All posts by scottmet99

Fire At Sea-2016

Fire at Sea-2016

Director Gianfranco Rosi

Scott’s Review #671

Reviewed August 12, 2017

Grade: B+

Fire at Sea was honored with a coveted 2017 Best Documentary Feature Oscar Award nomination, but despite this high achievement, it received largely negative reviews from its viewers.

This is not as surprising as it might seem.

The documentary was also the Italian entry for the Best Foreign Language Film category but was not chosen. It is a hybrid between a “typical” film and a documentary, making it all the more unique.

The lackluster comments are undoubtedly due to the documentary’s slow pace and the way it intersperses snippets of the story, which do not weave together with the main message.

Compounded by the length (one hour and fifty-four minutes is very long for a documentary), the work will not go down in history as a rousing crowd-pleaser.

But it is an important film.

The story tells of a group of modest individuals inhabiting a tiny Sicilian fishing island named Lampedusa between Sicily and Libya. The island is prominent for being a rescue area for migrants forging a treacherous journey from African countries (mainly Libya and Sudan) to the island for safety and medical treatment.

It is implied that the migrants do not stay on the island for very long. Lampedusa serves as a temporary sanctuary. It is not explained where the migrants go or what happens to them after medical treatment.

After a slightly tedious start, I immersed myself in the various stories and began to appreciate the slow pace.

I found this calming.

We see snippets of daily events: a young boy and his friend carve a face out of cactus plants. Later, the boy undergoes an eye exam and is told he needs glasses. We then see a lengthy scene of his family eating pasta.

We also get to know a resident doctor, grandmother, disc jockey, and scuba diver.

Admittedly, I began to wonder what a young boy preparing a slingshot or a grandmother preparing sauce had to do with the documentary’s main subject, migrants coming to the island.

Then I realized that director Gianfranco Rosi was telling a human story. The ordinary Lampedusa citizens’ lives contrast with the fleeing and terrified migrants.

I was able to put all the pieces together.

Fire at Sea is unusual, as it is told without narration and with dialogue in Italian containing sub-titles. These are additional unique aspects of the project, but I admired its essential message.

The most powerful scene in the film is a quiet one with a resident doctor describing his experiences with the migrants.

He professes how any decent person should help any needy soul and describes the grisly task of performing autopsies on the people (many women and children) who do not survive the harried journey across the Mediterranean Sea. Many die of hunger and thirst or are burned by the diesel fuels from the tiny boats they are stuffed into.

His long yet powerful account will move one to tears.

This testimonial speaks volumes regarding the influx of needy individuals, mainly from Syria, who need help from neighboring countries.

Some have been kind and have let individuals into their countries, while others have shunned the migrants (namely in 2017, the United States).

The honest account from the doctor summarizes the message of humanity that Fire at Sea represents.

Another powerful scene emerges towards the end of the documentary, as several African men are rushed from their ship to another ship and tended to by rescuers.

Sadly, the barely alive yet conscious men are not long for this world as a few minutes later, we see a series of body bags lined up containing the expired men. This tragic realization speaks volumes about the need for such humanistic individuals in Lampedusa.

Fire at Sea (2016) is worth watching. It is a story about the fiery waters the residents could see from afar during World War II. It teaches kindness and decency and reminds us that some people are just good, generous souls, all but willing to help those in need.

We can all learn from this documentary.

Oscar Nominations: Best Documentary-Feature

Punish Me-2005

Punish Me-2005

Director Angelina Maccarone

Starring Maron Kroymann, Kostja Ullman

Scott’s Review #670

Reviewed August 9, 2017

Grade: A-

Punish Me (sometimes titled Hounded) is a provocative 2005 German-language film that pushes boundaries and titillates the viewer with its racy themes of masochism and pedophilia that will be way too much for your average viewer to marinate and digest.

Some may be completely turned off (rather than on) by this film. However, for the edgy thinker, the film is quite the find. Unique, extreme, and thoughtful, Punish Me is an experience to remember.

Shot entirely in black and white (rare for twenty-first-century cinema) the film appears bleak and harsh, cold almost- and that is no doubt an intentional measure.

