All posts by scottmet99

Babette’s Feast-1987

Babette’s Feast-1987

Director Gabriel Axel

Starring Stéphane Audran

Scott’s Review #796

Reviewed July 27, 2018

Grade: A

Babette’s Feast (1987) is a pure delight for any viewer who is a foodie, particularly of stylish French cuisine.

In fact, during the final thirty minutes or so I was salivating with pleasure as a final multiple-course meal was presented before me. The film is rich with “flavor” and tells a wonderful tale of self-sacrifice, benevolence, and good human nature.

The film won the Oscar for Best Foreign Language Film- the very first Danish film to do so.

Adapted from a 1958 short story, Babette’s Feast tells of two elderly and deeply religious Protestant sisters, Martine (Birgitte Federspiel) and Phillipa (Bodil Kjer), who exist in a small village in Denmark.

The sisters have lived there all their lives and, through flashbacks, it is revealed that each had an opportunity for romance with men decades earlier, as young and fresh young ladies. Each resisted the temptation due to the deeply religious beliefs of their disapproving father.

When a delightful French woman, Babette (Stephane Audran), appears on their doorstep with a note from Phillipa’s potential beau, the kindly women take her in.

Babette is a refugee fleeing Paris and offers to serve as the sister’s housekeeper. Babette is filled with life and a passion for cooking and art- largely contrasting the townspeople, who frequently shun pleasures and harbor reserved and repressed feelings for joy.

When Babette wins the lottery and is assumed to depart back to Paris, she instead offers to make the town a lavish, classic french meal.

The film is a pure treat, especially in the final act when Babette decides to prepare an exquisite meal. This is the true highlight of the film and the menu simply must be listed below to wholly appreciate the film.

As each course is served, the film depicts the cooking process, as spices, salts, wines, and reductions are featured, so much so that we wonder, who made such a gorgeous meal when filming transpired? Audran, known to be a gourmet, must have adored this fabulous and creative role!

In order, Babette’s delicious feast consists of turtle soup served with Amontillado sherry, buckwheat pancakes with caviar and sour cream served with Veuve Cliquot Champagne, quail in a puff pastry shell with foie gras and truffle sauce served with Clos de Vougeot Pinot Noir, an endive salad, rum sponge cake with figs and candied cherries served with Champagne, assorted cheeses and fruits served with Sauternes, coffee with Vieux marc Grande Champagne Cognac.

My mouth is watering and my stomach growling as I write this!

Wisely and poignantly, the film heralds the return of Martine’s longtime admirer, Swedish officer Lorens, who escorts his elderly aunt to the dinner. The other dozen or so dinner guests agree not to fuss or voice any reactions to the meal, but Lorens is different.

With each serving, he comments in explicit detail the pleasures of the tastes and fondly recollects an experience with each course. He speaks for the rest of the guests as we see their reactions and the pleasures they exhibit non-verbally.

Tenderly, Lorens confessed that he had never forgotten Martine, and she the same for him. Despite not having seen nor heard from each other in decades, their connection has never wavered, and thus have spent their lives as one.

What a lovely and powerful scene this is and adds romanticism and elegance to the overall film.

The lighting is effective as many scenes seem to bask in an illuminating glow. The whimsical village is well lit with many soft or muted scenes exuding elegance and grace in the tiny living community.

The costumes and styles are meaningful and make the period of the 1800’s realistic. This adds a tremendous amount to the look and texture of Babette’s Feast.

The overall themes of Babette’s Feast (1987) are ones of kindness, forgiveness, enjoyment, and honesty. The characteristics are brought to life by the characters in the film, rich with flavor and taste, and all experienced through the importance and pleasures of food.

What a magnificent piece of film making this work is and the enormity of riches through good dining.

Oscar Nominations: 1 win-Best Foreign Language Film (won)

Transamerica-2005

Transamerica-2005

Director Duncan Tucker

Starring Felicity Huffman, Kevin Zegers

Scott’s Review #795

Reviewed July 25, 2018

Grade: A

Transamerica (2005) is a brave and topical independent drama effort. By 2005 the LGBT genre was in full force with a multitude of similarly themed films gracing silver screens everywhere.

One prominent mainstream production (Brokeback Mountain-2005) was in theaters everywhere. So in a year celebrating diversity, how wonderful and touching to witness a film focused on a transgender woman come into play.

Mixing drama with some needed humor, the film succeeds in large part because it does not take itself too seriously, never becoming too preachy, it merely tells a story. The film’s brilliant casting of Felicity Huffman in the role of a pre-op male to a female transsexual is a success as the decision to cast a female rather than a male in the important role pays off in spades.

The premise allows for a story of both adventure and humor as the film mixes an important issue.

A transgender woman, Bree (Huffman) decides to go on a road trip with her long-lost son, Toby (Kevin Zegers). The intrigue is that Toby is unaware that Bree is both transgender and his father, the fun coming by way of the relationship between the individuals. Adding to the setup is that a week before Bree’s scheduled operation, she has no idea who Toby is.

Encouraged by her therapist, Bree decides to throw caution to the wind and travel to pick up her son- however, does not realize that Bree (being transgender) is his real father. Talk about complicated material!

I love the overall message of the film; the theme being one of self-discovery and a personal journey toward happiness. These qualities do not only apply to Bree but also to Toby. Being a teenage boy, abused and neglected, he has his share of issues, which the film does not skirt over.

The areas of male prostitution and gay porn are featured and the film does its best not to shy away from these sensitive matters.

Therefore, even though the tone of the film is light and more of a coming-of-age story, there are underlying painful emotions suffered by the characters. This makes their bonding easier and more fulfilling.

Without a doubt, the film belongs to Huffman, who was honored with a Best Actress Oscar nomination. No offense to that year’s winner (Reese Witherspoon for Walk the Line (2005), but the rightful owner of the statuette should be Huffman.

The actress simply comes out of nowhere and slays this role. Known for playing a different type of role on the hit television series, ABC’s Desperate Housewives, Bree is in a different league entirely.

Huffman possesses strength, vulnerability, and sarcasm, while physically undertaking a transformation that makes her both feminine and masculine while not becoming a “joke.” All of this she pours into the character.

Transamerica (2005) is an unconventional film that on the surface feels mainstream, like many other road trip films made over the years. With a twist and thus a breath of fresh air considering the importance and relevance of the time-released, the film should be championed.

When combined with the tremendous performance by Huffman, the film is a heavyweight and should be viewed and celebrated for its influence.

Oscar Nominations: Best Actress-Felicity Huffman, Best Original Song-“Travelin’ Thru”

Independent Spirit Award Nominations: 2 wins-Best Female Lead-Felicity Huffman (won), Best First Screenplay (won), Best First Feature

The Dead Girl-2006

The Dead Girl-2006

Director Karen Moncrieff

Starring Brittany Murphy, Toni Collette

Scott’s Review #794

Reviewed July 24, 2018

Grade: A

The Dead Girl (2006) is a unique independent drama with a moody, gloomy underbelly, and is quite the downer, however is also a masterpiece.

Reminiscent of David Lynch’s Mulholland Drive (2001), the remote and dark setting perfectly counter-balances the traditional image of sunny California as a young woman’s murder is discovered.

Writer and director, Karen Moncrieff spins a delicious tale in the mysterious and sinister.

Moncrieff, (a former daytime television actress), wisely carves the film into five chapters- each focusing on a different character. The clever approach, since at first it seems as if the stories are independent of each other, is all intertwined.

The mystery of who the woman is, why she was killed, and other major questions come into play as the chapters unfold. To twist the drama even further, one of the chapters is revealed to be a complete red herring.

The five chapters are each compelling in their way.

Chapter one focuses on Arden (Toni Collette) and her relationship with her abusive mother- deliciously played by Piper Laurie. Arden has a love interest in Rudy (Giovanni Ribisi), who she confides in when she discovers the “Dead Girl”.

The film then moves to various other chapters entitled “The Sister”, “The Wife”, “The Mother”, and finally “The Dead Girl”, which is from the perspective of the murder victim when final clues are revealed.

The last chapter is the best and most heartbreaking in my opinion.

The casting is just wonderful as a myriad of top talents appear in the film. With low-budget independent films, especially before 2006, finding big stars willing to accept little pay was quite difficult.

Moncrieff, however, scores big with the actors cast in her film.

Mainly an all-female cast, talents like Collette, Laurie, Mary Beth Hurt, Brittany Murphy, and Marcia Gay Harden round out the all-star cast. Names like these could fill up a Hollywood marquee let alone a small indie like The Dead Girl.

Speaking of Murphy, this may be the very best role of her career. Sadly, meeting death shortly after this film, she gives a mesmerizing performance in the title role- also known as Krista.

With heavy, gothic-style makeup, her character is vulnerable, having had a difficult childhood and struggling to send an enormous teddy bear to her daughter on her birthday.

Tragically, events do not go as planned for Krista, but what a bravura performance by Murphy.

The overall tone of the film is a great achievement and key to its success.  The film is small and does not need explosions, car chases, or police banter to achieve the message it relays.

The Dead Girl is a quiet film about struggles, decisions, and wounded characters dealing with the life that they have been given the best they can.

The mysterious identities of the characters and the loneliness and lack of identity of some of the characters make me think Moncrieff was at least somewhat inspired by Lynch’s Mulholland Drive.

Not quite as oddball as the former, but more of a downer, The Dead Girl shows elements by way of unusual characters and a melancholy vibe.

The latter focuses more on a serial killer subject matter.

Being a huge proponent of the genre of independent film (think modern 1970s films with directors who have a clear vision), The Dead Girl is an enormous achievement.

Despite a handful of Independent Spirit Award nominations, I still feel the film is under-appreciated and a decade later is largely forgotten, if anyone knew about it, to begin with.

Let’s hope that enough young, aspiring filmmakers were inspired by Moncrieff and what she created with The Dead Girl (2006).

Independent Spirit Award Nominations: Best Feature, Best Director-Karen Moncrieff, Best Supporting Female-Mary Beth Hurt

Notes on a Scandal-2006

Notes on a Scandal-2006

Director Richard Eyre

Starring Judi Dench, Cate Blanchett

Scott’s Review #793

Reviewed July 23, 2018

Grade: A

A British drama centering on the world of teachers, illicit affairs, and sexuality, Notes on a Scandal (2006) is a superlative effort with thrills and drama galore.

Featuring heavyweights like Judi Dench and Cate Blanchett there is no way this film could be a dud based on the acting alone. The chemistry between the women and the carefully crafted thrills created by director, Richard Eyre, make the film a compelling joy to view- perhaps multiple times for additional entertainment.

The story is told mainly from the perspective of Barbara Covett (Dench), a rigid and bored schoolteacher nearing retirement at a comprehensive school in London, where she teaches.

Barbara is a spinster and a closeted lesbian, constantly writing in her journal for comfort- this is the main narrative of the story and is tremendously effective.

When a young and attractive art teacher, Sheba Hart (Blanchett), arrives on the scene, Barbara fancies her and is determined to get closer. After Sheba begins an illicit affair with a male student, Barbara discovers the shenanigans and uses the situation to her advantage.

The scandal results in both women’s careers being at risk as well as Sheba’s troubled home life coming to fruition.

