All posts by scottmet99

Gentlemen Prefer Blondes-1953

Gentlemen Prefer Blondes-1953

Director Howard Hawks

Starring Jane Russell, Marilyn Monroe

Scott’s Review #384

60004540

Reviewed March 13, 2016

Grade: B+

One of the iconic and legendary stars Marilyn Monroe’s better-known offerings from her brief career is Gentlemen Prefer Blondes (1953), a fun musical/romantic comedy.

To create this wonderful gem, she stars alongside Jane Russell, another popular Hollywood star from a golden era.

Together, they have great chemistry and an easy yin-yang relationship, which makes the film light and cheerful but not meaningless or too fluffy.

It is just right for the genre that it is.

As mentioned, romantic comedy has changed in modern cinema, and Gentlemen Prefer Blondes contains the innocence and charm that has since been lost. The 1950s were a perfect time for this genre of film.

Lorelei Lee (Monroe) and Dorothy Shaw (Russell) are American showgirls and best friends who perform a stage show together. Lorelei loves diamonds and rich men- she is dating Gus Esmond, an awkward yet lovable young man who is wealthy but controlled by his father.

Dorothy is less interested in being showered in wealth but prefers handsome, in-shape men.

The adventures begin when the girls board a cruise ship to Paris. A private investigator (Malone) hired by Gus’s father observes and follows Lorelei while the Olympic swim team pursues Dorothy.

The film is entertaining and a must-see for all Monroe fans, as it was at the time when she was at her best- Gentlemen Prefer Blondes and Some Like it Hot are my personal favorites, and she was in the prime of her tragically short film career- sure she plays the “dumb blonde” character with gusto. Still, there is something innocent and fun about her portrayal of Lorelei, and we immediately fall in love with her.

Dorothy is the leader—the smart one—and complements Lorelei’s naivety. More worldly and sophisticated, she watches out for her counterpart.

The chemistry between Monroe and Russell makes the film work so well. The audience buys them as best friends and the two actresses (who reportedly got along famously).

Monroe shines during the legendary number, “Diamonds are a Girls Best Friend,” a performance that famously inspired the 1984 Madonna video “Material Girl” that will forever live on in music history.

My favorite scene is on the ship when Lorelei gets into trouble. She sneaks into the private investigator’s cabin to obtain incriminating evidence and gets stuck in the tight cabin window.

The shot of Monroe sticking halfway out the window is funny. She then hilariously enlists a young child to help her avoid recognition and fool a man with a sub-par vision.

Vision also comes into play when Dorothy disguises herself as Lorelei in a silly fashion (looking more like a drag queen) in a courtroom scene over hi-jinks involving a stolen tiara.

Interesting is the scene in which Dorothy is flocked by dancing Olympic gymnasts and is as provocative for 1953.

Undoubtedly unable to show any form of nudity whatsoever, the dancers are clad in nude-colored shorts, which indeed suggests elements of sexuality, an illusion of nudity, and fits the scene perfectly as Dorothy is in testosterone heaven.  It is like a big, giant fantasy for her.

Gentlemen Prefer Blondes (1953) is a triumphant offering from another cinematic era—a sorely missed time. Cute but not trivial, the film is worth watching for the iconic Marilyn Monroe.

Daisy Miller-1974

Daisy Miller-1974

Director Peter Bogdanovich

Starring Cybill Shepard, Cloris Leachman 

Scott’s Review #383

DaisyMillerPoster

Reviewed March 6, 2016

Grade: B

Daisy Miller is a largely forgotten 1974 film based on a Henry James novella of the same name, directed by Peter Bogdanovich and starring then-girlfriend Cybill Sheperd in the title role.

I admire the film in certain aspects, but ultimately rank the film as good, but not spectacular. I pondered the film afterward and had a feeling that something was missing from it.

The story, set in the late 1800s, tells of a wealthy upstate New York family, led by the naïve Daisy Miller (Sheperd), visiting Europe in the hopes of becoming more cultured and worldly, but instead, are largely met with defiance and snobbery from European sophisticates. Daisy attempts to find love with her numerous potential suitors.

The film is largely shot in Switzerland and Italy.

The romantic story between Daisy and upper-class Frederick Winterbourne is the focal point. Daisy, a chatterbox and flirtatious, captures Winterbourne’s fancy and he gradually woos her but is conflicted by social norms and her innocent involvement with other men, most notably dashing Italian Giovanelli.

This leads to conflict. I noticed some chemistry between Daisy and Winterbourne.

Bogdanovich, who only directed a handful of films, including the masterpiece The Last Picture Show (1971), uses several great actors in both films.

In addition to Sheperd, Cloris Leachman, and Eileen Brennan appear in supporting roles. Leachman as Daisy’s equally chatty and naïve mother, and Brennan as the vicious socialite Mrs. Parker.

Brennan, in particular, shines. Outstanding at playing snobs and unique character roles, this was right up Brennan’s alley and she almost steals the show.

I adored the cinematography and the costumes featured in the production and thought both were the film’s main strengths.

The clothing that the characters were dressed in is both gorgeous and believable for the period. The backdrop during the hotel garden scene is exquisite and picturesque as the lake, sky, and mountain are all in full view adding a unique viewing experience.

I also found the subject of cultural class distinctions quite interesting. The Millers are rich but uneducated and unlikable- they live in Schenectady and are considered far beneath the clever, intelligent figures of Europe.

They do not measure up and they lack the same breeding and class as many of the characters.

Adding to this is the fact that the Millers never really seemed all that interested in being in Europe, almost taking the opportunity for granted, so I was never completely captured by the Millers or found them particularly sympathetic as a group.

Given that she is the focus, I found the character of Daisy Miller a bit unlikable and this could be due to the casting of Sheperd. Daisy’s endless rants, largely about herself, teetered on annoying to say nothing of her irritant little brother.

Sure, Daisy is sweet and kindhearted, but there is something that did not compel me about her. She was a less charismatic, northern version of Scarlett O’Hara.

I kept wondering if other actresses might have brought more to the character and given her more muscle. Was this role a showcase for Sheperd because of her relationship with Bogdanovich?

The conclusion of the film surprised me and features a downcast ending that I did not expect given the sunny mood of the rest of the film, and this is to Bogdanovich’s credit.

He certainly did not make a mainstream film and I admire that.

Daisy Miller (1974) is a mixed bag for me. I give my admiration for some aspects, but the story and the casting could have used a bit of altering.

Oscar Nominations: Best Costume Design

The New Girlfriend-2015

The New Girlfriend-2015

Director Francois Ozon

Starring Romain Duris, Anais Demoustier

Scott’s Review #382

80017300

Reviewed March 5, 2016

Grade: B

The New Girlfriend (2015) is a French, and lighter, version of The Danish Girl, a similarly themed film also released in 2015.

The story involves gender identification confusion among the central character, though the time in The Danish Girl is the 1920s, The New Girl is set in present times.

The film begins with a brief montage of the lives of two best friends,  Laura and  Claire, inseparable as children, young adults, and even as married women.

Sadly, we learn that Laura has recently died of a terminal illness and this is where the film begins. Claire embarks on a unique friendship with Laura’s husband David when she catches him wearing female clothing and acting as a “mommy” to his infant daughter.

They form a bond and Claire agrees to harbor David’s secret and even accompany him in public as he slowly takes on the persona of “Virginia”.

I found the film quite compelling throughout most of the running time as we see David’s burning desire to dress as a woman and feel like a woman.

We mostly see the bond develop between Claire and David, who sometimes is Virginia, and other times David. Claire is happily married to her successful, handsome, husband Gilles and the three individuals are friends. They share dinners, tennis matches, and evenings consuming wine.

Gilles is unaware of David’s secret and begins to fear an affair between his wife and friend. Likewise, during moments, Claire imagines David and Gilles beginning a torrid affair.