The grizzled German landscape (the city is unidentified), gives the film interesting and effective cinematography, transforming the black and white colors exceptionally well, whether the scene is set in daylight or nighttime. Something about the black-and-white decision is genius.

Elsa Seifert (Maren Kroymann) is a fifty-year-old probation officer. Married and raising a teenage daughter, she appears to live a stable, middle-class existence. When one of her charges, Jan (Kostja Ullman), a sixteen-year-old, handsome young man, gives pursuit of her, their relationship turns into an obsessive, lustful situation for both.

Jan, you see, likes to be sexually beaten, and, at first, hesitant, Elsa slowly gets immersed in Jan’s world.   When other characters begin to catch wind of the situation between Jan and Elsa, the film becomes intense.

Astounding to me is the fact that Punish Me is directed by a woman, Angelina Maccarone. This both surprises and impresses me. Thought-provoking is the female perspective in the film.

Elsa is not an unhappy woman- though she nervously chain-smokes in almost every scene.

She initially has no intention of being sucked into Jan’s eccentricities. As she awkwardly spanks him in their first steamy, sexual encounter, she is gentle, yet she quickly intensifies.

Is she insecure with her middle-aged body? She gets carried away by Jan’s charms, putting both her career and her husband at risk.

Can she stop herself before it’s too late?

One wonders a few things- How would this film feel if it were directed by a man? Maccarone centers the perspective on Elsa more than she does Jan- or are we to assume that Jan, at sixteen, is merely experimenting with his sexuality and therefore not the more interesting character?

This was my determination. Elsa has way more to lose than Jan does. We are not sure why Jan is so troubled, to begin with, or why he likes to be beaten- was he abused by his parents? sexually or otherwise? What deep-rooted issues does Elsa have?

I imagined the complexities offered had the film gone something like this- Elsa is a male character. Would the man-on-boy be too much? Is female on boy safer?

One wonders, but if Elsa was a male and Jan a female, I do not think the film would be half as controversial or daring. It would seem more exploitative or dare I say, conventional.

Instead, Maccarone turns the film into a psychoanalytical feast as we wonder what makes both Elsa and Jan tick and why they enjoy the discipline scene. Perhaps there is no clearly defined answer.

The supporting characters are not explored very well, other than a fellow troubled girl that Jan beds, commenting that she is too fat (she is not), or Elsa’s husband is revealed to have once had an affair with another woman pronouncing “it was only sex, not love”.

From this, one concludes that Elsa and her husband will reunite and resume their middle-class life together, but what will become of Jan?

Thanks to effortless direction and good choices by Maccarone, she makes Punish Me (2005) an examine-worthy look at sexuality, desire, and emotions.

Many will loathe the film or not bother to give it the time of day based on the subject matter, but the film is a treat for the creative cinematic lover and lovers of analysis.

13th-2016

13th-2016

Director Ava DuVernay

Scott’s Review #669

Reviewed August 5, 2017

Grade: B+

Hot on the heels of her successful feature film Selma (2014), director Ava DuVernay follows up with another race relations piece: an informative documentary entitled 13th, named after the Thirteenth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States of America, which abolished slavery.

The documentary, however, exposes loopholes in the Constitution and shows how progress has been too slow for black people since the Civil War and into modern times.

It looks at the escalating incarceration rates of the United States black population over the years and how the prison system as a whole has been used as both a money-making system and as a way of controlling minorities.

The documentary examines the United States prison system. It starts with an audio clip of former President Obama informing us that the United States has five percent of the world’s population. Twenty-five percent of the world’s prisoners are in the US, a direct message to those convinced that the US is the greatest country in the world.

This powerful message sets 13th off right as we explore why the statistic exists.

I thoroughly enjoyed the high production values of the documentary, including the modern graphics that edgily displayed the number of incarcerated blacks on screen.

13th does not feel dated or monotone as some documentaries do. Instead, it feels creative and nuanced with interviews and news clips of events such as the Civil Rights movement and Depression-era footage. Modern-day footage is included, representing over a hundred years of history.