Notes on a Scandal is a good, solid, psychological thriller/drama with enough twists and turns to compel the viewer. The film is not very long- at one hour and thirty-two minutes, there is hardly time for lagging.

The best achievements, however, are with the superior acting of the two leads. With other lesser talents, this film might have suffered from too much melodrama and not enough meat. With great acting chops, Dench and Blanchett do not let this happen and instead treat the audience to a riveting affair.

As fantastic as Blanchett is, Dench’s Barbara is the standout and takes center stage throughout the film.

Interestingly, despite both actresses being leads, Dench received an Oscar nomination for Best Actress, while Blanchett went supporting. But there is no question that both actresses deserved the praises they reaped- and then some.

Dench turns in such a delicious performance that she makes the film arguably the reason to watch it. Wearing no makeup and dressed as conservatively as imaginable, an icy stare or thoughtful gaze will run shivers up and down the viewer’s spine.

As conflict and drama unfold, Barbara proves she is nobody to be messed with. Still, the character has an underlying vulnerable quality, simply yearning for affection and love from another woman. One wonders if she has ever really had the love she deserves.

Dench is brilliant at revealing all of Barbara’s underlying nuances.

The film poses an interesting moral question that will leave some viewers undoubtedly not a fan of Sheba’s. The fact that she lusts after an underage male, Steven Connolly (Andrew Simpson), and has relations with him, while having a husband and handicapped child at home may be too much for some.

Surely, the character will not be championed by many, but I found Sheba complex and difficult to grasp. This complexity is to the filmmaker’s credit and allows for a more layered character study of both Sheba and Barbara- neither is cut and dry.

An interesting aside of the film is what if the genders of the roles were reversed? Would the film have the same effect if Sheba were a male character and Steven was a teenage girl? What if Barbara were a straight woman? What if Barbara was a gay male character?

These other possibilities left me wondering as I watched the film. Wisely, I think director Eyre got things just right.

Notes on a Scandal (2006) is a film that reminds me of a British version of Fatal Attraction (1987) meets Single White Female (1992).

The story holds elements of each and was adapted from a 2003 novel of the same name. With frightfully good performances by both Dench and Blanchett, this film is a memorable thriller not to be missed.

Oscar Nominations: Best Actress-Judi Dench, Best Supporting Actress-Cate Blanchett, Best Adapted Screenplay, Best Original Score

Babel-2006

Babel-2006

Director Alejandro G. Iñárritu

Starring Brad Pitt, Cate Blanchett

Scott’s Review #791

Reviewed July 19, 2018

Grade: A

Babel (2006) is part of director Alejandro G. Iñárritu’s “Death Trilogy” films- Amores Perros (2000) and 21 Grams (2001) are the others. The director crafts a riveting drama involving intersecting stories that are a thrill ride a minute and highly compelling.

The film is at risk of being forgotten, however, largely due to Iñárritu’s subsequent successes- Birdman (2014) and The Revenant (2015), but Babel is a fantastic companion piece to either Traffic (2000) or Crash (2006), as those films hold a similar style.

The three stories are riveting in their own right and could each be a gripping short film of their own. The fact that characters within each segment are related to the others in some way takes the stories over the top.

The film switches back and forth within each story which is a huge plus, making the tension even more palpable as we begin to connect the dots. The spliced editing is a remarkable achievement in making the continuity seamless.

Each story is summarized below.

An affluent American couple, Richard and Susan (Brad Pitt and Cate Blanchett), vacation in Morocco, happily enjoying a bus tour.

When two local boys play with their father’s rifle and experiment by shooting at long-range, the American woman is shot, leading to a terrorist accusation while the couple desperately seeks medical attention in the middle of nowhere and in a foreign country.

In Japan, a wealthy businessman (and owner of the rifle), is investigated while his promiscuous teenage daughter (Rinko Kikuchi) seeks attention from young men.

The girl, deaf, is angry and depressed due to her mother’s recent suicide.

As she flirts with a local detective, she slips him a mysterious note and implores him to read the note only after he leaves her father’s gorgeous high-rise apartment, leading to a mysterious revelation.

Finally, in southern California, Richard and Susan’s Mexican nanny, Amelia (Adriana Barraza), cares for the couple’s young children. Almost like a real family member, Amelia adores the kids (and they love her.)

When she is notified that the couple will be delayed returning home, she panics and foolishly takes the kids across the border to Mexico to attend her son’s wedding.

When an incident allows the police to become involved, Amelia and the kid’s lives are in peril.

The connecting stories are only part of what makes Babel so fantastic, but an enormous aspect is the direction Iñárritu has the characters go in.

As the stories play out we care deeply for the characters which play a great role in adding meat to each story.

Sometimes the connections of the characters are immediately known, other times the audience can savor the inevitable big reveal. Not every story featured in Babel will have a happy ending, which makes the film all the more compelling and satisfying.

How incredible are the different locales and cultures featured in Babel from a geographical perspective alone?

The action traverses from the hip, modern metropolis of Tokyo, with slick nighttime sequences dance clubs, and urban hip-hop beats.

The deserts of remote Morocco with the vast and sweeping lands mix perfectly with the hot Mexican atmosphere and the cultural nuances of a real Mexican wedding.

Another key element is the different backgrounds of the characters and the conflict this sometimes leads to. As Richard frantically seeks medical attention for Susan, he is met with resistance from some while receiving aid from a local veterinarian.

At the border of Mexico and the United States, Amelia and her brother are not treated well by Border patrol. One cannot help knowing that this is because they are Mexican and carrying American children, thus discriminated against.

Wonderful call-outs are deserved for relatively unknown actors, Kikuchi and Barraza, both of whom received tremendous accolades in 2006 for their work when they could have easily been overlooked in favor of bigger, high-profile stars like Blanchett and Pitt.

I love when this happens and gritty performances find their due respect. Both actors give great performances in complex, layered characters.

Since making Babel Iñárritu has progressed to great acclaim with Oscar winners like Birdman and The Revenant, but let’s not forget that Babel received a heap of Oscar nominations, though sadly only one victory for the musical score.

Unfortunately usurped by his more high-profile works, Babel (2006) is an excellent, fast-paced, and layered film with spectacular characters, story-telling, and editing.

Oscar Nominations: 1 win-Best Picture, Best Director-Alejandro G. Iñárritu, Best Supporting Actress-Adriana Barraza, Rinko Kikuchi, Best Original Screenplay, Best Original Score (won), Best Film Editing

La Vie en Rose-2007

La Vie en Rose-2007

Director Olivier Dahan

Starring Marion Cotillard

Scott’s Review #790

Reviewed July 18, 2018

Grade: A

As a true fan of French actress Marion Cotillard, La Vie en Rose (2007) is the tremendously talented lady’s finest role to date- and I would venture to say one of the best in film history.

She immerses herself into the pivotal role of singer Edith Piaf and churns out a breathtaking performance.

Besides the vehicle to showcase her acting chops, the film as a whole is lovely, offering the poignant life story of the troubled star, adding enough French zest to offer more than just a biography.

The way that the plot is constructed is quite interesting as the story of Edith Piaf is told in a non-linear fashion. The highly complex singer’s biography is recounted first telling elements of her childhood and concluding with events occurring shortly before her death.

Her childhood is difficult so she is raised by her grandmother in a bordello and discovered on the streets to begin her meteoric rise to acclaim. The events of the film are known to be fairly accurate making the song-stresses life story awe-inspiring.

The visual aspects and cinematography elements of La Vie en Rose are lovely.  With soft, muted tones, the film is rich with culture and has a wonderful French way about it.

Since the story commences in 1918 the period is fraught with a rich history including World War II and a lavish trip to New York City where Edit performs.

To say nothing of the lavish Parisian settings, the “look” of the film is enough reason to watch in wonderment.

Enough praise cannot be reaped upon Cotillard as Piaf and as enjoyable and profound as the film itself is, the casting of the French actress is both perfect and unimaginable to think of anyone else in the role.

As treasured a performance as Cotillard gives, the filmmakers wisely choose to leave Piaf’s actual voice in the musical numbers. Anyone else mimicking her would be unimaginable and frankly insulting. And an imitator would not have served the film well.

Regardless of the voice-overs, Cotillard delivers such a flawless and brave performance that it makes the film what it is. Piaf was known as a very difficult woman to deal with both personally and professionally, though there were many sympathetic qualities to her given her tough life.

Cotillard’s facial expressions and mannerisms perfectly mimic the star’s qualities so much so that the actress seemingly becomes the singer. The actress deservedly won the Best Actress Academy Award for her layered performance.

The final scene of the film is both profound and ghastly. A very ill Edith, looking haggard, clown-like with heavy makeup, decides to take the stage for the final time, aware that she is dying.

Refusing to cancel her show, she performs her well-known number, “Non, Je ne regrette rien”. She then exits the stage in a frail manner and dies shortly thereafter. She was the consummate professional and star until the moment of her death. This particular scene is a wonderful culmination of the film.

La Vie en Rose (2007) solely judged as a biopic is a very good piece of filmmaking that tells a graceful, sometimes moving story of incredible talent.

With a performance such as Cotillard’s the film goes to another level and the performance becomes the main event. The emotions and the characteristics the actress undertakes are astounding and go down as one of the finest depictions in cinematic history.

Oscar Nominations: 2 wins-Best Actress-Marion Cotillard (won), Best Makeup (won), Best Costume Design

Love, Simon-2018

Love, Simon-2018

Director Greg Berlanti

Starring Nick Robinson

Scott’s Review #789

Reviewed July 17, 2018

Grade: B+

Love, Simon (2018) is a friendly, mainstream, LGBT film focused on a likable central character. Given the myriad dark films within this genre, the film is refreshing, usually ensconced in the independent genre.

Finally, a wholesome, family-oriented “coming out” story is upon us, and the film succeeds in spades. Perhaps a shade too “happily ever after” with a couple of stereotypes among the supporting characters, Love. Simon is a film to be heralded and certainly recommended.

Popular high school senior Simon (Nick Robinson) has a close circle of friends, hip parents, and an affluent existence in the suburban USA. Seemingly “having it all,” he is nonetheless filled with angst and harbors a deep secret—he is gay.

Closeted, he finds solace with a similarly closeted male student through the school website.

Determined to find out who his classmate is, he embarks on a way to discover his secret crush’s identity while being blackmailed by another schoolmate.

Young newcomer Nick Robinson is an absolute gem and carries the movie successfully. This is in stark contrast to another 2018 release starring a newcomer who failed (A Wrinkle in Time). Alas, Robinson has charm, charisma, wholesome looks, and an earnest persona, which are perfect traits for a coming-of-age film such as Love, Simon.

The audience will instantly root for the teen to find happiness and come to terms with the dreaded coming out to family and friends, which any gay person can relate to.

An enormous positive to the film is that Simon is okay with being gay- it’s the telling of other people that bothers him. He daydreams about starting fresh next year as an out and proud college freshman.

He worries that coming out will ruin his final year of high school and change his relationships with his circle of friends. But he is never ashamed or self-harming in his preference for men.

Lesser, but still significant, high points to the film are the rich diversity among the supporting players.