Interestingly, the film does not go full steam ahead with the love triangle between Claire/Gilles/David (Virginia), a wise choice. That would have made the film more typical and perhaps even one-note.

Rather, the point is struggles by David to feel like a woman and how his friends support him. When he kisses Claire and snuggles with her, it is not sexual, it is to feel close to another woman.

This makes the film more character-driven.

As with many foreign-language films, The New Girlfriend is liberal with nudity, male and female. When nudity is featured in American films typically it is gratuitously or sexually.

This film is French, so the nudity is tasteful and even beautiful. When Claire is topless it is more expressive as the mystique of the female body than in a showing of a chesty woman, which Claire is not.

The ending slightly disappointed me. The idyllic, fairy tale way it wrapped was romanticized and unrealistic. I would have liked to have seen more of David/Virginia’s struggles and how his in-laws might have wrestled with their granddaughter being raised by a single man dressing as a woman.

Another flaw was the lack of explanation as to whether David, as a male, desired and yearned biologically to become a woman or if he was satisfied to dress up and publicly look like a woman.

The film chose not to go this route and undoubtedly would have made the film darker, containing a much deeper story.

Instead, The New Girlfriend (2015) was light, fun, and wholesome in its overall story.

How to Marry a Millionaire-1953

How to Marry a Millionaire-1953

Director Jean Negulesco

Starring Lauren Bacall, Marilyn Monroe, Betty Grable

Scott’s Review #381

60004541

Reviewed February 28, 2016

Grade: B

How to Marry a Millionaire (1953) is a light-hearted, fun, romantic comedy featuring three famous leading ladies: Lauren Bacall, Betty Grable, and the legendary Marilyn Monroe.

The film’s backdrop is warm, sophisticated, and pleasing: 1950s New York City. This setting is appropriate, as all three women featured are models searching for wealthy suitors.

Schatze (Bacall), Loco (Grable), and Pola (Monroe) are blatant gold-diggers. They are set on using their looks and charms to seduce wealthy men into marriage. They rent an enormous and lavish apartment (the owner is out of the country and avoiding the IRS) and slowly sell the furniture to pay the rent.

Each woman encounters potential beaus, rich and poor, and must choose between true love and marriage for money. Or can they achieve both?

I noticed similarities to the 1980s television sitcom The Golden Girls. The ladies on The Golden Girls constantly pursued men—albeit not always rich men. Schatze resembles Dorothy in her directness, leadership skills, and height.

Loco has qualities attributed to Blanche, such as sexiness and a flirty manner. Finally, Pola is dizzy and blonde, a close match for Rose. Unquestionably, How to Marry a Millionaire influenced the iconic television series.

How wonderful the setting is. Interspersed throughout the film are shots of Manhattan, not to mention the visible New York City skyline from the lady’s luxurious apartment where men come and go in attempts to pursue the eligible women.

The city skyline is a set. However, other locales are not.

Numerous cinematic shots include the Empire State Building, Central Park, the Brooklyn Bridge, the lights of Times Square, Rockefeller Center, and the United Nations Building.

As a lover of New York City, it struck me as both fantastic and melancholy to think about how many people have come and gone throughout the iconic city, yet here it remains and always will. A slice of 1950’s Manhattan- another time entirely- was terrific.

The film itself is arguably fluff—lightweight, to be sure. But How to Marry a Millionaire has a 1950s innocence and a sense of fun that has become tainted and is missing in today’s romantic comedy genre. Everything is now so crude and cynical, which is why this film works for me. There is a wholesomeness to it.

Sure, the women are manipulative (specifically  Schatze), but they yearn for true love and are kind women. Their escapades are humorous. Pola- frightened of being seen by a man wearing her glasses- and blind as a bat without them- constantly bumps into walls and navigates rooms by feeling her way around.

More humorous still is when she mistakes a flight to Atlantic City for Kansas City, thereby changing the course of her life.

Loco (Grable), clearly the oldest of the three, and, by this time, Grable was looking flat out matronly, decides to go on a trip to Maine with her married beau, expecting to attend a convention filled with rich and eligible men.

Misunderstanding the situation, she engages in hilarious hijinks with her beau and meets dashing but poor Eban.

Light, fun, with bright colors and sets, How to Marry a Millionaire (1953), when watched now, brings me back to a more pure day when films were innocent and fresh- filled with glamour and sophistication.

A trip down memory lane in the film is a nice thing.

Oscar Nominations: Best Costume Design, Color

Beasts of No Nation-2015

Beasts of No Nation-2015

Director Cary Fukunaga

Starring Idris Elba, Ama Abebrese

Scott’s Review #380

Beasts_of_No_Nation_poster

Reviewed February 21, 2016

Grade: B+

Having been made aware of this film following the healthy number of independent film award nominations heaped upon it in 2015, Beasts of No Nation is a war drama, set in an unnamed West African country.

It tells of dire events from the perspective of a young boy, who has lost his family.

He is forced into a life of brutality and death, taken under the wing of a charismatic commander.

Beasts of No Nation is sometimes raw, sometimes gorgeous, but at all times thoughtful and a powerful telling of the devastation of human life, in a world very few can comprehend.

We first meet Agu (approximately aged eight or nine), wonderfully played by unknown child actor Abraham Attah, during happy times.

He plays with his childhood chums and adores his older brother who is attempting to woo a pretty girl. His father is a leader and the family lives in a small village protected by troops.

They allow refugees in for care.

Their country is in a civil war, but the family happily survives and makes a life for themselves, sharing meals. Suddenly, the government has fallen and rebels seize the area.

Soon, Agu’s family is gone, leaving him alone and scared.

His world turns upside down, he becomes involved with a militia commandant, played by Idris Elba, and a fellow child soldier named Strika, who takes him in.

The film belongs to two actors, Attah and Elba, though all actors perform their roles with precision. The relationship between the characters is interesting and complex, like a father/son mixed with mentor/protégé, and is the most compelling part of the film.

The commander is a father figure to Agu. He sees a warrior in him, taking him under his wing, feeding, and caring for him. He is never violent or abusive towards Agu and in one powerful scene, Agu is sodomized ( mostly off-screen yet very much implied) and Agu seeks comfort in his best friend Strika, who has also met the same actions prior.

One cannot help but think sexual assaults like this are perceived and handled differently in Africa.

Rape is a subject that comes up numerous times in the film, mostly against women.

I noticed throughout the film the beauty of the cinematography as most scenes are set outside. Lush, green forests and the villages are tranquil and beautiful, contrasting starkly with the violence.

Agu does some terrible things- in one brutal scene an innocent student is hacked to bits by Agu and Strika at the commander’s coaching as a sort of initiation.

Agu sees the student as responsible for his family’s fates and goes berserk.

Agu then tearfully mistakes a village woman for his mother and angrily shoots her dead as she is being raped by his cohorts. The film is not soft and contains lots of violence. But again, this is a world unknown to most viewers.

At times we despise Agu and the violent rage he emits, but then we remember he is a young boy being turned into a warrior by savages.

He talks to God and his mother and knows what he does (and what is happening to his country) is wrong.

I would have liked to have learned more background about Elba’s character. What makes him tick? Has he lost loved ones long ago as Agu has?

I surmised that the answer is yes. He is brutal, but a calm, calculating, thoughtful man, but one that is in control at all times.

As war rages on Agu and his fellow tribe question what they are doing. Such smarts for a young boy and the audience admires his views. He is intellectual and worldly way beyond his years.

That is what makes Beasts of No Nation a compelling character study. I more than once thought that I had seen this type of film before (Last King of Scotland, 2006, comes to mind in recent times), but never to the extent of what a character-driven story it was, especially in the eyes of a child.

Beasts of No Nation (2015) takes the viewer to an unpleasant world of brutality and a world where there is no rule book. We are exposed to a once innocent child’s experiences and conflicted feelings in the face of danger and heartbreak, and learn its complications.