A significant aspect of the 13th is its chronological progression through history, beginning with the Civil War and ending in 2017 when the unpopular Donald Trump was elected President of the United States.

The gloomy implication is that, with the current (2017) presidency, the minority population is still repressed and discriminated against by many political figures and that they are still primarily feared and blamed for the “perceived” high crime rates.

DuVernay’s central point is that many political figures use “scare tactics” to influence voters to vote a certain way and repeatedly fall for this strategy.

She analyzes the history and dissects several presidents’ terms and individual campaign messages, heavily featuring Nixon, Reagan, Clinton, Bush Sr., and Obama.

I love this aspect since it was a fresh history lesson for me on how the times have changed but have stayed the same.

13th avoids being too preachy and presents “both sides of the aisle.” Some feel that political figure’s harsh take on crime is not meant to repress minorities. A few of these folks are interviewed and given time to explain their viewpoints, but the film is mainly left-leaning in tone and views.

The negative portrayals of Trump, Nixon, and Reagan are proof of this.

Interviews with prominent activists such as Angela Davis, leader of the Communist Party USA, and a woman with close ties to the Black Panthers are informative. Considered a radical in her day (the 1960s), the documentary features clips of her interviews both then and now.

Current political figures Van Jones and Newt Gingrich are featured, giving 13th a crisp, modern, and relevant feel rather than a long-gone period.

Overall, I found 13th (2016) to be an educational and historical lesson in the challenges and race issues that people of color have dealt with over the years and how their world is still affected by current legislation and decisions by political figures (mainly white), who hold all the cards and repress people who speak out against them.

Oscar Nominations: Best Documentary-Feature

Independent Spirit Award Nominations: Best Documentary Feature

The Salesman-2016

The Salesman-2016

Director Asghar Farhadi

Starring Shahab Hosseini, Taraneh Alidoosti

Scott’s Review #668

Reviewed August 2, 2017

Grade: A

The Salesman is the latest film directed by Asghar Farhadi to win the coveted Best Foreign Language Film Oscar. 2011’s A Separation also won the crown, and 2013’s The Past, nestled between the other films, is nearly as good.

All contain mesmerizing and gripping plot elements that leave the audience in good discussion long after the film has concluded. That is what good storytelling is all about.

Rich with empathetic elements and crisp writing, Farhadi has become one of my favorite international filmmakers. Each of his pictures is as powerful in humanity as their counterparts.

Along with fellow contemporary Claude Chabrol (admittedly around a lot longer), similarities abound between the two creative maestros in the form of thrills, mystery, and differing character allegiances. I adore how both directors incorporate the same actors into their films.

Farhadi incorporates the classic stage production Death of a Salesman by Arthur Miller into the story. The play and the film contain similar themes- humiliation and secrets.

The young and good-looking couple, Emad (Shahab Hosseini) and Rana (Taraneh Alidoosti), are community theater actors living in metropolitan Tehran, Iran.

They have wonderful friends and companions and are popular with their close neighbors and theater buddies. Emad, a well-liked high school teacher, and Rana, a housewife, make a perfect couple, but their bond will soon be severely tested.

Forced to move from their crumbling apartment into temporary quarters owned by a theater friend, they are unaware that the former tenant worked as a prostitute and had a bevy of gentleman callers.

She carelessly left the unit, leaving behind all of her belongings for them to sift through. One night, when Rana is home alone, she inadvertently allows a mystery person to enter, which leads to a terrible incident.

The film centers on determining what exactly happened between Rana and the intruder. Is she hiding the truth? Can she and Emad overcome the implications of the events?

The audience is presented with a powerful, intriguing mystery to absorb and unravel. Throughout most of the film, questions are raised to be considered: Who was the intruder? Will Emad exact revenge? What happened?

The brilliance of The Salesman is that we, as the audience, never actually see the incident inside Emad and Rana’s apartment, so we are baffled by what has transpired. We merely witness the after-effects and the questions the characters (mainly Emad) have.

Is Rana being truthful? Did she know the man who entered the apartment? Was it even a man or perhaps the former female tenant? With Farhadi, anything is possible, but rest assured, a startling climax will ensue.