Several of Simon’s friends are black, and his parents are liberal, open-minded, and well-rounded. Of course, they will be accepting of their son’s chosen lifestyle.

Love, Simon also features diversity among the teachers. The theater teacher is not only black but also a champion for LGBT fairness. These qualities are always a breath of fresh air in film, especially when the target audience undoubtedly is younger.

The filmmakers succeed at breaking a key barrier with Love, Simon. As often is the case, LGBT-themed films target the LGBT audience, which makes sense.

In the case of Love, Simon, the film is an experience that the entire family can watch together, regardless of anyone’s sexual preferences. This detail is critical, as LGBT matters should be considered daily.

At the risk of pigeon-holing, the fact that Simon is masculine and popular and not the slightest bit effeminate or girly is undoubtedly a key to the film’s success.

On that note, the film does add an extremely effeminate and outgoing supporting character named Ethan. I am not sure this character is necessary other than to contrast with Simon.

Perhaps to drive the point home, Simon is a cool, macho guy, and Ethan is not. In one scene, it is assumed that Simon and Ethan are boyfriends, and Simon seems mildly disgusted by this. I’m not sure this subplot works or serves the film’s overall message very well.

Love, Simon contains frequently seen supporting character types that bring us seasoned filmgoers back to the days of the 1980s teen coming-of-age films like Pretty in Pink (1986) and Sixteen Candles (1984).

Several subplots involving characters having crushes on other characters, while another character likes them, are added to the mix for fun and a little drama.

The conclusion is sweet as the initial mystery of “who is the other gay student?” is finally revealed amid a lovely scene of Simon waiting on a Ferris wheel for his online admirer to arrive.

In a purely inclusive moment, the entire school surrounds the newly united couple and beams with pride as the duo tenderly kisses. Mass audience members are exposed to a heartfelt moment and an enormous lesson in dignity and spirit.

Director Greg Berlanti creates a lovely Hollywood film that is rich with diversity, a powerful story, and an inclusive element.

Sure, the film is not heavy and either skims over or misses discussions of powerful emotions that many gay youngsters face, but it is nonetheless a brave and necessary story in its own right.

Love, Simon (2018) is classy, tender, and quite a pleasant experience.

A Wrinkle in Time-2018

A Wrinkle in Time- 2018

Director Ava DuVernay

Starring Storm Reid, Oprah Winfrey, Reese Witherspoon

Scott’s Review #788

Reviewed July 16, 2018

Grade: C

A Wrinkle in Time (2018) is a film I had high hopes for, given the enormous marketing push, first-rate cast, and especially the acclaimed female director involved with the project, Ava DuVernay (Selma, 13th).

Additionally, having admired the 1962 novel, I expected a rich, earthy, and mysterious experience. Sadly, whether it be a “too many cooks in the kitchen” situation given the star power involved, or some other factors leading to a disconnect, this film disappointed me.

It’s not terrible, but it suffers from miscasting, too much CGI, and a story that is not very compelling.

Thirteen-year-old Meg (Storm Reid) is having a tough time in school. Smack dab in the “awkward phase,” she is picked on by schoolmates because her father (Chris Pine) has disappeared, presumably having ditched the family.

In reality, he is a scientist transported to another world after solving the question of humanity’s existence.

After Meg and her family are visited by a strange woman named Mrs. Whatsit (Reese Witherspoon), Meg, her little brother Charles Wallace, and Meg’s crush, Calvin, time-travel to find a way to save her father.

Fans who have read the fantastic novel written by Madeleine L’Engle will most certainly be disappointed since many details of the film are vastly different from the written page.

DuVernay attempts to take the film out of the 1960s and into 2018 (I have no issue with that), but the film feels so slick and modern with the visual elements and heavy use of CGI that the story suffers enormously.

The film is gorgeous, especially in the sweeping outdoor scenes, but in this case, too many bells and whistles spoil A Wrinkle in Time.

The three strange women characters, Mrs. Whatsit, Mrs. Who (Mindy Kaling), and Mrs. Which (Oprah Winfrey), are completely butchered. In the novel, each is portrayed as peculiar, mysterious, and similar to witches: frumpy, awkward, yet lovable.

In the film, however, they are colorful, glamorous, and empowered, but lack uniqueness or intrigue.

I am all for female empowerment, but the characters just felt wrong.

Kaling is fine in the most minor role, but in the case of Witherspoon and Winfrey, it appears to be a case of “we have big stars, let’s find roles for them.” A tough sell with Mrs. Which is to think of Oprah as anyone other than….well, Oprah!

Witherspoon’s attempts to be goofy and the comic relief of the film do not work.

The casting of newcomer Storm Reid is lackluster. I have no issue with the character of Meg being changed to bi-racial, I feel that’s a plus in the modern age. However, the actress is not the greatest, appearing both sullen and wooden in various scenes.

Nor does she have any chemistry with her love interest, Calvin.

This is a shame since the theme of young love would have been a nice addition to the film and was a coming-of-age element in the novel.

At the risk of being overly critical, A Wrinkle in Time is not a total disaster either. The progressive and heroic message of the overall film is quite inspiring if kids watch the film (and since it is Disney-produced and heavily advertised, I can see no reason why they wouldn’t), they will be exposed to a nice message of good conquering evil.

On a side note, the villain is safe and hardly conjures up much fright, so parents need not worry about the film being too scary.

With heaps of buzz and anticipation regarding A Wrinkle in Time (2018), the film seemed poised to become a blockbuster hit and a great spring flick. Instead, critics and audiences alike have largely derided it.

With creative genius, star power, and a considerable budget, something ran amok as the final product is fair to middling.

Let’s hope director Ava DuVernay gets her groove back with her next project- I expected more.

Sorry, Haters-2005

Sorry, Haters-2005

Director Jeff Stanzler

Starring Robin Wright

Scott’s Review #787

Reviewed July 12, 2018

Grade: A

Sorry, Haters (2005) is a small, indie film that was not well received by audiences or necessarily by many film critics, but that I am a champion of.

The film is a little-known gem and a showcase piece for star Robin Wright, who has become quite the indie queen over the years. Thankfully, the film did receive some recognition via two independent film nominations, which is how I heard of it.

Regardless, Wright gives a fantastic performance as a troubled television executive who becomes involved with a Muslim taxi driver in New York City, panic-stricken post 9/11.

Ashade (Abdel Kechiche), struggles with driving a cab and the myriad of family issues he faces, including legal troubles. When an upscale, white woman, Phoebe (Wright) enters his cab one night, she insists on forging a friendship, but what is her motivation?

She immediately seems slightly unbalanced and tense.

Reluctant, but needing her help, Ashade’s life becomes entangled with hers as Phoebe offers Ashade assistance. But when her true motivations are revealed, the audience will never see the terrific and terrifying conclusion coming.

The film is very dark in tone and hardly a feel-good film. The best facet of Sorry, Haters is the complicated relationship between Phoebe and Ashade and how this plays out within the story.

More accurate is the complex dynamic of Phoebe herself as her motivations are slowly revealed.

As great as Kechiche is, the standout is Wright, but both play well opposite each other. Her role is more developed and the centerpiece as the audience slowly becomes aware of her dark secrets and disturbing behaviors.

Phoebe immediately claims to be going through a divorce and hires Ashade to drive her to nearby New Jersey to observe her ex-husband. She talks his ear off, recounting how she has lost her family. This scene becomes the first clue that Phoebe may be unbalanced.

As the film progresses, this becomes more obvious. As Phoebe dines with colleagues, she engages in reluctant conversation as she violently cuts her leg with a fork underneath the table for some relief.

Wright can do no wrong as an actress appearing in numerous films over the years. She is not a “box office” type of actress and this is to her credit.  She chooses independent films that allow her to sink her teeth into good, meaty, complex, female roles.

The role of Phoebe is of that ilk. The character is unstable and borders on madness and has rage bubbling under the surface. Wright portrays these emotions successfully.

Let’s not forget the other leading actor- Kechiche is purely dynamic in the male leading role. The audience will undoubtedly sympathize right away with this man and the character.

Since the period is so close to the events of 9/11, and the character is Muslim (some big clues to the climactic conclusion here), the man is a prime target for discrimination.

Since his brother is imprisoned and needs a legal team, Ashade is quite vulnerable and ultimately at Phoebe’s mercy.

The interesting dynamic between Phoebe and Ashade is that they do not share a romantic relationship at all. Developing a friendship based on need, there is something not right with the situation, and director Jeff Stanzler provides the appropriate mood with many scenes occurring either at night or in the confines of Ashade’s taxi.

Dialogue frequently seems awkward between the two.

Despite not being an easy film to watch, Sorry, Haters (2005) is a film with a powerful message and great scenery of one of the most vibrant cities in the world.

The film is dark, even dour, but above all contains a powerful message with a timely subject matter. Rich in character development between the leads and the maniacal motivations of some.

I found the film to be topical, riveting, and disturbing.

Independent Spirit Award Nominations: Best Female Lead-Robin Wright Penn, Best Screenplay

Slumdog Millionaire-2008

Slumdog Millionaire-2008

Director Danny Boyle

Starring Dev Patel, Freida Pinto

Scott’s Review #786

Reviewed July 11, 2018

Grade: A-

Winner of the 2008 Best Picture Oscar (as well as seven other Academy Awards), Slumdog Millionaire (2008) arguably was the “feel good” film of the year.

While I am not sure if all of those awards are ultimately deserved, the film is nonetheless very good, offering a mixture of good culture, a young man overcoming enormous odds, and a love story.

Fans of the universal game show hit, Who Wants to Be a Millionaire, will be pleased.

Young Dev Patel (critically acclaimed for 2016’s Lion) stars as a poor young Indian man, Jamal Malik. He is detained after being a contestant on Who Wants to Be a Millionaire after he comes one question away from winning a million dollars.

The producers go on a commercial break and Jamal is whisked away to custody as suspicions are aroused and the young man is accused of cheating. Since he is a “slumdog” and poorly educated, it is assumed there is no way possible he could know all the answers.

Jamal recounts, via flashbacks, through experience, how he came to know all of the correct answers.

Director, Danny Boyle does a fantastic job directing the film. Slumdog Millionaire is edited in a fast-paced fashion and the camera angles are quick and stylized, making for an excellent flow.

The soundtrack to the film is very effective and enhances the plot. For example, the music is extremely diverse and features genres such as traditional Indian classical music, European house music, and American-style hip hop.

This is an ingenious way for Boyle to incorporate multiple cultures and he, therefore, creates a rousing crowd-pleasing experience.

Another successful aspect of the film is its use of knowledge and intelligence to tell a story. As we experience Jamal’s difficult life beginning as a five-year-old orphan, the unlikely success story and his adventures on the streets are engulfed in both life lessons and education.

The audience is learning important details about the world while Jamal simultaneously is.

The romantic, love-story featured in Slumdog Millionaire is also a highlight and extremely well-crafted. Heartbreakingly, Jamal, his older brother Salim, and the lovely Latika (later played by the gorgeous Freida Pinto) are on the run when Latika vanishes.

Her disappearance and later reappearance are vital aspects to the heart of the film and Patel and Pinto make a handsome and highly likable couple. Their reconciliation is heartfelt and beautiful and gives the film a nice emotional investment.