Independent Spirit Award Nominations: 2 wins-Best Feature, Best Director-Cary Joji Fukunaga, Best Male Lead-Abraham Attah (won), Best Supporting Male-Idris Elba (won), Best Cinematography

The Martian-2015

The Martian-2015

Director Ridley Scott

Starring Matt Damon, Jessica Chastain

Scott’s Review #379

80058399

Reviewed February 19, 2016

Grade: C-

The latest film from heralded director Ridley Scott (notable for classics Blade Runner-1981, and Alien, 1979), The Martian (2015), is a science-fiction/space adventure about a believed-dead astronaut (Matt Damon) trapped on Mars after his fellow team members thought he was dead.

NASA and a crew of rescuers fervently attempt to save him as supplies run out.

Extremely resourceful, Mark Watney (Matt Damon) cleverly avoids death by using his wits to survive and prosper on the challenging planet.

Hot on the heels of several other high-profile modern science fiction offerings, such as Interstellar (2014) and Gravity (2013), The Martian features a big Hollywood star in the lead role.

Much of the action is Watney on his own, attempting to grow to produce, ration food, and keep his sanity- think Tom Hanks in Castaway (1996) except on another planet, and with a “Hab”, an indoor operations station left by his abandoned crew.

The Martian has received accolades, even winning the Golden Globe for Best Musical or Comedy Film, though that is poor categorization.

The film has snippets of humor and a few songs in the background, but that is it. Maybe some late 1970s disco songs constitute a musical?

I found The Martian to be a Hollywood mainstream film in every sense. That may be a high compliment to some, but I expect more.

It is not that The Martian is a bad film, it is not, but it is mediocre, and has all the elements of an average offering. The film was going for an emotional experience that I did not experience.

I had little doubt that the ending would be sweet and wrapped in a bow.

Mark Watney is the typical all-American character in a “guy film”. He hates disco and loves ketchup. The film makes him a guys guy, so therefore the average film-goer will relate to him.

He is in good shape, cracks jokes, and is likable.

But that is also a problem with the character and The Martian. He lacks substance. We know little about him except he has parents who never appear on-screen.

The way that the film touts him as the hero and is cheered and praised, while in real life would be warranted, it just feels forced and contrived.

This is not a knock against Matt Damon, who does a decent job.

My beef is that the character is not fleshed out.  The well-built Damon at the beginning of the film versus the scrawny Damon at the conclusion is a facade as a body double was used in the later scenes.

This lack of authenticity disappointed me.

I expected more from the supporting cast. Jessica Chastain, Jeff Daniels, Chiwetel Ejiofor, and Kristen Wiig play one-note types that any actor could have played.

Why were big stars cast at all?

Chastain as a mission commander, Daniels as Director of NASA, Ejiofor as NASA mission commander, and Wiig as a Public Relations specialist. The casting, in particular, of Wiig in the straight-laced, stale was mysterious to me, and it was not a particularly good portrayal….and I am a Wiig fan.

The humorous parts in The Martian are contrived and not dissimilar to countless other films with the smart-ass remarks all containing a bland quality. Lines like “Eat your heart out Neil Armstrong” seem silly and unnecessary.

I expected more wit.

Let me be fair- the visual effects (it is space after all) are impressive, and it was fairly interesting to see what is supposed to be the planet of Mars, but really in this day and age of CGI effects the film is not that spectacular.

 I would much rather be given a compelling story than visual treats any day of the week.

My review of The Martian may seem harsh, but only because I expected more from it than I was given.

With several Oscar nominations including Best Picture, I anticipated a top-notch film, and The Martian did not come close.

Mediocrity, straightforward, and predictable describe The Martian (2015) film.

I have heard that the novel is fantastic and added it to my reading list.

Oscar Nominations: Best Picture, Best Actor-Matt Damon, Best Adapted Screenplay, Best Sound Editing, Best Sound Mixing, Best Production Design, Best Visual Effects

Violette Noziere-1978

Violette Noziere-1978

Director Claude Chabrol

Starring Isabelle Huppert

Scott’s Review #378

70067611

Reviewed February 16, 2016

Grade: B+

Another in the legion of thrilling and mysterious films by French director Claude Chabrol, Violette Noziere (1978) tells the true story of an eighteen-year-old Parisian girl, who plots her parent’s murder in 1930’s France.

The fact that the tale is true to life makes it even more horrific and mesmerizing.

It is beautifully shot, though the action largely takes place in interior settings.

This film is a cerebral experience.

The film is classy in every way- like French films typically are, and Isabelle Huppert (Violette) takes center stage. She is gorgeous and interesting-looking (reminiscent of a young Jennifer Jason Leigh) in the lead role.

Violette appears to be a typical French teen but harbors a dark secret and something always appears glum about the character. She works nights as a prostitute accosting wealthy men.

When she meets handsome but spendthrift, Jean Francois, a young man she fancies, she becomes his main source of income and slowly begins to plot the murder of her low-income, yet stable parents, in an attempt to inherit their apparent savings.

The story is somewhat murky as Violette’s version of events (mainly in the past and concerning her father) is accusatory. She insists that her father sexually abused her as a child, but is this in her fantasy world, or did this happen? One never knows.

Making the film compelling is that Violette’s parents are quite likable. Struggling to make ends meet and provide quality life, they prepare home-cooked meals, enjoy life, and appear to be decent people.

What is the reality?

Later, we witness a rivalry between Violette and her mother. In one scene we see Violette’s father bouncing his daughter on his knee while the mother looks on filled with hatred.

When she attempts to seduce her husband, unsuccessfully, Violette looks on amused. Is this solely in Violette’s mind?

Chabrol, an admirer of Alfred Hitchcock, keeps the suspense going throughout the film, but the heart of the film belongs to Huppert.

From the start of the film, amid meaningless banter with her more refined girlfriend, the audience can tell there is something amiss about Violette. She seems lonely, like a lost little girl yearning for some excitement as her eyes stare into the distance.

Her true colors are slowly exposed, yet Chabrol never makes her all-out crazy. Violette always has a cool, calm, demeanor and that is why the film succeeds.

For fans of Chabrol, or film fans eager for a foreign language treat, Violette Noziere is a rare find, a welcome addition to the growing number of his films I have watched with interest, and heartily enjoyed.

The mystique, the beauty of the artistry, and the twists and turns are top-notch.

Hail, Caesar!-2016

Hail, Caesar! -2016

Director-Ethan Coen, Joel Coen

Starring George Clooney, Channing Tatum

Scott’s Review #377

80074084

Reviewed February 16, 2016

Grade: B+

Hail, Caesar! is a quirky film created and directed by the Coen Brothers, known for such offbeat films as Fargo, No Country for Old Men, and Raising Arizona.

Hail, Caesar is a satirical comedy about the Hollywood film industry during the post-World War II period of the 1950s.

Including singing, dancing, and scandalous matters, the film includes a bevy of current Hollywood talent including George Clooney, Channing Tatum, Josh Brolin, and Scarlett Johannsen to name but a few.

All give fine performances and add humor and wit to the film.

The plot centers on the character of Eddie Mannix (Brolin), a celebrity “fixer” and real-life person, who works as an executive for Capitol Pictures, and whose main responsibility is to ensure that famous Hollywood stars remain out of trouble.

The period is 1951, a particularly scandalous time in pictures. One of the biggest stars of the time, Baird Whitlock (Clooney), is suddenly kidnapped and held for ransom while completing a big epic film for the studio. Mannix must race to keep the crisis out of the news and safely get Whitlock back.

Certainly, there are interesting subplots including handsome, yet talent-less Western actor Hobie Doyle, hired by the studio to appear in a sweeping period piece directed by suave Laurence Laurentz (Ralph Fiennes), and DeeAnna Moran (Johannsen), unmarried and with a “bun in the oven”, determined to keep herself out of the tabloids.