The genius is how the viewer’s loyalties will be divided by character and change within a scene.

In one tense sequence, a heroic character becomes the villain and slowly returns to being the hero again, which is a topsy-turvy experience!

The Salesman is smothered with a roller coaster of emotions and feelings.

The way that more than one of the central characters changes their motivations is essentially the film’s most tremendous success. Rana, Emad, and “the Man” are flawed, complex characters, and what a treat it must have been for these actors to sink their teeth into these roles.

A special mention must be given to the other actors involved in the film. The Salesman is fraught with great performances, big and small.

In addition to the leads (Hosseini and Alidoosti), the supporting cast exudes immeasurable talent. Farid Sajadhosseini as “the Man” is astounding, and his family members, who appear mainly in the conclusion, deserve much praise.

These minor characters appear during the most pivotal part, giving it the acting chops to pull the result.

Asghar Farhadi hits another one out of the park with The Salesman (2016), and how deserving is the Oscar win for this man, a director whose films are always sure to be compelling, thought-provoking treats?

I cannot wait for his next film.

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

Dunkirk-2017

Dunkirk-2017

Director Christopher Nolan

Starring Fionn Whitehead, Tom Hardy

Scott’s Review #666

Reviewed July 24, 2017

Grade: A

Of the hundreds of war films made over the years, most have a similar style, with either a clear patriotic slant or a questioning/message-type nature.

Regardless, most have a certain blueprint—from the story to the visuals to the direction—and rarely stray from it.

The genre is not my favorite, as machismo is usually overdone, and too many films turn into standard “guy films” or “good guys versus the bad guys.”

Finally, along comes a film like Dunkirk (2017)that gives the stale genre a swift kick.

The story is both simple and historical.

In 1940, Nazi Germany, having successfully invaded France, pushed thousands of French and British soldiers to a seaside town named Dunkirk.

With slim hopes of rescue or survival, the soldiers are sitting ducks for the raid of German fighter planes, which drop bombs both on the soldiers and rescue ships.

In parallel stories, a kindly British civilian (Mark Rylance) and his son sail to Dunkirk to help rescue the soldiers, and two British fighter pilots chase the German fighter planes, attempting to thwart their deadly intentions.

One will immediately be struck by the film’s pacing, which is nonstop action from start to finish. The action, combined with very little dialogue and an eerie musical score, is what makes the film feel unique and fresh.

Directed by Christopher Nolan (The Dark Knight, 2008 and Inception, 2010), critics herald this film as his most remarkable work yet- I tend to agree.

Scenes involving such differing musical scores as screechy violins mixed with thunderous, heavy beats shake up the film and keep the audience on their toes as to what is coming next.

An interesting facet of the film, and certainly done on purpose, is that the characters’ backstories are not revealed- we know very little about them.  Do they have families? Are they married? This is a beautiful decision by the screenwriters and by Nolan.

For instance, the first scenes involve a disheveled private named Tommy (Fionn Whitehead).  Panicked, he runs through the streets in pursuit of the beach, where he meets a fellow soldier named Gibson, who is burying another soldier in the sand.

Together, they find a wounded soldier and carry him to a departing ship. The men never speak but communicate through their eyes and gestures—it is a powerful series of scenes.

Another positive to Dunkirk is the anonymity of the enemy. The German soldiers are never shown. We see many scenes of fighter planes overhead, pummeling the soldiers with bombs and pulsating gunfire in various scenes. Still, the mystique of the enemy troops is a constant throughout the film.

The faceless component of the villains adds terror and haunting uncertainty.  In this way, the film adds to the audience’s confusion about where the enemy may be at any given moment.

The visuals and the vastness of the oceanside beach are at the forefront throughout the entire film, which is one hour and forty-six minutes, relatively brief for a war film. It elicits both beauty and a terrible gloominess.

Scenes of the vastness of the beach peppered with thousands of cold and hungry men are both pathetic and powerful.

The best scenes occur on Mr. Dawson’s  (Rylance) mariner boat. Aided by his son Peter and Peter’s frightened schoolmate, the trio heads for dangerous Dunkirk to help rescue, but en route, he picks up a shell-shocked soldier determined to stay as far away from Dunkirk as possible.