The incorporation of a relevant and acclaimed game show into the story is wonderful, though hopefully as the years go by, the film does not suffer from a dated feel if and when Who Wants to Be a Millionaire is long forgotten, but alas this is a risk and only time will tell.

The glossy set and for American audiences, the Indian-style version of the game show is great fun as are the Indian locales, which visually dazzle.

A slight detraction of Slumdog Millionaire is the film is unquestionably uplifting and light feeling. Even though the characters face peril and dangerous experiences, the film just “feels” safe.

So much so that qualities such as slick and mainstream resound.

Don’t get me wrong, the film is genuine and has heart and soul, but just slightly too cheery. Of course, since the film is made well and the story and the acting great, this can easily be overlooked.

Slumdog Millionaire (2008) is a wonderful piece of work and is quite simply a film that lots of people will champion.  All of the elements are perfectly in place, which is a main selling point and a prime reason for the film’s many accolades.

The romance and adventure pieces are the best parts- with a quick flow and lots of fun, educational tools utilized.

The film is a nice pleasure to experience.

Oscar Nominations: 7 wins-Best Picture (won), Best Director-Danny Boyle (won), Best Adapted Screenplay (won), Best Original Score (won), Best Original Song-“Jai Ho”, “O Saya”, Best Sound Editing, Best Sound Mixing (won), Best Cinematography (won), Best Film Editing (won)

We Need to Talk About Kevin-2011

We Need to Talk About Kevin-2011

Director Lynne Ramsay

Starring Tilda Swinton, Ezra Miller, John C. Reilly

Scott’s Review #785

Reviewed July 9, 2018

Grade: A

We Need to Talk About Kevin (2011) is a tremendously disturbing independent drama with eerie similarities to the infamous Columbine school shooting massacre.

The point of view of the film is from the perspective of Eva (Tilda Swinton), a haggard, troubled mother doubting her love for her violent teen son.

Swinton was shamefully overlooked for an Academy Award nomination despite her brilliant and breathtaking role. The overall film itself is equally astounding and powerful.

Adapted from a Lionel Shriver novel, the events of the film begin in present times after tragedy has occurred. Eva, once a successful, writer of affluent means, now lives alone in a rundown house near a prison where she frequently visits her son Kevin (Ezra Miller).

She is now reduced to working a mundane job in a travel agency while terrorized by neighbors who blame her for her son’s machinations. Chillingly, Eva ponders the warning signs Kevin exhibited throughout his childhood and tortures herself with thoughts of what she could have done differently to prevent the shootings and the death of her loved ones.

Uniquely, the film segues to before Kevin was even born. Eva and her husband Franklin (John C. Reilly), happily welcome their baby boy, but he is immediately “not right” and difficult and cold towards her.

This behavior continues over the years as Kevin is distant towards Eva, but warm and adoring towards his father, leading to mental games and the death of a pet. When Eva and Franklin have another child things get progressively worse leading to tragic events.

The film is a pure masterpiece with riveting acting performances all around (especially Swinton) and a slow, plodding pace. This is a perfect aspect of the film because there is a continuous gloomy and moody vibe.

Director, Lynne Ramsay, reveals all in the beginning moments of the film so we know how events will transpire, but the pure enjoyment is the development of the characters.

Dad, Franklin, and daughter, Celia, are around, but the film belongs to the characters of Eva and Kevin and their relationship with each other.

Many questions will be asked throughout the film (I know I asked myself these questions).

Should any blame be cast upon Eva or is she purely innocent? How about Franklin? Is Kevin just a “bad kid”? Was Eva wrong for breaking Kevin’s arm in anger, or justified? Should Eva have never had kids because of her earlier doubts? Should she have been more proactive in getting treatment for Kevin?

Swinton delivered her career-best performance and while she was recognized with a Golden Globe nomination, the ultimate gold statuette (Oscar) alluded to her. I find this to be troubling especially since she won for 2007’s Michael Clayton, a very good performance, but not on the same level as Eva.

Swinton is one of the great modern actresses and hopefully, great roles will continue to follow this treasured star.

Almost on par with Swinton is a young talent, Ezra Miller. A relative newcomer in 2011 he appeared in the indie gem The Perks of a Wallflower (2012) and in later years traversed into more mainstream fare like Trainwreck (2015) and Suicide Squad (2016).

We Need to Talk About Kevin remains his best and most challenging effort.

One of the best sequences occurs during the school massacre scene. Shot at night time (and in my adopted hometown of Stamford, Connecticut!) the sequence involves flashing police lights and chaos as Eva approaches the school in horror. With no dialogue, we see Kevin enter the school and render the doors useless as an escape route.

Terrified students are murdered as Kevin erupts with maniacal rage. The scene is downright chilling and incredibly effective.

2017’s The Killing of a Sacred Deer reminds me quite a bit of We Need to Talk About Kevin in tone and style, so much so that I wonder if the latter was watched and studied before the former.

Either way, the duo could be watched subsequently for a double-dose of teenage maniacs.

With a bleak and dark tone, We Need to Talk About Kevin (2011) offers a story that has a clear message. Never discussing the hot topic of gun control, guns are not used in the slaughter, a bow is, weapon restrictions will nevertheless be an obvious discussion point.

This film is one to be observed, savored, dissected, and thought about after the finale, and is one to be remembered as a great piece of cinema.

The Disaster Artist-2017

The Disaster Artist-2017

Director James Franco

Starring James Franco, Dave Franco

Scott’s Review #781

Reviewed July 2, 2018

Grade: B

The Disaster Artist (2017) is a biography-comedy that I found to be middle of the road to primarily good if I’m judging in overall terms- most I liked with a bit of criticism.

Due to the many accolades, I confess to having anticipated a bit more from the finished product and hardly finding it a masterpiece.

Still, I was both impressed and unimpressed by James Franco’s performance in the lead role. I was awed at the actor’s emergence as a director, and the Los Angeles setting is great.

At times the film teeters almost into bad slapstick or shtick, and a bit silly, and as much as I respect his performance, this criticism is directed at Franco. Nobody can deny his acting talent if he chooses the right films.

His attempt to make his character peculiar is noticeable within seconds, so it seems Franco also makes him a bit of a goof, and I was not able to take the character seriously all of the time.

And the weird accent threw me.

This film is based on the nonfiction book The Disaster Artist. The book chronicles the making of 2003’s The Room, not to be confused with the 2015 film Room. The Room was considered amateurish and one of the worst movies ever made.

Told repeatedly that his acting stinks, oddball Tommie Wiseau (James Franco), a European-American aspiring actor, decided to screw Hollywood and produce, direct, and star in his film.

Wiseau has an endless amount of bank funds, which he uses towards the film. Roommate and friend Greg Sestero (Dave Franco) stars in the movie and thus gets his big break. The duo and various others pitch in to create the project, which suffers from ineptness on the part of Wiseau.

The Los Angeles setting resonates with me, as does the recurring theme of struggle in the Hollywood scene. These are significant pluses of the film as a whole.

Los Angeles can appear to be a sunny and glamorous town, but beneath its shiny exterior, it always has a gloomy, dark underbelly.

The film realistically depicts struggle and success, from the central characters to the supporting players, making it resemble an ensemble.

Thousands struggle daily for a break, and no respect or appreciation is given. The Disaster Artist scores a win by focusing on this.

When Tommie brazenly approaches an influential producer in a restaurant, he is unceremoniously dismissed for having no talent and told he will never get anywhere. In addition to Tommie, several actors associated with the film struggle.

In a fantastic scene, an older actress states that being on a bad movie set beats any other job by miles. The message here is that people in Hollywood are there because they genuinely love it.

The sweet, empowering theme of friendship and empowerment is also to be celebrated, especially given the cutthroat backdrop. Tommie and Greg are best friends and have each other’s backs through thick and thin.

Neither gives up on the other, even during the initial audience reaction to The Room premiere.

Could the film have been slightly darker? Yes, indeed, as very few scenes of drug destruction or the porn that many hopeful talents turn to are mentioned. But the film is not about that. It’s an enchanting tale of hope and fun.

It is interesting to note, and not evident to me while watching the film, that brothers James and Dave Franco play opposite one another. While there is somewhat of a physical resemblance, the chemistry works between the two actors as best friends.

James delivers a worthy portrayal of an unusual character with a strange dialect, long, stringy brown hair, and seemingly cross-eyed. The role is comedic and ideally suited for an unusual actor like Franco- he must have had a ball with the part.

Movies about movie-making always fascinate me. What goes on behind the scenes?

The Disaster Artist (2017) provides enough good film meat to make it an overall good experience. It stays true to some fine Hollywood history—the famous James Dean is referenced, and the spot where he died is even visited—nice touch! Franco is both good and disappointing in the main role.

All in all, this one is worth watching for those who enjoy filmmaking, Hollywood, or L.A.-set films.

Oscar Nominations: Best Adapted Screenplay

Independent Spirit Award Nominations: Best Male Lead-James Franco

That Hamilton Woman-1941

That Hamilton Woman-1941

Director Alexander Korda

Starring Laurence Olivier, Vivien Leigh 

Scott’s Review #779

Reviewed June 27, 2018

Grade: B+

That Hamilton Woman (1941) is an obscure, black, and white gem that stars legendary actors and real-life couple Vivien Leigh and Laurence Olivier.

Providing a story of an old-fashioned style romance, war battles, and dazzling cinematography, the film succeeds as a classic film that should be better remembered than it is.

The overall theme here is a tragic love story with a sad ending.

One of the best aspects of That Hamilton Woman is witnessing the super-couple team of Leigh and Olivier act opposite one another. The actor’s talents are reason enough, but it makes a fascinating viewing experience.

The curiosity of the pairing of big stars in their heyday is a delight and highly appealing, and both actors do not disappoint. One wonders whether they were acting or otherwise enjoying the experience.

Lady Hamilton begins with a jarring scene in which the title character, Emma Lady Hamilton (Vivien Leigh), is thrown into debtor’s prison after stealing booze in France.

The rest of the story is told via flashbacks as she regales her fellow prisoners with how she ended up in her current state. Her former life starkly contrasts Emma’s appearance as a young woman with hope, promise, and riches.

It is hard to imagine how her life turned out so severely, which gives the film quality of intense intrigue.

The film then has a “riches to rags” element as the story is reversed. Full of energy, British Emma moves with her mother to the Kingdom of Naples, where she marries the affluent (and much older) Sir William Hamilton (Alan Mowbray), presumably for his money.

When handsome Admiral Horatio Nelson (Olivier) appears on the scene, the pair fall madly in love. They face tremendous hurdles, however, as the war rages on and each is unfaithful to their respective spouses.

Since the film was made scarcely two years after the epic romance Gone with the Wind (1939), one cannot help but compare Leigh’s portrayal of Emma to Scarlett O’Hara.

Emma comes across as a British version of the southern lass, especially as she is clad in gorgeous gowns or romancing men.

However, as the film develops, she becomes a much more sympathetic character and certainly less of a vixen. Still, there are plenty of similarities for viewers to draw from.