I loved the look of the film, as numerous films within the film occur. The 1950’s set pieces and set designs are exquisite to experience, particularly the period piece set, lavishly designed with classic doors, a staircase, flowers, and a cast dressed to the nines. It brings back an extravagant time.

The film is a satire, to be sure, but also contains the serious subject matter of communism (especially for that period), Russia, and Russian defectors, all involved in a plot to prove a valuable point.

Despite the film being a comedy, this is worth serious thought. Many writers in Hollywood make money for the studios and are rewarded with underwhelming salaries. The same holds in Hollywood today.

This point can spill over into other walks of life as well and the point of the “little man gets screwed” is explored. Communism is also explored throughout the film as the main message- a message that is important and resonates.

Another interesting tidbit that Hail, Caesar! mentions, though only on the surface, is the burgeoning onslaught of television programming.

Suddenly, more and more folks were purchasing TVs and staying away from the glamour of films opting instead for the comfort of their couch.

What a different time it was!

An intriguing, favorite character of mine belongs to Channing Tatum’s portrayal of Burt Gurney, a Gene Kelly-like character famous for singing and dancing numbers. A sizzling sailor dance gives edge and sexuality to the film.

A revealing scandal involving Burt and Laurence is fantastic and delicious.

My favorite scene belongs to Frances McDormand, shamefully only appearing in one scene- quite memorable. As film editor C.C. Calhoun, she diligently shows Mannix film dailies in the hopes of discovering a clue in the disappearance of Whitlock. When her scarf gets caught in the projector, both hilarity and grotesqueness ensue.

It is a classic Coen Brothers comedy.

Hail Caesar! succeeds as a witty, comical, throwback to a wonderful time in film history, with a political edge, that historians will appreciate and Coen Brothers fans will relish.

Perhaps not their most creative or memorable, but enjoyable all the same.

Oscar Nominations: Best Production Design

Amy-2015

Amy-2015

Director Asif Kapadia

Starring Amy Winehouse

Scott’s Review #376

80049094

Reviewed February 8, 2016

Grade: B

Amy (2015) is an informative documentary telling the story of immensely talented, yet troubled, pop singer, Amy Winehouse.

Her childhood, rise to fame, and ultimate downfall as a result of drug, alcohol, and weight battles, are all chronicled in her documentary.

Despite the information, however, I never got the sense that I knew the singer well, and in the conclusion, she still seemed mysterious.

Possessing a unique jazz/soul-infused sound and a wonderful British accent to boot, Winehouse burst onto the pop scene like gangbusters in 2003 as a talented artist with many layers of genres in her music.

A diamond in the rough you might say, and a breath of fresh air in modern music.

The fact that she wrote her songs only added to the level of talent oozing from her.

The documentary wisely tells of her upbringing and her abandoned father, who later resurfaced in her life. Her mother, while decent, could not control Amy, who was full of life and energy.

The main crux of the film, however, is to show her difficulty with fame, a sad, tried and true story of celebrities near and dear, artist types, who do not do well with the attention and adoration thrown their way and Amy Winehouse is no different.

As her popularity grew, all she wanted was to be left alone, and, unfortunately, her life became very public, including her tumultuous relationship with her boyfriend who wound up in prison.

Sadly, Winehouse did not have the best support system and her father was perhaps an opportunist. Amy was a tortured, pure artist who sadly wasted away due to outside circumstances.

Throughout most of the film, she seems lost or overwhelmed by the success that comes her way. In a cruel irony, her biggest hit “Rehab” became fodder for late-night television comics to poke fun at her.

The documentary, while informative, is also quite basic and I felt like I was given more of an overview of Winehouse’s life than anything personal. I did not feel a sense of her inner thoughts and dreams.

Yes, she did not want to be famous and it bothered her, but I wanted to see more of the real Amy Winehouse.

Amy (2015) is an adequate documentary about the life and times of Amy Winehouse and I finished the piece knowing more about her, but not nearly as much about her as I wished I had learned.

Good effort, but more would have been nice.

Oscar Nominations: 1 win-Best Documentary-Feature (won)

Irreversible-2002

Irreversible-2002

Director Gaspar Noe

Starring Monica Bellucci, Vincent Cassel

Top 10 Disturbing Films #4

Scott’s Review #375

60026141

Reviewed February 7, 2016

Grade: C+

As I ponder my review of Irreversible,  a 2002 French thriller and “art film”, I am attempting (as I always do) to look at the film critically, from a story and a technical standpoint, as well as a myriad of other aspects that make up a film.

This is admittedly a toughie.

On the surface, I despised the film wholeheartedly (more on that later), but from a critical standpoint, I found characteristics to admire and give credit to. One thing is for certain- I never want to see this film again.

The story is told in a non-linear style, begins after the story, and works backward, which I credit the film for, giving it a unique storytelling experience, cleverly done.

Two Parisian friends, Marcus and Pierre, go on a rampage after Marcus’s girlfriend is brutally raped and beaten. In panic mode, they learn the name of the attacker (Le Tenia) and go to a gay BDSM club aptly named “The Rectum”, a place the attacker requests, where they fervently search for him all the while beating club-goers and cause havoc.

Since the story is told in reverse, the audience is initially in a state of confusion at the events transpiring, and the jagged, shaky camera work, a very creative technique, only adds to the chaos. We only know that two maniacs are running rampant, destroying everything in their path.

Slowly, we realize what their motivation is as we work backward.

We are introduced to Alex, a beautiful young woman- in the early stages of pregnancy, who is Marcus’s steady, but used to date, Pierre. They are all very good friends. We see the romance between Marcus and Alex, and, working even further backward, we see Alex sitting alone in a park, reading a novel, and enjoying a bright, pleasant day in the park.

This peaceful closing scene contrasts drastically with the rest of the dark film. The film then becomes a flashing, frenetic, black-and-white experience, which I do not understand.

The film is quite bizarre and intensely brutal. The rape of Alex in a dark, gloomy underpass is one of the most intense and disturbing scenes I have ever witnessed in the film, and at one point I needed to leave the room briefly.

The scene is ten minutes in length and Alex is anally raped and then beaten into a comatose state. It is a sickening scene and we witness her pain, misery, and humiliation.

When Pierre and Marcus avenge her rape on who they think is Le Tenia, the scene is also extremely brutal. After (supposed) Le Tenia is captured by them, he attempts to rape Marcus, and Pierre grabs a fire extinguisher and bashes the victim to death as the face is repeatedly destroyed in full detail. It is a tough scene to watch.

I question the motivations of the director wholeheartedly and wonder if he intended to story-tell, or simply make as gruesome and shocking a film as possible.

I have read that when the film was shown at the Cannes Film Festival, many people walked out of the auditorium in disgust- I can see why.

Irreversible is severely homophobic, with repeated gay slurs being used throughout the gay club scenes, and is also anti- Asian as evidenced by Pierre’s and Marcus’s racial slurs directed at a taxi driver.

The motivations of the character of Le Tenia make no sense to me as it is revealed he is a gay man. Why a gay man would brutally rape a female is unclear to me. This, combined with the extreme brutality, anti-gay, anti-minority, and anti-women, renders the film rather pointless from a story perspective.

My assumption after processing the film is that the director wants us to sympathize with nobody in the film, except Alex. Pierre, Marcus, and Le Tenia are all hateful characters.

It is interesting how, at first, since the beginning is the end, the motivations of the characters are unclear and confused.

My admiration of Irreversible (2002) comes solely from the unique camera work, the clever pacing of the film in the form of backward chapters, and the frenetic style of the opening work, however, the homophobia, racism, and brutality left me cold and I could not shake the feeling that this film is shocking for the sake of being shocking, and one that I ultimately cannot applaud.

Wild Tales-2014

Wild Tales-2014

Director Damian Szifron

Starring Liliana Ackerman

Scott’s Review #374

80013561

Reviewed February 5, 2016

Grade: A

What a crazy adventure!

Receiving a well-deserved 2015 Best Foreign Language Film Academy Award nomination, Wild Tales is a Spanish film that weaves six unique vignettes together.