This leads to compelling drama and deep characterization of all the central characters.

Many list 1998’s Saving Private Ryan as the best film in the modern war genre, but Dunkirk may very well rival that film in intensity and musical effectiveness. Dunkirk (2017) also contains shockingly little bloodshed or dismembered soldiers—it does not need this to tell a powerful story.

The film is sometimes emotional and intense, but it never lets go of its audience from the very first frame—it is a war film for the history books and a lesson in film creativity and thoughtfulness.

Oscar Nominations: 3 wins-Best Picture, Best Director-Christopher Nolan, Best Original Score, Best Sound Editing (won), Best Sound Mixing (won), Best Production Design, Best Cinematography, Best Film Editing (won)

Closet Monster-2016

Closet Monster-2016

Director Stephen Dunn

Starring Connor Jessup, Aliocha Schneider, Aaron Abrams

Scott’s Review #665

Reviewed July 23, 2017

Grade: B

Closet Monster is a 2016 Canadian LGBTQ+ drama featured at the Toronto International Film Festival and crowned the Best Canadian Drama winner.

Stephen Dunn, an upstart director, adds interesting visual techniques and images.

The story is a compelling coming-of-age piece, but the film is sometimes uneven, mainly due to character underdevelopment.

Still, for the subject matter, it is a lovely film for LGBTQ+ teenagers to be exposed to.

The film is set in Newfoundland, where eighteen-year-old Oscar Madly (Connor Jessup) is a closeted, creative teenager. He aspires to be accepted into a prestigious school in New York, designing special effects makeup.

Through the opening scenes, featuring Oscar as an eight-year-old child, we learn that his mother has left the family to begin a new life and that Oscar witnessed the vicious beating of a gay teen, leaving him terrified of his developing feelings towards the same sex.

Oscar has issues with both of his parents- his mother’s abandonment and his father’s temper and homophobia. He frequently escapes into a private treehouse he and his father have built and daydreams of happier childhood times with his father.

Oscar’s best friend is Gemma, who his father mistakenly assumes is his girlfriend. When Oscar meets a suave co-worker, Wilder, he immediately becomes obsessed with him.

Director Dunn creates a talking pet hamster for Oscar, voiced by actress Isabella Rossellini, a fantastic, creative add-on to the film. Buffy is a source of advice and wisdom throughout Oscar’s constant trials and tribulations and has been with him through the years.

In a clever revelation that goes over his head, Buffy reveals to Oscar that she, in reality, has been replaced several times by other hamsters over the years.

Closet Monster has its positives and negatives. Certainly, it is relatable and hits it out of the park for teenagers or any age group struggling with sexuality issues or for children of divorce.

Dunn successfully makes Oscar an empathetic character with wit, charm, and just the perfect amount of vulnerability. In many ways, Oscar is mature beyond his years.

Oscar is, for the most part, a careful character. A world of chaos and disorder surrounds him, and he uses escapism (his fantasies and secluded treehouse) to get through life.

Oscar is a strong and well-written character.

Also, a hit is Oscar’s love interest, the sexy Wilder. Wilder, who is more of a bad boy and assumed to be straight, is rebellious and also becomes a sweet and trusted friend to Oscar.

When he realizes Oscar’s sexual preference and that he is the object of Oscar’s affection, he does not freak out or dismiss Oscar. Instead, the young men become even closer. In a tender scene, Wilder offers to be Oscar’s first kiss, and he can experience the monumental moment especially.

Still, the film would have been wise in better developing Oscar’s parents. At first, the father (Peter Madly) appears to be a decent man who was dumped by his wife and forced to raise his son alone.

Conversely, the mother (Brin) is written as abandoning her child to selfishly start a new life with a new family (Oscar even spits in her face!). Somewhere along the line, Peter becomes a reckless homophobic with severe anger issues, and Brin is painted as the sympathetic one who is suddenly there for Oscar.

The characters should have been better developed. Their motives were unclear and perplexing. Why did they split in the first place?