The role of Lady Frances Nelson (Gladys Cooper) is completely one-note, so the rooting value is never doubted. The film intends for the audience to be in the corner of Emma and Horatio, and that said, Cooper does a fantastic job of making her character completely unlikeable. Her icy, vengeful spirit perfectly complements the sympathetic lead characters. The fact that Horatio and Emma are adulterers, especially for the year the film was made, is not fully explored.

To be critical, the video quality is not the greatest, presumably because the film is old. If the film had been in color, the gorgeous Italian landscapes and Leigh’s lovely costumes would have appeared even more lavish and picturesque.

However, due to the film’s age, not much can be done about it unless it is decided to repackage the disc or make it a Blu-ray offering.

Still, the film frequently features southern Italy’s luminous mountains and lush oceans, which is a real treat.

Purely a showcase for newlyweds Olivier and Leigh to dish their real-life romance for mainstream audiences, That Hamilton Woman (1941) must have been a big deal at the release.

While suffering from lackluster film quality, the story is quite hearty, featuring romantic scenes, loud, bombastic battle scenes, and a bit of British and Italian history.

Sadly, this film is largely forgotten, but it is a good watch for fans of the legendary stars.

Oscar Nominations: 1 win-Best Sound Recording (won), Best Art Direction-Interior Decoration, Black-and-White, Best Cinematography, Black-and-White, Best Special Effects

Saving Private Ryan-1998

Saving Private Ryan-1998

Director Steven Spielberg

Starring Tom Hanks, Tom Sizemore

Scott’s Review #778

Reviewed June 26, 2018

Grade: A

Famed director Steven Spielberg does not always get his due respect. This is usually because, for better or worse, he has become synonymous with the “blockbuster” film, drawing comparisons to either lightweight fare or films of “lesser” artistic merit.

His 1980’s works- Raiders of the Lost Ark (1981), E.T. the Extra-Terrestrial (1982), and Indiana Jones and the Temple of Doom (1984), were enormous commercial successes, though I enjoyed all of the films.

During the 1990s Spielberg continued to direct “popcorn flicks” such as Hook (1991) and Jurassic Park (1993), with large studio budgets, but with somewhat less critical acclaim.

Finally, he was able to change many opinions with 1993’s Schindler’s List and the war film to end all war films, Saving Private Ryan (1998), an epic, profound experience.

Both received numerous Oscar nominations and success at the box office.

The film is a tremendous treat for nothing other than the riveting opening sequence alone (more about that later). If that is not enough to impress, Saving Private Ryan is known for infusing a very graphic element into the war film- with no letting up from the brutality.

Spielberg does not water down this picture, instead shows the pain and angst of war. The film is helped tremendously by the casting of Hollywood superstar Tom Hanks, who leads an enormous cast of mainly young men.

Saving Private Ryan opens with a prologue- in present times a veteran brings his family to visit an American cemetery at Normandy. Flashbacks then take the audience back to the Omaha Beach debacle in 1944, where American troops faced deadly German artillery attacks in France.

After the horrific three-day D-Day, it is learned that three of the four Ryan sons have died in the events. Captain Miller (Hanks) is ordered to bring a team of men to Normandy and bring the fourth Ryan son (Matt Damon) to safety.

Spielberg’s opening D-day sequence is just astounding and propels the film to unforgettable status. With a running time of twenty-four minutes, the riveting and horrific slaughter of American soldiers is intensely brought to the screen.

Audiences undoubtedly sat open-mouthed (I know I did!) as bullets riddled the beach and left soldiers killed or with limbs torn off. The camera-work is brilliant as the use of a shaky technique, almost documentary style is used for effect.

Successful is this sequence at promoting an anti-war sentiment while not glorifying the combat at all. The scene will stay with its audience for years to come.

Saving Private Ryan can be compared to the decades later Dunkirk (2017) in that each film took the war genre and turned it upside down.  The similarities between the films start with the obvious- the main events in both films are during World War II, the same week, and the French beach settings making the films perfect companion pieces.

Both films feature a gray, rainy setting with many horrific moments of death and suffering. The war film is a common genre that has historically teetered on predictability and over-saturation, but both films do something completely different and unexpected, yet mirror each other in style.

To counter-balance the violence in the opening sequence, a quiet scene is created and remains one of my favorites. The scene contains almost no dialogue throughout the seven-minute duration and is pivotal to the entire film.

As a typist realizes that three letters of death are to be delivered to the same family, a woman on a mid-west farm quietly washes dishes and is calmly horrified when she sees a government car approaching.

What else can this mean but that one of her sons is dead? The poor Mrs. Ryan will be told that she has lost not one, but three sons.

How utterly unimaginable and the scene is incredibly touching!

The best part of Saving Private Ryan is that Spielberg provides a deep level of sentimental vision combined with the terrible atrocities of war. He portrays not only the violent effects of the battles on the soldiers but also the surviving families.

This is not always done in war films, at least not to the level that Spielberg chooses to.

With such a film as the startling Saving Private Ryan, Spielberg turned the war film genre inside out. Breaking barriers with a no-holds gusto, Spielberg influenced war films for years to come- Black Hawk Down and Enemy at the Gates (2001) are prime examples, and received acclaim from fellow directors for his interesting techniques.

Saving Private Ryan (1998) was an enormous financial winner at the box office, proving that great films don’t have to be watered down to find an audience.

Oscar Nominations: 5 wins-Best Picture, Best Director-Steven Spielberg (won), Best Actor-Tom Hanks, Best Screenplay Written Directly for the Screen, Best Original Dramatic Score, Best Sound Effects Editing (won), Best Sound (won), Best Art Direction, Best Cinematography (won), Best Makeup, Best Film Editing (won)

The Killing of a Sacred Deer-2017

The Killing of a Sacred Deer-2017

Director Yorgos Lanthimos

Starring Colin Farrell, Nicole Kidman

Scott’s Review #774

Reviewed June 15, 2018

Grade: A

For fans of Greek director Yorgos Lanthimos, who created such disturbing and bizarre films as 2009’s Dogtooth and 2015’s The Lobster, The Killing of a Sacred Deer (2017) will be a treasure.

As with those films, the odd story and the peculiar acting styles are prevalent, making the film quite the experience.

I relish the film and its unusual nature. It offers a cinematic experience that is insightful, mesmerizing, extreme, and, quite frankly, brilliant.

Steven Murphy (Farrell) is an esteemed cardiac surgeon who “befriends” a troubled teenage boy named Martin (Barry Keoghan), whose father had died years earlier as a result of Steven’s negligence.

They fall ill when Martin slowly insinuates himself into Steven’s family life. Martin threatens to kill the entire family unless Steven kills either his wife Anna (Nicole Kidman) or one of his two children- the victim can be of his choosing.

The creepy premise is enormously intriguing as the conclusion cannot be foreseen.

A basic yet deep storyline is wonderfully spun, with many possible plot directions.

After forty-five minutes or so of the audience wondering why Steven and Martin meet secretly in diners, hospital corridors, or other remote areas, the teen boy’s true motivations come to the surface as he rapidly and calmly puts his cards on the table for Steven.

Surprisingly, none of the characters are particularly sympathetic.

One would assume that the Murphy family- wholesome, affluent, and astute, would garner audience support, but we slowly peel back the onion on each character.

With a gorgeous house in a quiet Cincinnati neighborhood, Steven and Anna (a doctor herself) are sometimes harsh and physical with their kids. In contrast, the kids (Bob and Kim) develop a strange fascination with Martin.

In this way, each character is peculiar and has dire motivations as the plot unfolds.

Lanthimos is quietly becoming one of my favorite new directors. He slowly churns out one disturbing film after the next. His clear Stanley Kubrick influences bubble to the surface, particularly in The Killing of a Sacred Deer.

The score is crisp with uniqueness, with plodding and sudden bombastic classical music pieces eliciting emotions like surprise and terror from the audience.

From a visual perspective, fans of Kubrick will no doubt notice the long camera shots and slowly panning camera angles. The hospital’s long and foreboding hallways are prominently featured as we follow a character walking along the corridors.

This is highly reminiscent of the Overlook hotel sequences in the 1980 Kubrick masterpiece, The Shining.

One particularly jarring nuance in the film is the speech patterns of most of the actors—clearly dictated by Lanthimos and also present in 2015’s The Lobster.

The character of Steven talks very quickly but with a monotone delivery and in a matter-of-fact style; Kim and Martin also speak this way. I didn’t notice the quality as much with Kidman’s Anna, but Farrell went to town.

I’m not sure this works throughout the entire film since the mannerisms give off almost a comical element.

This uniqueness makes the film more quirky and decidedly non-mainstream, which is to be celebrated.

The climax of the film is brutal.

As Steven brandishes a loaded shotgun, the family gathers in their family room, Anna fussing over her new black dress. As the group dons pillowcases, Steven goes Russian roulette-style on the family, randomly firing a shot until one member is killed.

When the remaining family members see Martin at the diner the next day, they give him icy, hateful looks.

The entire scene is done without dialog and is tremendously macabre.

Rest assured, I am eagerly awaiting Lanthimos’s next project (reportedly already in the works) and hope against hope he continues to use the superb Colin Farrell, the brilliant Nicole Kidman, and newcomer Barry Keoghan again.

Thanks to tremendous acting, a riveting score, and enough thrills and creeps to last a lifetime, The Killing of a Sacred Deer (2017) is at the top of its game.

Independent Spirit Award Nominations: Best Supporting Male-Barry Keoghan, Best Cinematography

God’s Own Country-2017

God’s Own Country-2017

Director Francis Lee

Starring Josh O’Connor, Alec Secareanu

Scott’s Review #773

Reviewed June 13, 2018

Grade: B+

God’s Own Country (2017) is a British, romantic, LGBT-themed drama directed by Francis Lee, making his directorial film debut.

The setting is farming land in the Yorkshire (northern England) territory, making the film quite lovely to watch, and the pace is slow. Lee does not rush the story’s pace either, so it mirrors the slow life that farmers must endure.

The film is somewhat autobiographical of Lee’s own life.

The connection and chemistry between the two leads are palpable, and the love story is endearing. It is awe-inspiring to see two cultures come together and merge as one.

The film is a nice watch and an above-average story, making it worthy of LGBT audiences worldwide. Those who believe in true love and find their soulmate will be deeply satisfied.

Twenty-something Johnny (Josh O’Connor) lives a dull existence on his father’s farm in remote Yorkshire, England. His grandmother (Gemma Jones) also lives there, and due to his father’s recent stroke, the farm’s success is in question. Johnny is depressed, drinking regularly, and engaging in sexual encounters with men.

Romanian migrant worker Gheorghe (Alec Secareanu) is hired to help, and the two young men eventually fall in love. After some ups and downs in their relationship, they decide to live on the farm together and presumably live happily ever after.

God’s Own Country is a rich story of romance, and the only real obstacles that Johnny and Gheorghe face are internal struggles.

In a unique fashion for LGBT films, neither of the men are necessarily unhappy with their sexual identities, nor do they face hurdles by other characters because of their sexuality. Gheorghe faces harassment because he is Romanian and deemed an “outsider”.

Besides Johnny’s grandmother and perhaps his father, no characters seem aware that the men are a couple.

The cinematography is gorgeous and a perfect backdrop for the love story. The farm is lush with spacious green rolling hills for miles and miles.

