar Nominations: Best Actress-Glenn Close

Independent Spirit Award Nominations: 1 win- Best Female Lead-Glenn Close (won)

2018 Films, Ben Falcone, Brian Henson, Comedy, Elizabeth Banks, Joel McHale, Leslie David Baker, Maya Rudolph, Melissa McCarthy

The Happytime Murders-2018

Leave a comment

The Happytime Murders-2018

Director Brian Henson

Starring Melissa McCarthy, Maya Rudolph

Scott’s Review #808

Reviewed September 6, 2018

Grade: B-

Some consider it the worst film of 2018, but I had no positive expectations as I walked into an empty movie theater.

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

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

Set in modern times, in the underbelly of Los Angeles, puppets live alongside humans and are not treated well. They are constantly bullied and taken for granted.

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

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

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

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

One might find it surprising that the two characters play well off each other, but their adult sparring and frequent vulgar language name-calling are oodles of fun to watch. McCarthy is always fantastic with comic timing, so her fans will not be disappointed.

As they shout vulgar “pleasantries” to each other, one cannot help but smirk.

Maya Rudolph plays an interesting role as Phil’s secretary. Named Bubbles, she is sexy, sultry, and coquettish—an unusual role for Rudolph, but she pulls it off in spades.

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

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

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

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

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

The creations are lively and unique.

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

I adored the Los Angeles setting as the sunny locale perfectly counterbalanced the murderous antics of a hooded killer. The big reveal I did not see coming added to my surprise.

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

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

However, a work like The Happytime Murders (2018) does have its place as perhaps a fun late-night offering.

2001 Films, Comedy, Holland Taylor, Jennifer Coolidge, Linda Cardellini, Luke Wilson, Oz Perkins, Raquel Welch, Reese Witherspoon, Romantic Comedy, Selma Blair

Legally Blonde-2001

Leave a comment

Legally Blonde-2001

Director Robert Luketic

Starring Reese Witherspoon, Luke Wilson

Scott’s Review #807

Reviewed August 30, 2018

Grade: B+

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

By miles, she is the standout in the film.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

2002 Films, Andrea Martin, Comedy, Independent, Independent Comedy, Independent Romantic Comedy, John Corbett, Lainie Kazan, Nia Vardalos, Rita Wilson, Romantic Comedy, Tom Hanks

My Big Fat Greek Wedding-2002

Leave a comment

My Big Fat Greek Wedding-2002

Director Joel Zwick

Starring Nia Vardalos, John Corbett

Scott’s Review #806

Reviewed August 28, 2018

Grade: B+

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Oscar Nominations: Best Original Screenplay

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

2018 Films, Adventure, Alex R. Hibbert, Alexis Louder, Andy Serkis, Angela Bassett, Chadwick Boseman, Danai Gurira, Daniel Kaluuya, Forest Whitaker, Isaach de Bankolé, Lupita Nyong'o, Martin Freeman, Michael B. Jordan, Ryan Coogler, Sebastian Stan, Sterling K. Brown, Super Hero, Winston Duke

Black Panther-2018

Leave a comment

Black Panther-2018

Director Ryan Coogler

Starring Chadwick Boseman, Michael B. Jordan

Scott’s Review #805

Reviewed August 23, 2018

Grade: B+

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Black Panther feels ambitious, like seeing something worth seeing, something inventive and cool. The film is stylized, and Coogler’s direction is spectacular, with bright, colorful visual treats, especially as he features lavish African locales.

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

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

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

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

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

However, despite being manly men, they also contain some sensitivity, and the characters have a unique family element.

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

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

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

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

Oscar Nominations: 3 wins- Best Picture, Best Original Score (won), Best Original Song-“All the Stars”, Best Sound Editing, Best Sound Mixing, Best Production Design (won), Best Costume Design (won)

1995 Films, Brad Pitt, Bruce Willis, Christopher Meloni, Christopher Plummer, LisaGay Hamilton, Madeleine Stowe, Matt Ross, Science Fiction

12 Monkeys-1995

Leave a comment

12 Monkeys-1995

Director Terry Gilliam

Starring Bruce Willis, Madeline Stowe, Brad Pitt

Scott’s Review #804

Reviewed August 21, 2018

Grade: B+

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Blondes anyone?