Dunn is excellent at making Closet Monster an atypical film. He does not pepper the story with predictability or tried-and-valid same-sex romance points, which is a brave choice.

He fills the film with non-cliche moments.

Closet Monster (2016) is a worthy entry in the LGBT film category and a must-see for those struggling with identity issues because the film acts as a form of therapy.

In the Flesh-1998

In the Flesh-1998

Director Ben Taylor

Starring Dane Ritter, Ed Corbin

Scott’s Review #663

Reviewed July 10, 2017

Grade: B

In the Flesh is a steamy, pre-Brokeback Mountain, LGBT film from 1998. The budget for this film is very small and the acting is quite wooden.

My initial reaction was that In the Flesh is a terrible film, yet something sucked me in as a fan, whether the crime theme or the romance (or both).

The atmosphere is quite dreamlike and moody, which I find appealing and the addition of a whodunit murder mystery amid the romantic drama is highly appealing- therefore I hesitantly recommend this film for perhaps a late-night adult viewing.

But be prepared for endless plot holes and unnecessary subplots.

Oliver Beck (Dane Ritter) is a handsome college student who works as a hustler in a dive bar named The Blue Boy in Atlanta, Georgia. He has his share of loyal, older men who use his services and adore him, especially a lonely man named Mac- a barfly at the watering hole.

When closeted Detective Philip Kursch (Ed Corbin) begins an undercover assignment to bust a drug ring at The Blue Boy, their lives intersect, as Philip falls in love with Oliver and investigates his past.

As the drug investigation seems to be quickly forgotten, a murder mystery develops when Mac is murdered at the ATM- Oliver looks on, panics,  and speeds away. When Philip covers Oliver as an alibi, the plot thickens.

Other side stories like a flashback sequence involving Oliver’s past- while driving drunk he killed his best childhood friend, the introduction of his sometime boss and girlfriend, Chloe, and his caring for Lisa, his sister, addicted to heroin- are brought to the table, but really have little to do with the main story and only confuse the plot.

The most compelling element is the relationship between Oliver and Philip and their dysfunctional love story, but many questions abound. Is Philip secretly married or dating a female? We know nothing about his personal life.

Oliver, hustling and hating every minute of it, merely as a way to support Lisa’s habit is ridiculous- why not get her help?

Neither actor Ed Corbin nor Dane Ritter will ever be accused of being the world’s greatest actor, and can hardly act their way out of a paper bag. Both actor’s performances are wooden and unemotional, even when emotion is required in the scene.

Still, oddly this somewhat works in the film.

Regardless of In the Flesh being riddled with plot holes and sub-par acting, the film has some charm.

The moody Atlanta nights, rife with sex and secrets, are quite appealing. A murderer on the loose and disguised save for a green watch is intriguing.

The film also has a mysterious, almost haunting nature, and the muted camera work, whether intentional or the result of a poor DVD copy, works very well.

Since the time is 1998, a time when more and more LGBT films were beginning to be made, but not overly so, In the Flesh and its director, Ben Taylor, deserve credit for even being able to get this film produced and made.

The mainstream success of the LGBT juggernaut, Brokeback Mountain (2006), undoubtedly helped, albeit in a small way, by this film.

Though, strangely, I never noticed the two main characters ever kiss- too soon for 1998?

Not the finest acting nor the best-written screenplay, In the Flesh (1998), is a bare-bones film that will be enjoyed largely by an LGBT audience seeking a peek into a time when these types of films were not running aplenty and typically made in the independent film venue.

Life, Animated-2016

Life, Animated-2016

Director Roger Ross Williams

Starring Owen Suskind, Ron Suskind

Scott’s Review #662

Reviewed July 9, 2017

Grade: B+

Autism is still a baffling disease to many people (myself included) since I know nobody personally who is afflicted with it and, before watching this documentary, had many questions.

It’s terrific to see a documentary that not only teaches the viewer about autistic people but presents an incredible story of how Disney films helped an autistic child into a world of normalcy with the aid of loving parents.

Life, Animated (2016) is an empathetic film with a positive and inspirational message.