The family raises lamb and cattle, and more than one scene features a beautiful birth and the nuzzling of the parent to the newborn baby. Sadly, one birth is also a breach, which is tough to watch.

The themes of life and birth perhaps mirror the feelings and emotions that Gheorghe and Johnny experience- new love.

Throughout God’s Own Country, I frequently drew comparisons to arguably the most mainstream and revolutionary film in LGBT history- that of 2005’s Brokeback Mountain.

Both films feature similar elements of animals, farming, and the outdoors. Additionally, commonalities like loneliness and loss are heavily featured. Finally, the rough-and-tumble, machismo-fueled wrestling scenes that result in rough sex between the men are used in both Brokeback Mountain and God’s Own Country.

Both films could be companion pieces.

The film does not delve too much into the back story of the main characters; at least, I did not catch many mentions. Admittedly, viewing the movie on DVD with no closed captioning or subtitle capability made capturing all of the dialogue difficult.

Especially with English and cockney accents, this was made doubly challenging. Regardless, both men are lonely, even despondent, but why? What happened to Johnny’s mother? Where are Gheorghe’s parents or his family?

Upstart Francis Lee carves a quiet, thoughtful, yet compelling story of unexpected love that develops between two lonely men in a remote area of the United Kingdom.

God’s Own Country (2017) paints a nearly perfect experience, slow, yes, but featuring exceptional acting from both leads and the two supporting turns.

The film is recommended for those seeking a poignant and fulfilling love story.

Vanity Fair-2004

Vanity Fair-2004

Director Mira Nair

Starring Reese Witherspoon, James Purefoy

Scott’s Review #772

Reviewed June 12, 2018

Grade: B

An adaptation of the classic 1848 novel written by William Makepeace Thackeray, Vanity Fair (2004) softens the traditionally unlikable and roguish character of Becky Thatcher quite a bit.

This proves not to be the smartest move as the character, now more of a heroine is watered down and forever changed, as is this film adaptation.

Reese Witherspoon (Becky) drew harsh criticism for her starring turn, but I do not think she is so bad, and the costumes and set designs are wonderful and quite the highlight of the resulting period piece.

In 1802 England, we meet Becky Sharp, a young woman who has just graduated from a School for Girls and been sent to work as a governess. Because her father, a talented painter, is impoverished, Becky is cast aside as lower class and deemed undesirable to anybody upper class- the men she is most interested in.

Despite her reputation as a tart, Becky aspires to marry rich and frequently gets into trouble with her shenanigans and smart tongue while romance blooms with the handsome Rawdon Crawley (Purefoy).

The story is supposed to encompass Becky’s life from approximately age eighteen through her mid-thirties (though Witherspoon never appears to age) and displays her trials and tribulations, her loves and losses through the years.

We follow her from rural England to London and Belgium, eventually residing in Germany, reduced to working in a casino, where the film concludes.

The film is a treat as the various countries as they appeared in the nineteenth century, and the wars and battles occurring during this period are featured making for an interesting history lesson.

The main appeal should be Becky Thatcher since the film revolves around her, and numerous criticisms were thrown around accusing the film of casting Reese Witherspoon in the important and demanding role based on her star power at the time.

In 2004 Witherspoon was experiencing enormous film success after 2001’s Legally Blonde and 2002’s Sweet Home Alabama- admittedly fluff films- but securing her box office power nonetheless. These films undoubtedly led to her being cast in the pivotal role, but I thought the star was perfectly adequate and gave Becky appropriate humor and zest.

Based on Witherspoon’s “girl next door” persona and the fact that she just looks like a good character- perplexing the decision to cast her if filmmakers wanted to be true to the character.

Witherspoon was delicious in 1999’s Election as villainous Tracy Flick, a role of a lifetime. But that is the exception and not the standard.

But I digress- the bottom line is that while she is a capable actress, she does not give the gritty performance that many were expecting to be true to the character in the novel.

The rest of Vanity Fair is just mediocre as far as the story goes.

While the antics of Becky are both humorous and dramatic, her rooting value in the romance department does not come across in the 2004 film offers- not enough chemistry exists between the leads to warrant much support.

Opinions abound that other incarnations of Vanity Fair are far more superior and compelling than this film is, but I have yet to see any.

Compliments must be reaped on the costume department and the art direction- both are superior. Such threats are the lavish and colorful costumes and gowns that mark the time. From the classic style hats and highfalutin dresses featured in ball after ball, this aspect is nearly enough to recommend a watch over the dull story and immeasurably the highlight of the entire film.

Vanity Fair (2004) is considered a messy travesty to those well-read enough to have turned the pages of the classic novel. Since I have not yet read the book, perhaps I enjoyed the film slightly more than I should have, but alas, I did not find the casting of Witherspoon as Becky nor the overall product to be drivel as many did.

I recommend the film for the gorgeous visual treats if nothing else.

Gook-2017

Gook-2017

Director Justin Chon

Starring Justin Chon, Simone Baker

Scott’s Review #771

Reviewed June 11, 2018

Grade: B+

Gook (2017) is an independent film drama starring and directed by the rising talent Justin Chon.

Although the film is made on a very limited budget, it delivers a powerful story with a particularly jaw-dropping final sequence that I did not see coming.

If I am being an honest critic, the film drags at times and is not wholly attention-grabbing, but the wrap-up is exceptionally done.

The film’s use of black-and-white filming and a poor, ethnic Los Angeles set is winning, and it is proof that Chon is becoming someone to watch in the years to come.

The time is 1992 amid the soon-to-be-ending Rodney King police brutality trial- news stations and radio programs are abuzz with developments.

The intensity and racial strife are in the air as the trial is reaching its controversial conclusion, resulting in tumultuous riots across Los Angeles.

Two Korean American brothers, Eli (Chon) and Daniel (David So), attempt to keep their deceased father’s shoe store alive in a predominantly African American neighborhood.

The twenty-something men bond uniquely with eleven-year-old Kamilla (Simone Baker), the younger sister of their nemesis, Keith (Curtiss Cook Jr).

I was immediately struck (and impressed!) by the clever use of black-and-white cinematography, which I was not expecting from a film with such a small budget. This technique added grittiness and texture to the spread-out city and enhanced the film’s beauty.

There is something so lovely and peaceful about the juxtaposition of the shoe store’s location in a rather remote area with the looming violence and brutality of some of the film’s roughest scenes.

The harshness of the apparent racial slur title that Chon chooses, Gook, is both shocking and brave, immediately grabbing one’s interest and piquing curiosity.

This wisely sets the tone for the entire film, and viewers will certainly not mistake it for a feel-good affair. Sure, there are some light moments of banter between Kamilla and the brothers, but the conclusion of the film brings a painful reminder of how precious life really is.

Yes, the film is uneven, but that should not be a surprise with a movie that teeters around student filmmaking territory. This is hardly a slight, but merely a mention since Chon is so new at his craft.

For example, the pacing is very bizarre. While most of the film moves at a sleepy, whimsical pace, the aforementioned final sequence moves in breakneck fashion. When a terrible, accidentally self-inflicted gunshot wound sends one character to the emergency room, the speed at which the scene occurs is strange in comparison to the rest of the film.

The highlight of Gook is a tremendous, humanistic element.

The earnest and endearing relationship between Eli and Kamilla really shines through the ugliness of other components. Since the young girl comes from a broken home led by her tyrannical older brother, Keith, she has no father figure to speak of.

To compensate for what she lacks, she spends a great deal of time with the brothers helping out at the store.

Naturally, she bonds closely with Eli, whose father (presumably murdered) is not on the scene either, so they really embrace each other. Eli serves as Kamilla’s big brother, and their scenes are crisp with good dialogue and emotional pizzazz.

Another nice touch that Chon provides with his creation is an instance where the first scene is the same as the last scene- Kamilla doing a ceremonial dance amid the burning storefront.

The final scene is more meaningful and powerful than the opening scene since, by this time, the audience knows Kamilla’s fate.

It is another shining example of Chon’s artistic talent.

Props must be given to a talented up-and-comer in the cinematic scene. Justin Chon is an actor, director, creator, and all-around talented performer.

Gook (2017) is far from perfect and suffers from choppy story-telling and erratic elements, but is impressive in the good qualities it brings to the big screen.

Celebrating young filmmakers is fun, encouraging, and necessary to ensure that ambitious ideas are embraced.

Independent Spirit Award Nominations: 1 win-Kiehl’s Someone to Watch (won)

Moonraker-1979

Moonraker-1979

Director Lewis Gilbert

Starring Roger Moore, Lois Chiles

Scott’s Review #770

Reviewed June 8, 2018

Grade: A-

Moonraker (1979) is an installment of the James Bond film franchise not usually well regarded and rarely appearing on critic’s top ten lists.

Perhaps a reason for this is the timing of the film, hot on the heels of the late 1970’s Star Wars craze. Plans for a different Bond film were scrapped in favor of an outer space story.

Regardless, I adore most of Moonraker, save for the final thirty minutes when the plot gets way too far-fetched for anyone’s good.

The rest of the film is a superior entry and holds up quite well in the modern age of all things Bond.

Many of the familiar elements remain intact following the successful and lavish The Spy Who Loved Me (1975). An even heftier budget featuring gorgeous locales like Venice, Rio de Janeiro, and the Amazon rain forest is featured as well as a capable, intelligently written “Bond girl”.

The villains, compelling and suave, including the return appearance of Jaws (Richard Kiel), and handy, dandy gadgets make Moonraker a treat for fans.

Therefore, I find the non-love for the film rather mystifying.

The action starts when a jumbo airplane carrying a Drax Industries Moonraker space shuttle is hijacked in midair causing the plane to crash and the shuttle to disappear.

Since the space shuttle was on loan to the United Kingdom from the wealthy and powerful Hugo Drax (Michael Lonsdale), 007 (Roger Moore) is tasked with finding its whereabouts. He visits the grand shuttle-manufacturing plant in California where he learns that Drax and his bodyguard Chang are sinister and plotting global destruction.

Bond befriends the gorgeous and highly intelligent Dr. Holly Goodhead (Lois Chiles), an astronaut who works at the facility, and Corinne Dufour (Corinne Clery), the beautiful personal pilot of Drax.

As events roll along Jaws returns to the story seeking revenge on Bond and subsequently serving as Drax’s new bodyguard.

Of course, treasured favorites like M (Bernard Lee), Q (Desmond Llewelyn), and Miss Moneypenny (Lois Maxwell), return to the fold.

To explain the weakest portion of the film first, producers were attempting to capitalize on the tremendous success of 1977’s Star Wars by featuring a space exploration theme.

Only in the final half-hour does this come into play as Bond and Goodhead, and nearly all the cast, don bright yellow spacesuits. Drax’s evil plan is to eradicate all humankind and begin a new world with only beautiful people existing and reproducing.

The inevitable final battle scenes take place in a sprawling space station amid laser guns shooting bright beams- a direct rip-off from Star Wars.

The entire sequence is too long and quite reminiscent of my criticism of the tedious finale from the otherwise brilliant The Spy Who Loved Me, Moonraker’s predecessor.

Otherwise, the film is top-notch.