Each tale involves conflict between characters and centers around the subject of revenge. Each reminds me of a foreign language version of a Twilight Zone episode, albeit much darker, mixed with a prevalent Quentin Tarantino influence.

A psychopath arranges for all of his enemies to be on the same flight (“Pasternack”), a hit-and-run accident among a wealthy family turns murderous (“The Proposal”), a bomb expert turns his expertise onto a corrupt towing company (“Little Bomb”), a disturbed bride and groom bizarrely celebrate their wedding reception (“Until Death Do Us Part”), a revenge-driven waitress waits on her rival (“The Rats”) a brutal tale of road rage (“The Strongest”) are the stories told in this fantastic film.

Wild Tales is an outrageous journey and as each chapter unfolds we are treated to the unexpected and each is cleverly written- bear in mind that they are independent stories and have nothing to do with each other chronologically or otherwise.

The vignettes also vary vastly. One as short as ten minutes and another hovering around the forty-minute mark.

Some characters are sympathetic and hateful, which is interesting in itself. The diner in “The Rats” is despised and we wish for his demise.

After “Little Bomb”, the protagonist (or antagonist depending on how you look at it) receives a hero’s welcome for standing up to corruption.

In other stories, particularly in “The Strongest”, all the characters are unlikeable.

Famed director Pedro Almodovar (The Skin I Live In, Volver)  does not direct Wild Tales but does produce the project and his imprint is all over it. Almodovar has a thing for the weird and, as in 2013’s I’m So Excited, a thing for passengers in peril inside airplanes.

After “Pasternack”, the first installment, one will experience an “OMG!” moment, which wisely sets the tone for the entire movie.

We wait and wonder what can happen next.

My favorite tale is between “The Proposal” and “The Strongest”. I love the class distinction evident in the former as a wealthy father struggles to cover up his family’s dirty deeds initially at any cost necessary, but has he finally had enough?

Will the wealthy once again victimize the poor?

In the latter, class distinction is again explored, as a hotshot in a slick car angers a simple man in a battered car, only to regret his outburst of road rage.

The story turns into a Lord of the Flies situation where it is “kill or be killed”. The clever ending for this one is fantastic as the officials completely misinterpret the events.

The most bizarre tale is “Until Death Do Us Part”, which is also the finale.  A glorious and festive Jewish wedding reception turns bitter and bloody as the bride’s jealousy is tested. But is the bride the unstable partner or is the groom? Or perhaps both?

This chapter reminds me of a Quentin Tarantino film (must have been The Bloody Bride), as the tone and the texture are reminiscent of his films (and yes, the blood too!).

Unusual, delightful, and sometimes even deranged, Wild Tales (2014) is a nice reminder that there are still creative and left-of-center projects being made in modern film that must be experienced and enjoyed.

This is not an ordinary, predictable film making it quite a gem.

Oscar Nominations: Best Foreign Language Film

Room-2015

Room-2015

Director Lenny Abrahamson

Starring Brie Larson, Jacob Tremblay

Scott’s Review #373

80073823

Reviewed January 31, 2016

Grade: A

Room (2015) is a compelling story of a woman’s battle in captivity with her five-year-old son in tow.

The film also tells of the after-effects of reclusive living as they both strive to adapt to their changing world.

Receiving a slew of Academy Award nominations, the film is more than a one-dimensional story of peril or rescue, but rather, a smartly woven tale that delves into the psychological issues involved with being confined in a room for years, giving the film a deeper meaning.

Room is adapted from the novel of the same name, written by Emily Donoghue.

We meet twenty-four-year-old Joy (Larson) and her five-year-old son Jack, who live in squalor in a shed made into one room. They exist from food and supplies delivered by their captor “Old Nick”, who abducted Joy seven years prior.

He periodically rapes her and is Jack’s father, though there is no affection on either side. Joy has attempted escape before but has failed.

She is determined to break free once and for all and allow her and Jack a normal life.

In the first half, we learn about Joy and Jack and how they exist and forge a life together. Joy tells Jack they are real and the outside world and people on television are not.

They live in a fantasy world and Jack periodically treats objects (chair, toilet, bed) as real-life things, giving morning greetings to these objects- this is both cute and sad. His only channel to the outside world is a small skylight, which he endlessly gazes at.

I love how the film suddenly changes course at the halfway point and shifts focus to the aftereffects taking a dark, complex, psychological turn.

The first half takes place entirely in the “room”, and suddenly, a new world has blossomed. A monumental event changes the course of the film.

From this point, the film deals with the traumatic effects of being shut away for years. Joy suffers from depression. Jack sees a new world. We see how other characters deal with the turn of events.

Joy’s parents, wonderfully played by Joan Allen and William H. Macy react in completely different ways.

How have their lives changed because of Joy’s abduction? Will they see Old Nick every time they lay eyes on Jack? How will Joy’s mother’s new boyfriend react?

There is a strong theme of coping throughout the film and how all the characters cope with life events and attempt to resume a life of normalcy. There is such a unique humanistic feel to the film that makes it deeper than I would have expected.

Sure, Brie Larson gives a dynamic performance, but the film offers reflection and thought.

The direction and camera work are a marvel. We see a blurred view of what Jack sees in “the real world”.  It is almost like the audience is reawakening to life and we see it through a child’s eyes- the sights, the sounds.

Jack has created an imaginary dog in his mind and the film introduces more than one real dog that plays a pivotal role. We see Jack’s joy and terror at the new experiences.

Room (2015) encompasses thought-provoking ideas making what might only have been a basic story and turning it into an intricate journey into human psychology through many different nuances and facets.

What a wonderful, dark experience this is.

Oscar Nominations: 1 win-Best Picture, Best Director-Lenny Abrahamson, Best Actress-Brie Larson (won), Best Adapted Screenplay

Independent Spirit Award Nominations: 2 wins-Best Female Lead-Brie Larson (won), Best First Screenplay (won), Best Editing

Showgirls-1995

Showgirls-1995

Director Paul Verhoeven

Starring Elizabeth Berkley, Kyle MacLachlan

Scott’s Review #372

962109

Reviewed January 31, 2016

Grade: D

Having heard much about the infamously badly reviewed Showgirls (1995), and its ranking as one of the worst films ever made, I finally got around to watching this (twenty years after its release).

Now considered something of a camp classic, I am glad I did.

While I recognize the dubious distinction it holds and does not disagree with it, I also found something slightly entertaining about the film, and my thought process throughout was “this film is so bad that it might be good”, but in the end, it is pretty much just a bad film.

Nomi Malone (Elizabeth Berkley) hitchhikes to Las Vegas intending to find success as a showgirl. Having her belongings stolen, she is then befriended by a kind-hearted woman named Molly, who works as a seamstress at the topless dance revue, Goddess.

Molly takes her in and introduces her to the star of the show-Cristal (Gina Gershon).

A rivalry immediately develops between the women as Cristal mocks Nomi’s job at another topless club. The main story centers on this rivalry, as Nomi attempts to climb the ranks and achieve success in the shady world of adult entertainment.

Along the way she becomes involved with various men, specifically entertainment director (and Cristal’s boyfriend), Zack, played by Kyle MacLachlan, leading to further tensions.

Let me be honest here- Showgirls is a bad film in every way. I observed three major flaws in the film- poor acting, poor writing, and the film being over-the-top on every level.

Let’s break it down.

Within minutes, I knew the acting was sub-par, and I wondered if that was the fault of the director’s (Paul Verhoeven) directing or the actors themselves- or a combination.

Known for directing Basic Instinct (a sexy, smoldering film), one wonders if he had the same success in mind for Showgirls.

Berkeley gets the brunt of the mention since she is the lead character, but, wow what a bad performance. From the over-dramatic delivery to the phony earnestness, I did not buy the performance for a minute and fantasized on more than one occasion about how a different actress might have tackled the role (Nicole Kidman and Julia Roberts came to mind).