The production is based on a 2014 novel, Life, Animated: A Story of Sidekicks, Heroes, and Autism, written by journalist Ron Suskind. Ron tells the story of his son Owen and how Disney films helped him communicate with the outside world.

The documentary, however, is told from Owen’s perspective, from childhood to adulthood. The story incorporates not only Owen’s challenges with autism but also his love life, relationship with his brother and parents, and various other autistic people he has come to bond with.

He was fortunate to be invited to Paris, France, to speak at a conference.

How Owen, an energetic and “normal” three-year-old, suddenly shrunk into himself and away from the rest of the world is mysterious, but also how autism works.

Owen’s parents, baffled at the sudden change in Owen’s behavior, did the dutiful parental actions of doctors and studies, but, in essence, helped Owen on their own. When Ron, on a lark and with some desperation, began speaking in the voice of a Disney character, Owen sprung to life like magic.

The film will please fans of Disney films since Owen lives and breathes the various classic movies, immersing himself in their worlds and memorizing scenes and dialogue alike. Specifically, The Little Mermaid (1988) and Beauty and the Beast (1990) are heavily featured reference points.

Unfortunately, Owen was tormented by school bullies as a teenager, which caused him a setback. Fortunately, his creative mind allowed him to write stories using his characters to relieve everyday stress.

The film intersperses various drawings of Owen and his family throughout, adding a creative edge to the documentary.

The documentary wisely does not state that Disney films will cure anyone with autism, but Owen’s love of these films served as a stimulus to bring him back to life.

Presumably, any autistic child could find a source or something they love to help build self-esteem and achieve skills.

I highly recommend Life, Animated (2016) to anyone with an autistic child, sibling, relative, or friend seeking an empathetic experience and a heartwarming achievement.

From a film perspective, the documentary is clear, concise, and to the point, with videotaped images of Owen’s life.

Life, Animated received a 2016 Best Documentary Oscar nomination.

Oscar Nominations: Best Documentary-Feature

Homicidal-1961

Homicidal-1961

Director William Castle

Starring Jean Arless, Patricia Bresling

Scott’s Review #661

Reviewed July 8, 2017

Grade: A-

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

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

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

The surprise ending is terrific.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The comparisons to Psycho are endless.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Bullitt-1968

Bullitt-1968

Director Peter Yates

Starring Steve McQueen, Robert Vaughn, Jacqueline Bisset

Scott’s Review #660

Reviewed July 7, 2017

Grade: B+

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The quick, edgy camera angles as the cars zip down the windy, narrow San Francisco roads build compelling tension.

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

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

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

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

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

Appealing is the period in which the film is made. 1968 was an excellent year for cinema; Bullitt capitalized on the newly liberal use of blood in films, making it an influential action film.

Dozens of imitators (some admittedly with superior writing) followed, including classics Dirty Harry and The French Connection (both 1971). These contain the exact basic blueprint that Bullitt has.

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

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

He is in the San Francisco Police Department after all.

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

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

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

The Beguiled-2017

The Beguiled-2017

Director Sofia Coppola

Starring Nicole Kidman, Colin Farrell, Kirsten Dunst

Scott’s Review #659

Reviewed July 4, 2017

Grade: A-

A remake of the 1971 film (also adapted from an earlier novel) starring Clint Eastwood, The Beguiled is a 2017 release directed by Sofia Coppola (Lost in Translation, 2003), a director ready to burst onto the front lines.

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

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

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

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

Slowly, the females in the school become enamored with John, developing rivalries to gain the upper hand in his affections.

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

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

The colors are muted and almost pastel, and fog commonly floats through the exterior scenes.

Coppola does a fantastic job of portraying a deserted southern landscape. The film’s lighting is also intriguing, as lit candles enhance the dimness.

The final dinner scene (poison mushrooms, anyone?) is gloomy and Shakespearean.

Beyond the look of the film, The Beguiled is well-acted. With heavyweights like Farrell, Kidman, and frequent Coppola star, Kirsten Dunst, as the vulnerable and unhappy teacher, Miss Morrow, the acting is stellar and believable.