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

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

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

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

2018 Films, Adam Driver, Alec Baldwin, Biography, Comedy, Corey Hawkins, Crime Drama, Dark Comedy, Drama, Harry Belafonte, John David Washington, Jordan Peele, Laura Harrier, Matthew A. Cherry, Nicholas Turturro, Paul Walter Hauser, Spike Lee, Topher Grace

BlacKkKlansman-2018

Leave a comment

BlacKkKlansman-2018

Director Spike Lee

Starring John David Washington, Adam Driver

Scott’s Review #802

Reviewed August 14, 2018

Grade: A

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

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

A grand and relevant effort that all should watch.

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

The timeline is crucial and influential, as the film clearly demonstrates that racism is still alive and well.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Indeed, not enough time would have been allowed to answer these questions—minor gripe.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Rarely has a more pertinent or meaningful film been made for the current political climate in the United States. BlacKkKlansman (2018) brilliantly ties racism spanning one hundred and fifty years together and shows how it still exists.

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

Oscar Nominations: 1 win-Best Picture, Best Director-Spike Lee, Best Supporting Actor-Adam Driver, Best Adapted Screenplay (won), Best Original Score, Best Film Editing

2003 Films, Ari Graynor, Brian Helgeland, Clint Eastwood, Crime Drama, Drama, Eli Wallach, Emmy Rossum, Kevin Bacon, Laura Linney, Laurence Fishburne, Marcia Gay Harden, Sean Penn, Tim Robbins

Mystic River-2003

Leave a comment

Mystic River-2003

Director Clint Eastwood

Starring Sean Penn, Tim Robbins

Scott’s Review #801

Reviewed August 10, 2018

Grade: A

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

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

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

All of these pieces result in a memorable experience.

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

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

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

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

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

They reunite after a tragedy occurs.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

2004 Films, Adventure, Children, Christmas, Fantasy, Josh Hutcherson, Robert Zemeckis, Steven Tyler, Tom Hanks

The Polar Express-2004

Leave a comment

The Polar Express-2004

Director Robert Zemeckis

Starring Tom Hanks

Scott’s Review #800

Reviewed August 8, 2018

Grade: B+

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

2005 Films, Best Picture Oscar Winners, Brendan Fraser, Daniel Dae Kim, Don Cheadle, Drama, Independent, Independent Drama, Ludacris, Matt Dillon, Michael Pena, Paul Haggis, Ryan Phillippe, Sandra Bullock, Terrence Howard, Thandie Newton, Tony Danza, William Fichtner

Crash-2005

Leave a comment

Crash-2005

Director Paul Haggis

Starring Matt Dillon, Thandie Newton, Don Cheadle

Scott’s Review #799

Reviewed August 3, 2018

Grade: A-

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

2004 Films, Anthony Mackie, Best Picture Oscar Winners, Clint Eastwood, Drama, Hilary Swank, Margo Martindale, Michael Pena, Morgan Freeman, Paul Haggis, Riki Lindhome, Sports

Million Dollar Baby-2004

Leave a comment

Million Dollar Baby-2004

Director Clint Eastwood

Starring Clint Eastwood, Hilary Swank, Morgan Freeman

Scott’s Review #798

Reviewed August 2, 2018

Grade: A

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

2018 Films, Amanda Seyfried, Andy Garcia, Cher, Christine Baranski, Colin Firth, Dominic Cooper, Julie Walters, Lily James, Meryl Streep, Musical, Ol Parker, Pierce Brosnan, Richard Curtis, Stellan Skarsgård, Tom Hanks

Mamma Mia! Here We Go Again-2018

Leave a comment

Mamma Mia! Here We Go Again- 2018

Director Ol Parker

Starring Lily James, Amanda Seyfried

Scott’s Review #797

Reviewed July 31, 2018

Grade: B+

My expectations for Mamma Mia! Here We Go Again (2018) was not lofty, nor was I anticipating drivel. I expected (and was in the mood for) a summer popcorn musical flick with fun and dancing, and little in the way of analysis or requiring too much thought.

I can proudly say that this film fulfilled my expectations —it delivers its intent, and sometimes, that is exactly what the doctor ordered.

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

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

The film serves as both a sequel and a prequel, as events also go back to 1979 when a young Donna (Lily James) graduates from college and embarks on a journey to “find herself”.

She travels extensively and meets her three beaus (anyone who saw the 2008 original will be familiar with this plot), and the film is excellent at pleasingly connecting the events of both films.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Hundreds of party guests show up, Donna’s beaus reunite, and the aforementioned absentee grandmother (Ruby) makes a grand entrance via helicopter (in stiletto heels naturally).

In this way, the grand finale is superior to the rest of the film.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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