Gershon was almost worse as her sexiness and vixen-like character were fraught with an irritating brooding pout.

The writing is one-dimensional- a poor girl tries to achieve success in a bad, bad world and meets challenge after challenge. Nothing new here.

The predictability was apparent almost immediately and most of the characters were unlikable. When Nomi garners interest in a man, he turns into a player with another aspiring female star on the side, feeding her the same lines as he did Nomi.

Even the one sympathetic character (Molly), exists only to make Nomi more likable as is the case when Molly is attacked and Nomi races to her bedside.

Forced and formulaic, this scene is a prime example of poor and contrived writing.

Most scenes play over the top.

Brimming with nudity and sexual excitement, the film is bawdy and party-friendly. In one scene, dancers take a line of coke before hitting the stage and a feud between two of the dancers results in one sabotaging the production so that the other dancer will break her hip.

The larger-than-life (in more than one way) x-rated, well-endowed, mama dancer, while entertaining, is also silly and foolish.

Chaotic and pointless, each scene was hard to believe and take seriously.

You may be wondering what positives can be found in Showgirls- the answer is not many, but there is a charm I found in the film, but perhaps I am glutenous for punishment.

I think the film “feels” like it wants to have fun and a certain level of entertainment can be found in viewing it, but this is like trying to find a needle in the haystack to see any good in Showgirls.

I do not disagree with the distinction that Showgirls (1995) is one of the worst films ever made, but I found a sliver of charm, interest, and fun mixed in with the more prevalent drivel, poor quality, and painfully bad acting.

But perhaps that is because it is so bad.

The Revenant-2015

The Revenant-2015

Director Alejandro G. Iñárritu

Starring Leonardo DiCaprio, Tom Hardy

Scott’s Review #371

80064516

Reviewed January 27, 2016

Grade: A

The Revenant is a fantastic 2015 film filled with intensity, great visual camera work/direction, and the acting talents of one of modern cinema’s dynamic performers Leonardo DiCaprio.

He shines every minute he is on-screen.

Almost all of the filming takes place outdoors (the American frontier period), and is a revenge tale, only adding to the excitement and beauty of the film.

The film is set in the 1820s, and we are immediately introduced to a large party of hunters and trappers in remote Wyoming as the film opens.

Right off the bat, I was struck by the picturesque scenery.

We are treated to a compelling (and bloody) battle between the trappers and a tribe of Native American Indians. The Louisiana Purchase has just passed, leading to tensions between various parties causing conflict and blood to spill.

The hunters are decimated so the remaining group must flee on foot, hoping to return to safety hundreds of miles away. The main character, Glass (DiCaprio), later receives a terrible injury and the main crux of the story develops as we embark on a tale of his desperation to survive and exact revenge on the men responsible for leaving him to die.

The film is a lesson in endurance. Glass is arguably put through almost every punishment imaginable and we wonder what more he can endure.

The film belongs to two actors. Dicaprio, and Tom Hardy as the villainous John Fitzgerald, a hunter with a major rivalry with Glass.

The film parlays into a revenge tale between the two characters.

DiCaprio is a gem in this film, not only is he compelling from a physical standpoint, he also looks broken, battered, and bruised, but DiCaprio gives a performance that I am fond of.

He acts non-verbally.

In one crucial scene, Glass is unable to move or speak as a violent act is committed. He is desperate yet helpless. The range of emotions portrayed by DiCaprio is astounding. The pain, hurt, and frustration are evident on his face and we sympathize greatly.

This is a powerful performance by DiCaprio.

Tom Hardy is compelling in his own right as the scoundrel he portrays. We despise this character and all his dirty deeds and Hardy successfully pours all his energy into this grizzled role.

Hardy, quite handsome in real life, is transformed into a partially scalped, dirty man. His fate at the end of the film is a clever aspect of The Revenant that helps make it not a typical run-of-the-mill western, but something so much more.

The infamous “bear scene” is second to none. How this compelling scene was shot is beyond me, but the result is a realism I have seldom witnessed in film. The scene is so prolonged and violent that one wishes it would conclude quickly.

A surprise comes that rivals any horror film.

Directed by Alejandro G. Iñárritu he follows a vastly different type of film (Birdman-2013) and does a wonderful job.

The Revenant is arguably a “guy’s movie”.

There are almost no women featured and the ones that are not treated well, which is unfortunate, however, sadly likely true of the times.

Interesting to note though, is Inarritu decided to have a female victim enact revenge on her abuser in a satisfying (though squeamish moment for the male viewer).

I found The Revenant to have definite left-wing leanings. The age-old controversy of the white man taking the Indian’s land is explored and the film has a way of bringing this up more than once as well as not making the Indian tribes “bad”, but rather sympathetic.

Especially since the character of Glass marries an Indian woman and bears a son with her.

Gorgeous cinematography morphed with a wonderful and intriguing story and peppered with brutality. The Revenant (2015) succeeds on every level and sets an important precedent for a film about perseverance in the face of hopelessness.

Oscar Nominations: 3 wins-Best Picture, Best Director-Alejandro G. Iñárritu (won), Best Actor-Leonardo DiCaprio (won), Best Supporting Actor-Tom Hardy, Best Sound Editing, Best Sound Mixing, Best Production Design, Best Cinematography (won), Best Makeup and Hairstyling, Best Costume Design, Best Film Editing, Best Visual Effects

Leviathan-2014

Leviathan-2014

Director Andrey Zvyagintsev

Starring Elena Lyadova, Vladimir Vdovichenkov

Scott’s Review #370

80013610

Reviewed January 16, 2016

Grade: B+

Nominated for the 2015 Best Foreign Language Film (Russian), Leviathan is a tale of governmental corruption at the expense of the “little man”, mixed in with a family drama- and is quite heavy.

The film is above average. It’s a standard, tense drama, if you will, though a bit slow-moving at times. This is not so much a complaint as it is an observation.

As with many Foreign language films versus American films, there is more nudity (not in a gratuitous way) and fewer explosions, which is admiration, and hats off to foreign language films as a whole.

Leviathan made me think of the overall foreign language film genre in that assessment as it did not need CGI or any other “bells and whistles” commonplace in current American films.

Set in a gorgeous coastal area of Russia, featuring landscapes and outdoor shots, Leviathan is a story with religious overtones mixed with drama. “Good vs. evil” and both sides questioning God or defending their actions for god are featured message points.

The protagonist, Koyla, lives with his second wife, Lilya, and his son Roma in a coastal fishing town. Koyla is hot-headed and sometimes expresses rage, but is a good man living a simple life as a mechanic.

The corrupt Mayor is determined to take Koyla’s land and build a villa, offering Koyla an insulting sum of money to sell his land. The disputed land is currently in legal hands, and Koyla’s handsome lawyer friend, Dima, arrives from Moscow to handle the case and support the family in their uneasy times.

A secondary plot involves a love triangle between Koyla/Dima/Lilya, and Roma’s hatred for Lilya that, while somewhat interesting on its terms, did not do much to further the main plot and I am not sure how necessary it was to the film as a whole.

It has nothing to do with the land dispute and was left unresolved.

The clear “hero” of the film is Koyla, but he is no saint himself. He drinks heavily, at one point smacks his son (albeit deservedly so), and has a temper. But his land is being taken from him by a corrupt figure making Koyla empathetic and likable.

Leviathan is a compelling film as the clear message received is “bully vs. beleaguered working man”. The mayor is a fat, unattractive, drunken bully and the audience is instructed to root against him. He has the town justice department in his back pocket and uses blackmail to achieve success.

The film brings religion into the plot as a priest tells the mayor he is doing “God’s work”, thereby justifying his motivations (at least in his mind). Later, a defeated Koyla converses with a religious man questioning God and God’s actions.

The film is cold despite being set in what I believe to be the summer or fall. There is a chill in the air, it always looks windy, and the look of the film is dark. This is effective as Leviathan is a dreary film with an unhappy ending.