The audience is unsure if John is manipulating the women for his gain or if he has developed feelings for any (or all) of them.

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

While compelling, the story is relatively slow-moving, leaving the reader with infinite possibilities when the conclusion finally happens. Other than the tart Alicia, Miss Morrow and Miss Farnsworth could have reached endless romantic potential.

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

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

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

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

The acting in The Beguiled is fantastic.

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

The story has a few issues, but The Beguiled (2017) is worth the money.

Escape from Alcatraz-1979

Escape from Alcatraz-1979

Director Don Siegel

Starring Clint Eastwood

Scott’s Review #656

Reviewed July 2, 2017

Grade: B+

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Johnny Guitar-1954

Johnny Guitar-1954

Director Nicholas Ray

Starring Joan Crawford, Sterling Hayden

Scott’s Review #655

Reviewed June 15, 2017

Grade: B-

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The script is not the high point of the film.

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

Fans of the classic Western may be disappointed.

I Smile Back-2015

I Smile Back-2015

Director Adam Salky

Starring Sarah Silverman

Scott’s Review #654

Reviewed June 13, 2017

Grade: B+

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

It is a bit unclear what the audience should feel.

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

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

Thanks to Silverman, she plays these scenes with gusto.

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

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

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

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

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

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

A Man Called Ove-2016

A Man Called Ove-2016

Director Hannes Holm

Starring Rolf Lassgård, Ida Engvoll

Scott’s Review #653

Reviewed June 12, 2017

Grade: A

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

The film is terrific.

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

The film is magical in a sense.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Oscar Nominations: Best Foreign Language Film

Fences-2016

Fences-2016

Director Denzel Washington

Starring Denzel Washington, Viola Davis, Jovan Adepo

Scott’s Review #652

Reviewed June 11, 2017

Grade: B+

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

What a blessing and a curse.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Hacksaw Ridge-2016

Hacksaw Ridge-2016

Director Mel Gibson

Starring Andrew Garfield, Luke Bracey, Vince Vaughn

Scott’s Review #651

Reviewed June 9, 2017

Grade: B+

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

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

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

The film also leans anti-war and pacifistic.

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

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

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

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

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

He saves the real gore for later in the film.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Strait-Jacket-1964

Strait-Jacket-1964

Director William Castle

Starring Joan Crawford, Diane Baker

Scott’s Review #650

Reviewed June 7, 2017

Grade: B

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Faculty-1998

The Faculty-1998

Director Robert Rodriguez

Starring Josh Hartnett, Piper Laurie, Salma Hayek

Scott’s Review #648

Reviewed June 4, 2017

Grade: B

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

White Chicks-2004

White Chicks-2004

Director Keenen Ivory Wayans

Starring Shawn Wayans, Marlon Wayans

Scott’s Review #647

Reviewed May 29, 2017

Grade: D

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Live and Let Die-1973

Live and Let Die-1973

Director Guy Hamilton

Starring Roger Moore, Jane Seymour

Scott’s Review #646

Reviewed May 25, 2017

Grade: A-

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Spa Night-2016

Spa Night-2016

Director Andrew Ahn

Starring Joe Seo

Scott’s Review #645

Reviewed May 19, 2017

Grade: B+

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Elle-2016

Elle-2016

Director Paul Verhoeven

Starring Isabelle Huppert

Scott’s Review #644

Reviewed May 17, 2017

Grade: A-

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

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

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

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

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

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

Michele lives a complicated life.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Oscar Nominations: Best Actress-Isabelle Huppert

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

10 Cloverfield Lane-2016

10 Cloverfield Lane-2016

Director Dan Trachtenberg

Starring Mary Elizabeth Winstead,  John Goodman

Scott’s Review #643

Reviewed May 11, 2017

Grade: B+

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

But what lurks in this new setting?

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

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

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

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

Arrival-2016

Arrival-2016

Director Denis Villeneuve

Starring Amy Adams, Jeremy Renner, Forest Whitaker

Scott’s Review #642

Reviewed May 9, 2017

Grade: B-

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

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

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

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

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

Sadly, the rest of the film is rather middling.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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