Fantastic sequences involve Bond’s mid-air fight with a bad guy and a dangerous struggle for a parachute, a fight scene high atop a Cable Car during Rio Carnival, vicious sparring in a Venice museum, and a female character chased and torn to bits by Drax’s carnivorous dogs, all make for great action sequences.

The highlight though may very well be Bond’s harrowing ordeal inside an out-of-control centrifuge chamber.

The return of Jaws is certainly a highlight to Moonraker especially as the popular villain turns “good” and finds a love interest! When he sees the cute blonde girl with pigtails and glasses, both character’s eyes light up in a “love at first sight” moment.

As Jaws realizes Drax’s plans for both of them to exterminate his alliances suddenly switch resulting in a touching scene between the two over champagne.

Moore and Chiles have tremendous chemistry as the MI-6 agent teams with the capable female CIA agent. Holly Goodhead is portrayed exceptionally well: female, intelligent, gorgeous, and savvy.

Impressive (and progressive) is how Goodhead takes charge as she and 007 make a harrowing journey back to planet Earth and then work nicely together to destroy Drax’s deadly missiles.

Sure the romance is there, but also the mutual respect between the two.

Fondly recalling childhood memories of watching this film numerous times, Moonraker (1979) holds good memories for me.

More importantly, it possesses wonderful Bond qualities that will enchant many Bond fans seeking fun and entertainment.

The film contains a ludicrous plot attempting to fit the times, but thanks to lavish sets and a competent main Bond girl, the film is quite memorable.

Oscar Nominations: Best Visual Effects

The Breadwinner-2017

The Breadwinner-2017

Director Nora Twomey

Voices Saara Chaudry, Ali Rizvi Badshah

Scott’s Review #769

Reviewed June 7, 2018

Grade: B

Certainly, The Breadwinner (2017), a timely and politically charged story, provides relevance and a progressive women’s empowerment message.

This should be championed above all else and is recommended as a worthy watch for that reason alone.

The film itself is dark and not entirely a children’s movie or necessarily family-friendly, but rather a good lesson learned.

Dragging just a bit throughout, this is small compared to the overall story’s importance.

The animated feature is based on the best-selling novel by Deborah Ellis, which focuses on life in dangerous Afghanistan (circa 2001) under constant threat by Taliban rule.

Since women are not allowed to leave the house and any men daring to question the Taliban are either slaughtered, beaten, or arrested, the film is quite heavy compared to typical animated fare.

The Breadwinner’s main character is a likable eleven-year-old girl named Parvana. She lives in metropolitan Kabul, Afghanistan, with her father and sells items on the city streets to support the rest of the family—his wife, daughter, and male toddler.

Parvana’s older brother has died years ago.  Parvana’s father, Nurullah, is a former teacher left crippled by an injury sustained during the war.

When he is arrested, Parvana must disguise herself as a boy and work to support her family as she traverses the city with her best friend, Shauzia.

The animation is lovely and a definite high point of the film. The details look crisp and fresh- from the stark village houses to the vegetable stands and other more metropolitan aspects of the bustling cities, the film looks excellent and professional.

The flawless art direction and visuals aid in the believable nature of the story.

Another high point of The Breadwinner is the story’s substance; it is not fluffed, as is commonly seen in modern animated films.

Throughout the film, I knew that I was watching something of meaning. Parvana faces actual danger; if she is found not to be a young boy but instead a young girl, she could be beaten, raped, or worse.

Unwisely, early in the film, she becomes an enemy of a young, sadistic soldier who continues to resurface and threaten Parvana throughout the film.

More than a handful of frightening scenes occur, evidence that director Nora Twomey’s intentions are not for a family-friendly affair.

Given the subject matter at hand, this is a wise move. Toning down the violence and treachery of the Taliban would make the film feel insincere and dishonest.

Instead, because of the violent deaths and beatings that occur throughout, the film feels genuine and the characters’ emotions real.

If I were to point out a film, the Breadwinner suffers from an erratic approach.

I adore the straightforward aspects of the main story and enjoyed the survival instincts, female empowerment, and Parvana’s innocent friendship with Shauzia. However, the film goes in a different direction a handful of times as Parvana tells stories of a young man’s journey to retrieve seeds stolen from him.

Frankly, this slowed down the main plot, and one has little to do with the other, making them seem disjointed.

With a worthy and meaningful central storyline, how nice to feast one’s eyes on an artistic animated production so marvelously made.

The Breadwinner (2017) is a treat for animated film fans who yearn for something more intelligent than the standard “kid’s film.”

Perhaps not a perfect “A,” but something of quality nonetheless.

Oscar Nominations: Best Animated Feature Film

Abacus: Small Enough to Jail-2017

Abacus: Small Enough to Jail-2017

Director Steve James

Scott’s Review #768

Reviewed June 6, 2018

Grade: B+

Abacus: Small Enough to Jail (2017) is a compelling documentary that received considerable attention after earning an Academy Award nomination.

The straightforward story never dulls or drags. It stays on point by telling a gripping courtroom-style legal thriller about a Chinese family’s struggle to keep their small banking business from criminal prosecution.

The documentary features the Sung family, led by patriarch Mr. Sung, who brought the family from China to start a banking business decades ago.

Since then, the family has set up roots in downtown New York City, launching a community-style bank to help people living and working in the Chinatown section.

The bank has become tremendously popular and culturally centered as a way to help struggling neighbors, and its business has thrived.

The Abacus Federal Savings Bank became the only one to face criminal charges following the mortgage crisis in 2009.

The documentary argues that this was because the larger banks were untouchable, and prosecutors desired to make an example of the banks because they were an easier target.

The documentary wisely presents both sides, featuring family interviews as well as the prosecutor’s arguments.

I found Abacus: Small Enough to Jail to move along quite smoothly and quickly. The documentary mainly focuses on the Sungs, who are all very driven people.

They reside in upscale Greenwich, Connecticut, and consist of a mother and father and three grown daughters in their twenties and thirties. The daughters are brilliant, and the entire family is intensely loyal to each other and their business despite scenes showing them bickering over trial strategies and takeout lunches.

The documentary mainly chronicles the prolonged five-year ordeal that the Sungs endured, involving a myriad of paperwork, trial dates, and other particulars. All the while, the family continues to uphold their business with gusto, but the trial takes quite a toll on the individuals, particularly the elderly patriarch.

It is tough to imagine anyone rooting for a bank, but that is the result.

Director Steve James is superb at portraying the Sung family sympathetically. There is never a doubt that he feels they have been victimized and sought after because they are a relatively easy target compared to the big boys of the banking world.

J.P. Morgan and Chase are deemed untouchable, which is a significant source of the problem and the film’s main objective to show.

Heartbreaking is a scene containing footage of at least a dozen or so Chinese bank employees being led to processing all chained together- chain gang style. This scene, shown relatively early in the documentary, cemented my support for the Sungs.

I asked myself, even if they were guilty, why the inhuman and racist treatment? When questioned about the poor treatment of the indicted, all the prosecution could muster was that it was “unfortunate,” hardly an apology.

The key element here and the main point of the story is that wrongdoing was committed, but the question asked is whether the Sungs knew about a few of their employees’ shenanigans, and I truly think not.

As the documentary explains, the jury had extreme difficulty reaching a concrete decision, which is why the trial dragged on and on. I asked myself, “If the large banks were bailed out with no prosecutions whatsoever, why should a mom-and-pop bank be targeted?”

Steve James creates an unexpectedly fast-paced piece. It is tough to do with dry financials, spreadsheets, and other banking-type particulars, but that is just what he does.

Objectively presenting the facts on both sides and offering many interviews and courtroom drawings, Abacus: Small Enough to Jail (2017) is a treat to view and captures a terrible time in United States history and how the undertones of racism still exist.

Oscar Nominations: Best Documentary-Feature

Good Time-2017

Good Time-2017

Director Ben Safdie, Joshua Safdie

Starring Robert Pattinson, Ben Safdie

Scott’s Review #767

Reviewed June 5, 2018

Grade: B+

Every so often, an actor who is known for either making mainstream films or portraying a mediocre character risks being typecast.

Fortunately, actor Robert Pattinson, known chiefly as the heartthrob from the trite Twilight films, has been given the best career role. The actor hits the jackpot with a challenging and edgy performance in the fast-paced, independent crime drama Good Time (2017).

The film is a perfect ride, and directors Ben and Joshua Safdie successfully provide excellent tension and compelling action scenes (Ben even gives a worthy supporting performance as a mentally challenged character).

The overall tone of the film is that of an edge-of-your-seat experience.

As enjoyable and taut as the film is, a few minor criticisms must be mentioned below.

Good Time begins with Nick Nikas (Ben Safdie) being quizzed by a therapist. They are quickly interrupted by Nick’s brother Connie (Pattinson), who removes him from the facility so that he can assist with a bank heist.

When the attempt goes awry and Nick is arrested, Connie does his best to spring his brother from jail and then from the hospital following an altercation with another inmate. All the while, Connie must also evade the police as he forms a strange connection with a sixteen-year-old girl, Crystal (Taliah Webster).

The fun part of Good Time is that the film is fast-paced and filled with twists and turns. Taking place largely over the course of one night, we are compelled by Connie’s journey and wonder if he will outrun the cops.

Although it is a standard thriller, Good Time rises slightly above this ranking due to its wonderful New York City setting and numerous exterior scenes—this is a major plus.

The film’s look also garners props. With a slick yet gritty and grainy feel, the camera angles are quick and plentiful. This is a great tool to keep the action going at lightning speed, and the editing deserves kudos, too.

The intensity and tension run rampant throughout.

A good example is the bank robbery scene—as the teller disappears into the vault to get the requested amount of money, she takes what seems like an eternity to return, leaving the audience (and Connie) wondering if she has alerted the authorities.

Otherwise, the film is helped immensely by the acting performance of Pattinson, who owns the film. Having not seen him in anything before, I was surprised at how good he was.

I thought of him as more of a matinee idol than a serious actor, but I was proven wrong. Grizzled and temperamental but a decent guy at times, Pattinson’s Connie is loyal to a fault, putting his brother first and foremost.

Fans of Captain Phillips (2013) will be delighted to see Barkhad Abdi cast in the small yet pivotal role of an amusement park security guard.

Nominated for the Best Supporting Actor award for Captain Phillips, the Somali-American actor has found steady work in film since his acclaimed debut performance. In his role in Good Time, the character is instrumental in kicking off the final act that leads to the downfall of at least one other character.

A few minor but notable flaws (somewhat unnecessary) that Good Time contains are worth mentioning.

Perplexing to me is the casting of Jennifer Jason Leigh as Connie’s girlfriend, Corey. Decades older than Connie, Corey is written pretty much as a nitwit attempting to use her mother’s credit card to bail out Nick.

The film does not mention the age difference or provide much meat to the role—Jason Leigh deserves better than a throwaway role like this.

Otherwise, none of the female characters are treated exceptionally well. Connie frequently directs or shouts at either Corey or even Crystal, eliciting a slightly off-putting “man in charge” vibe.

Also, a gay slur uttered by Connie is thrown into a scene for seemingly no reason, which surprises me in 2017. Still, something makes the audience root for Connie while we still want him to get his punishment.

Good Time (2017) provides quality entertainment in a specified genre with good acting.