Life is harsh and cruel and the film extends that message.

I did not quite understand Lilya’s motivations and not much is known about her character, despite being involved in the events. What motivates her to have an affair with Dima? Why does she return to Koyla? Is she unhappy and seeking a more glamorous life?

This can be assumed but is never made clear so she is a mysterious character.

Enjoyable to me most is the final thirty minutes or so. When a character’s sudden death occurs, I wondered if a particular character was responsible for the death before it was revealed what truly happened.

A cinematic treat and an interesting premise, mixed with a bit of religion and a whodunit, make the Russian film Leviathan, a worthy viewing experience.

Oscar Nominations: Best Foreign Language Film

Independent Spirit Award Nominations: Best International Film

The Big Short-2015

The Big Short-2015

Director Adam McKay

Starring Christian Bale, Steve Carell

Scott’s Review #369

80075560

Reviewed January 10, 2016

Grade: A-

The Big Short (2015) is a confusing film and is its intention and also its genius.

Throughout some of the film, I was uncertain how much I liked it (or got it) and found many of the characters unlikeable, but at the conclusion, I realized that is exactly what the filmmakers intended is a clever tactic and makes The Big Short a success.

On the surface, the film has some humor but a very dark story at its core and left me a bit depressed and terrified at the conclusion.

I am happy that the film is receiving accolades and is the “thinking man’s” hit movie of the season.

To attempt to summarize the film, the film begins in 2005, approximately two years before the financial crisis of 2007-2008.

Eccentric hedge fund manager Michael Burry (Christian Bale), realizes the U.S. housing market is unstable and predicts a crash.

He attempts to profit by betting against the market, a move laughable to all around him, especially the banks who anticipate a windfall at Michael’s expense. Trader and fellow market managers, Jared Vennett and Mark Baum (played by Ryan Gosling and Steve Carrell) catch wind of Michael’s theory and try to get in on the action.

There is a sub-plot involving two younger investors also attempting to profit through the guidance of a retired banker (played by Brad Pitt).

The financial collapse is a tender subject and certainly no laughing matter, especially since it is so recent and affects many people.

The Big Short is touted as a comedy, which is strange. I found the audience didn’t know exactly what to laugh at or when. The film’s “laughs” were cynical, witty, and sometimes wicked. Many people do not get this type of humor.

In real life, people were kicked out of their homes and lost their jobs, pensions, etc. and it was all the result of greed, which The Big Short hammers home.

Several scenes include frat-boy investor/trader types getting rich by enabling almost anyone to afford a new house. Little did these people realize that there was a catch.

The film paints a jaded picture of Wall Street. The rich get richer at the expense of the middle class and the poor. It is an age-old sad tale.

Performance-wise, Carrell and Bale are the standouts. They both play characters who are damaged. Bale’s Michael is socially awkward, and has a false eye, but is also a genius. Carrell’s Mark is angry, grizzled, and is in therapy as a result of his brother’s suicide.

Both actors are great and have developed into worthy, credible acting talents. Worth mentioning, are small, but meaningful roles by Melissa Leo and Marisa Tomei.

The Big Short is shot interestingly, and highly unusual. From time to time, the action will stop and a famed celebrity (Selena Gomez, a world-renowned chef, or a model in a bubble bath) will explain the events, thus far, or give some review.

Also, more than once the actors will turn to the camera and speak directly to the audience. A personal touch that I found effective.

In the end, not much in life has changed, which is the message, and a frightening one. As one character brilliantly puts it “people will go back to blaming the poor and the immigrants”, which is a sad message.

After millions lost everything, not much has changed in the world and The Big Short makes that very clear. The people responsible have gotten away with crime, the banks bailed out, and a new scheme is undoubtedly in place.

It’s a sad world.

The Big Short (2015) is a gritty, harsh look at reality and a terrific film.

Oscar Nominations: 1 win-Best Picture, Best Director-Adam McKay, Best Supporting Actor-Christian Bale, Best Adapted Screenplay (won), Best Film Editing

Terms of Endearment-1983

Terms of Endearment-1983

Director James L. Brooks

Starring Shirley MacLane, Debra Winger, Jack Nicholson

Scott’s Review #368

60004508

Reviewed January 9, 2016

Grade: A

Terms of Endearment (1983) is a sentimental favorite of mine, and while I am slightly embarrassed to include this chick-flick to end all chick-flicks on my favorites list, it is also a damned good sentimental film and makes me a bit weepy each time I see it.

It is pure Hollywood mainstream formula, but somehow Terms of Endearment works (romantic films are not usually at the forefront) and even won the coveted Best Picture Oscar in 1983. That must say something.

So if it is so sappy what makes it so great? For starters, it has some exceptional acting all around, especially by leads Shirley MacLaine, Jack Nicholson, and Debra Winger.

How can you go wrong with a talent of that caliber?

MacLaine and Winger play Aurora and Emma Greenway, a mother and daughter, (the father is deceased) who share a lifelong love/hate relationship, living in the mid-west in present times.

Nicholson plays Garrett, a retired astronaut (and womanizer) and the object of Aurora’s affection.

The chemistry among all three is apparent- I sinfully find it delicious that Winger and MacLaine despised each other throughout filming, adding a layer of curiosity and intrigue to the film, and during their scenes.

Director James L. Brooks wisely balances the heavy drama with comedy so the film does not become too overwrought. For example, Garrett and Aurora have a humorous courtship, constantly bickering or misunderstanding each other- he is a womanizing playboy type and Aurora a domineering, insecure woman- they end up needing each other, nonetheless.

Unforgettable is the hilarious drive along with the beach scene that the two share.  Even though the duo is tenuous and difficult, I love them all the same.

The tear-jerker scenes are emotional, especially the deathbed scene at the end of the film. There is so much raw emotion going on at once and, a rarity in film, the child actors involved are real, believable, and flawless.

The film feels like watching a true, real-life, drama play out. The heartache feels real and the film as a whole feels very genuine.

Also interesting is Emma’s failing marriage to Flap (Jeff Daniels) and her subsequent affair with kind-hearted Sam (John Lithgow) as well as her departure from her mother’s hometown, the constant phone calls, and being in one another’s life, just like a real mother and daughter relationship is oftentimes like.

Terms of Endearment (1983) incorporates all of the elements that make a good, old-fashioned, dramatic tear-jerker, and I find myself a sucker for it each time that I watch it.

Oscar Nominations: 5 wins-Best Picture (won), Best Director-James L. Brooks (won), Best Actress-Shirley MacLaine (won), Debra Winger, Best Supporting Actor-Jack Nicholson (won), John Lithgow, Best Screenplay Based on Material Based on Another Medium (won), Best Original Score, Best Sound, Best Art Direction, Best Film Editing

My Bloody Valentine-1981

My Bloody Valentine-1981

Director George Mihalka

Starring Paul Kelman, Lori Hallier

Top 20 Horror Films #20

Scott’s Review #367

60024026

Grade: A

Reviewed January 9, 2016

My Bloody Valentine (1981) is a perfect slasher film to watch on the romantic holiday of Valentine’s Day or, in fact, any day during the cold and snowy month of February.

The film loses something if watched during summer or any other time of the year since the dark and harsh feeling of the film is the perfect atmosphere if watched appropriately.

My Bloody Valentine is an underrated gem of the early 1980s- just as Black Christmas was to the 1970s- and both ironically are heralded so by directors such as Quentin Tarantino.

Other less gritty films received greater exposure and commercial success, but I am proud to name My Bloody Valentine as one of my Top 100 favorite films.

Both are also “holiday-themed” films.

The plot is basic, yet layered, with a unique setting. Rather than a creepy house, a summer camp, or some other tried and true device, we have the ingenious coal mine setting- immediately fraught with great potential.