With a weird Ocean’s Eleven style (only with one prominent character), the bank robbery theme will satisfy those in the mood for a good heist film.

The film’s title is a mystery (is it irony?), and I’m not sure it works, but overall, it is a perfect watch.

Independent Spirit Award Nominations: Best Director-Safdie Brothers, Best Male Lead-Robert Pattinson, Best Supporting Male-Benny Safdie, Best Supporting Female-Taliah Lennie Webster, Best Editing

Malice-1993

Malice-1993

Director Harold Becker

Starring Alec Baldwin, Nicole Kidman, Bill Pullman

Scott’s Review #765

Reviewed May 29, 2018

Grade: B+

Malice (1993) is only one of a slew of husband and wife-themed thrillers to emerge from the early 1990’s- Unlawful Entry (1992), Sleeping with the Enemy (1991), and Deceived (1991) are other similar films that made lots of money during this time.

This genre of slick filmmaking was popular as the new decade emerged and more complex story-telling graced the screens.

The myriad of twists and turns are both a positive and a negative to this film.  Keeping the audience guessing and on pins and needles is a key success, eliciting a fun sort of tone, as well as the tremendous star power of the casting (George C. Scott and Anne Bancroft are big-time heavies).

Then again a few of the plot points become red herrings and thereby meaningless and the overall plots, and endless subplots, become way too complex than they need to be.

In a plot that is dizzying to explain, Associate Dean Andy Safian (Bill Pullman) and his wife Tracy (Nicole Kidman) are embarking on a life together in Massachusetts as they purchase a grand Victorian house and plan to begin a family.

As a serial killer stalks the campus where Andy works and implausibly results in him being the prime suspect, Tracy experiences health turmoil and is operated on by cocky yet brilliant Dr. Jed Hill (Alec Baldwin).

When dire events occur the plot escalates and the motivations of the main characters are questioned as truths and deceptions unravel.

When I first saw Malice in 1993 (in fact I saw it twice the same year), I adored the multitude of plot points and devices. The film had the same effect as a speeding roller coaster ride- with endless twists and story revelations.

And to be fair the film holds up pretty well, never seeming dated or of its time like many mainstream films. The two startling reveals- Tracy and Jed being in cahoots and the mysterious eye witness living next door being blind, are clever bits of writing that immerse the audience on many levels.

The acting is top-notch- Kidman plays good and evil oh so well and Bancroft’s cameo as Tracy’s mother is Oscar-worthy. The chemistry between Pullman, Kidman, and Baldwin, and Pullman’s “nice guy” to Baldwin’s “jerk” work quite well as the overlapping relationships play out.

Small yet meaningful roles by Bebe Neuwirth, Peter Gallagher, and Gwyneth Paltrow add layers to the wonderful casting.

And who can forget the often parodied scene where arrogant Dr. Jed launches into a monologue where he claims to be infallible and that he is God? This scene received tons of publicity and is arguably the defining moment of the film.

However, Malice’s strengths also sometimes become its weaknesses. As events go along the plot becomes too confusing. The school serial killer plot soon becomes a red herring as we realize it has little to do with the central plot- the Tracy/Jed alliance- except only to raise parenting questions.

Therefore the big reveal of who the killer becomes for naught. It’s the creepy janitor named Earl(Tobin Bell) hardly a surprise.

Furthermore, after the film ends and the viewer plays events back to make them add up, he or she will likely give up in frustration.

Malice is an above-average entry in a popular genre- who doesn’t like a good, solid thriller? With a talented cast and enough good medical thrills to balance with a college campus whodunit, there is plenty to please everyone who views this film.

Yes, some of the writing is preposterous and tough to believe, but Malice (1993) is a movie meant to escape with, sit back, and enjoy.

A Ghost Story-2017

A Ghost Story-2017

Director David Lowery

Starring Casey Affleck, Rooney Mara

Scott’s Review #764

Reviewed May 27, 2018

Grade: A-

It’s marvelous to support independent film. I get most of my selections via the annual Independent Spirit Award nominations, which are announced every November.

Rich, creative films that ordinarily would be overlooked are recognized and sometimes treasured instead of forgotten entirely.

A Ghost Story (2017) is a small film fortunate to land big-name stars, undoubtedly increasing its audience—I am unsure if this film ever played in theaters anywhere.

Nonetheless, the film is a thought-provoking experience that left me perplexed and fascinated but with the knowledge that I had seen something worthwhile. I may not have completely understood it, but I also adored it.

Writer and director David Lowery must be good with Hollywood A-listers Casey Affleck and Rooney Mara, who star in A Ghost Story. The pair also appeared in Lowery’s first film, Ain’t Them Bodies Saints (2013), which received critical acclaim.

Somewhere outside of Dallas, Texas, a young married couple known as “C” (Affleck) and “M” (Mara) moves into a small house. “C” is a musician with an unusual fondness for the tiny house the couple rents.

While “M” desires to leave the house, “C” wishes to stay, somehow drawn to it. After “C” is tragically killed in a car accident, his spirit returns, unable to let go of either his wife or his home, eventually stuck in time to watch generations come and go.

A Ghost Story is a cerebral experience as we watch the events from the perspective of “C.” Adding an eerie quality is that “C” is a ghost- shrouded in a plain white bed sheet with dark circles for the eyes. While “C” does not speak, we experience his perceptions and feelings through what he sees.

At first, following “M” around as she mourns his loss, eventually, she moves on and “C” is forced to watch others live in the house. Pitifully, he awaits the return of “M” as hundreds of years go by.

Lowery is good at creating an ominous and haunting tone, mainly through his classical musical score. The film is wonderfully original.

The audience feels the loss and loneliness of both “C” and “M,” but there is a scary quality, too—not in the horror genre way, but rather, we do not know what will happen next. When “M” brings a man home, “C” is furious, knocking books to the ground and turning the lights on and off.

Later, a new family is terrorized when an unhappy “C” breaks all their dishes in a rage.

A scene that gave me the creeps is when “C,” in spirit form, gazes out the window of his house and notices another ghost looking out the window next door. This ghost looks exactly like him, except it is female- we know this because her sheet has a flower pattern.

They can communicate without speaking, and “C” learns that she has been waiting for someone to come home to her, but it’s been so long that she can’t remember who it is. This scene is sad and filled with despondency.

A forewarning is that the pacing of the film is very slow—perhaps too slow for most. After “M’s” landlord brings her a pie, we watch her devour it in a very long five-minute scene, after which she vomits the contents up.

Despite its length, this scene is powerful and important, as the entire time, we view her depression and longing for “C” to return, absorbing some little comfort from the pie.

A Ghost Story reaches its creative climax towards the end as the film comes full circle, and we begin to understand the circumstances. A dynamic sequence of the passage of time occurs, showing the demolition of the house and the development of a thriving city over time. Depressed and desolate, “C” jumps off of a high rise.

However, the final scene mystified me, and I was unable to completely make A Ghost Story (2017) add up (was there a second ghost or a rebirth of “C”?), but that is also part of the film’s intrigue.

Regardless, the film is a worthy watch if only for a cerebral story that makes one think. Its central themes of loneliness and loss are depressing but also fascinating concerning the good story that Lowery creates.

Independent Spirit Award Nominations: John Cassavetes Award

Twister-1996

Twister-1996

Director Jan de Bont

Starring Bill Pullman, Helen Hunt

Scott’s Review #763

Reviewed May 25, 2018

Grade: B+

Twister (1996) is a film that contains amazing and groundbreaking special effects- that blew people away (pun intended!) when released to the masses over twenty years ago.

Moviegoers flocked to theaters everywhere to partake in the escapist summer feel-good hit starring popular movie stars of the time.

The film spawned amusement park rides and lots of other fun things during its run.

The visuals are what truly are to be enjoyed here and not the generic, tried, and true subplots of romance, childhood trauma, and corporate greed that are mixed in.

The film does not hold up well in present times as the dazzling effects now look rather dated when lined up against modern blockbusters. This results in Twister being reduced to “one of those 1990’s films”.

Bill Paxton and Helen Hunt star as American storm chasers, Bill and Jo, obsessed with their craft of tracking tornadoes throughout the United States mid-western region. Adding drama to the plot is that Bill and Jo are an estranged married couple amid a divorce.

Bill brings his new fiancee Melissa (Jami Gertz) along as numerous meteorologists converge to track storms using newly invented devices.

Predictably, a series of vicious storms commence while Bill, Jo, and Melissa play out a love triangle.

Twister gets off to a fantastic start as a wicked storm kills the five-year-old Jo’s father, prompting her to pursue her career of choice. Jo has never gotten over her father’s death becoming fascinated by deadly storms.

The effects of this initial storm are very well done as Jo’s father’s death scene is riveting- the poor man being sucked into the deadly cyclone is memorable. Regardless, this scene sets the tone for the ample effects to follow- most notably the terrifying sound of the swirling storm as farm tools and animals fly around onscreen.

After the initial introduction, the rest of the film is mainly of the group driving around and encountering storms, with Bill and Jo taking center stage.

As a child having spent many summers in the mid-west, sans tornadoes thankfully, I felt a sense of nostalgia watching the film.

Assumptions are being made that Twister was indeed filmed on location (with studio help), but the authenticity is apparent. From the vastness of the plains to the dusty roads, cornfields, and the small-town U.S.A. I enjoyed the down-home, slice-of-life feel.

The action and effects are lightning-quick and quite realistic. As mentioned the sound effects are as strong as the visual effects and I never doubted for a second that the twisters had a realism to them.

This successfully merges into the summer blockbuster that Twister’s producers undoubtedly were going for. Making a ton of money, the result was successful and inspired by Hollywood.

Despite the superlative special effects, though, this is the only reason to watch Twister, and seeing the film once is enough excitement.

The writers (Michael Crichton and Anne-Marie Martin) attempt to incorporate a romance into the story and this does nobody any good. This negative aspect is even more apparent since the chemistry between Paxton and Hunt is non-existent and Gertz’s Melissa is meant to be the odd woman out all along.

A large amount of suspension of disbelief is necessary to “buy” various scenes. Ludicrous are countless scenes where characters either outrun the monstrous twisters or somehow the storms encircle them, but miraculously never touch them.

When Jo, Bill, and Melissa’s truck are captured inside the funnel cloud the vehicle and its passengers somehow remain unharmed.  Tornadoes do not simply come out of nowhere to attack without any indication on the radar.

But alas this is a disaster film and liberties must be taken.

The famous “cow scene”, notoriously used twice in the film seemed groundbreaking and cutting edge in 1996, but in 2018 now seems hokey and unnecessary.

Times sure do change in cinema, especially with technical effects and CGI growing each year.

Admittedly, the film does contain a good, all-American rockin’ summer tune by Van Halen named “Humans Being”, which always makes me think of summertime when I hear it. The entire Twister soundtrack was an enormous success with radio airplay given and led to further successes for the film.

Perhaps now watched as a blast from the past or a revisit to some sort of nostalgic time for folks, Twister (1996) is a great example of a once-popular popcorn movie falling into semi-obscurity. Given another twenty years, the film will undoubtedly fall all the way.

A nice film for the time it was, but not much more.

Oscar Nominations: Best Sound, Best Visual Effects