Think about it- a coal mine is dark, suffocating, creepy, with countless secret passages, the fear of being lost, and running out of oxygen. It is also underground where help cannot easily be unobtainable.

The town is aptly named Valentine Bluff (how clever) so Valentine’s Day is a major holiday. The Mayor and police chief figure prominently in the story and the use of town history makes the film engaging.

Typical for the slasher genre we have a bunch of horny teens, partying to the max, who decide that the coal mine is the perfect place to throw a Valentine’s Day party, and they do so with gusto.

There are a few middle-aged characters with meaty stuff to do, and the main plot is of the whodunit sort. The killer’s get-up is simply genius.

He (or she) is wearing a miner’s outfit, completely dark, with an oxygen mask, which elicits a heavy breathing sound adding to the great atmosphere that My Bloody Valentine contains.

One of my favorite scenes involves the offing of Mabel Osbourne, the earnest, sweet-natured party planner, who excitedly is preparing the annual Valentine’s Day town dance.

She marvels at receiving a box of chocolates with a wonderful poem until she reads the poem. “Roses are red, violets are blue- two are dead and so are you”! Poor Mabel then has her heart removed and it is sent (gift-wrapped naturally) to the Mayor and police chief.

The scene is both horrific and comical.

My Bloody Valentine (1981) is a favorite of the genre for me and cascades that genre with its bloodiness, fun storytelling, and wicked charm.

Fargo-1996

Fargo-1996

Director Joel Coen and Ethan Coen

Starring Frances McDormand, William H. Macy

Top 100 Films #79

Scott’s Review #366

493387

Reviewed January 9, 2016

Grade: A

Fargo (1996) is a treasure as far as I’m concerned and the role that deservedly propelled Frances McDormand to the forefront of the film audience’s minds- not to mention a gold statue for Best Actress.

The film epitomizes dark humor, and zany freshness, during a time in cinema when originality was emerging, and independent films were growing in popularity.

Fargo led the pack.

The film suffers from some derision by locals in and around the upper mid-west U.S.A. for its depiction of accents- perhaps overdone, but hysterical all the same.

Mixed with the snowy and icy locales, the film perfectly presents a harsh and small-town feeling.

The introduction of a crime- initially done innocently, escalates out of control.

Fargo is a part caper, part thriller, and part adventure and is a layered, cool film.

The fact that the time is 1987 is great. The cars, the Oldsmobile dealership, all work particularly.

McDormand plays a local Police Chief- Marge Gunderson, very pregnant, who stumbles upon the crime and slowly unravels the mystery.

All the while, the character keeps her cool, cracks jokes, and emits witty one-liner after another, presenting a slightly dim-witted image, but brilliantly deducing the aspects of the crime.

William H. Macy, in 1996 largely unknown, is perfectly cast as a car salesman, Jerry Lundegaard. Nervous, and shaky, yet with down-home respectability, he hatches a plot to have his wife kidnapped, the ransom to be paid by her wealthy father, enabling Jerry to pay off an enormous embezzling debt, and splitting the money with the kidnappers.

Predictably, things go awry and spiral out of control.

I love how the film crosses genres and is tough to label- is it a crime drama, a thriller, or a comedy? A bit of each which is the brilliance of it.

Fargo (1996) is an odd, little piece of art, and is remembered as one of the best films of the 1990s, making a star out of Frances McDormand.

Oscar Nominations: 2 wins-Best Picture, Best Director-Joel Coen, Best Actress-Frances McDormand (won), Best Supporting Actor-William H. Macy, Best Screenplay Written Directly for the Screen (won), Best Cinematography, Best Film Editing

Independent Spirit Award Nominations: 6 wins-Best Feature (won), Best Director-Joel Coen (won), Best Male Lead-William H. Macy (won), Best Female Lead-Frances McDormand (won), Best Screenplay (won), Best Cinematography (won)

Dancer in the Dark-2000

Dancer in the Dark-2000

Director Lars von Trier

Starring Bjork, Catherine Deneuve

Top 100 Films #95

Scott’s Review #365

60002276

Reviewed January 9, 2016

Grade: A

Dancer in the Dark is in my opinion one of the most important, inventive films of the 2000s and proudly is one of my favorites of all time.

However, the film is not pleasant to watch, and is quite painful and depressing, if the truth be told. But the relevance and sheer emotion the film elicits is more than enough reason to be exposed to it- if only, but perhaps, once.

Director, Lars von Trier, is a master at creative and disturbing, dream-like films that are either odd, non-linear, or otherwise open to interpretation in some way.

He has directed such gems as 2011’s Melancholia and 1996’s Breaking the Waves, to name but two.

With Dancer in the Dark, he uses handheld cameras which add much grit to the film so it almost feels documentary style, and a grainy, shaky look.

The addition of musical numbers mostly written and performed by the star, Bjork, is a wonderful touch.

Speaking of Bjork, words cannot express what a brilliant performance she gives in the film, and the raw emotion she expresses in her starring role is awe-inspiring.

So much was the stress of filming Dancer in the Dark, that she, to my knowledge, has never made another film.

She was shamefully overlooked in the Best Actress Oscar category- an omission that is one of the biggest fails in Oscar history.

Tensions were reportedly high on the set of Dancer in the Dark, as Bjork reportedly despised her director, never missing a chance to tell him so, disappeared from the set for days on end, and spat in his face. Co-star Deneuve, a former French mega-film star, reportedly did not get along well with Bjork.

Despite all the drama, the stars managed to pull together a masterpiece.

Bjork plays Selma, a Czech immigrant, living in Seattle with her young son. The year is 1964. Selma is poor, struggling to survive by working in a clothing factory along with her best friend Cvalda (Deneuve).

Selma and Cvalda escape their dull lives by watching classic musical films at their local cinema. To make matters worse, Selma is suffering from a degenerative eye disease causing her to gradually lose her sight. She struggles to save enough for surgery for her son, who is sure to suffer the same fate without it.

Selma frequently imagines musical numbers in her day-to-day life involving friends and co-workers. When a tragic turn of events occurs and Selma is accused of a crime, the film goes in a very dark direction.

The conclusion of the film will always require handkerchiefs as it is as powerful as it is gloomy.  The aspect I love most about Dancer in the Dark is that it smashes barriers about what film art is and throws all of the rules out the window.

Lars von Triers, famous for this created a dreamy, independent hybrid musical and drama, a dynamic, tragic, emotional experience all rolled up into one great film.

Oscar Nominations: Best Original Song-“I’ve Seen It All”

Independent Spirit Award Nominations: 1 win-Best Foreign Film (won)

Thunderball-1965

Thunderball-1965

Director Terence Young

Starring Sean Connery, Claudine Auger

Scott’s Review #364

1046268

Reviewed January 9, 2016

Grade: A

By 1965, the James Bond franchise was embarking on its fourth segment, and the budget reflected the success of the preceding films.

Thunderball reaps the benefits of an enormous budget and is. As a result, it is a grand, epic film. Its sheer magnitude makes it one of my favorite Bond films simply because of its look.

The special effects are a marvel.

By this time, Sean Connery had comfortably immersed himself in the role of Bond with his charms and ability to exude charisma.

In this story, two NATO atomic bombs have been stolen by SPECTRE and hold the world to ransom for millions in diamonds. They are threatening to detonate one of the bombs in a major city in either the United States or England. Mr. Bond must race against time to deter this from happening.

For starters, the opening sequence is one of my favorites. Bond attends the funeral of a deceased SPECTRE agent (number 6) at a lavish chateau in France. The agent is disguised as his widow, but Bond is not fooled.

This sets the stage as a dramatic fight scene ensues between the two “men.”

The main villain of Thunderball is Emilio Largo (Adolfo Celi), a handsome, suave SPECTRE agent (number 2). He is rich and sophisticated, which is reflected throughout the film.

His grand estate is set and filmed in the Bahamas, giving most of the film a steamy, posh look, with bluish-green waters and white crispy sand.

It’s the most gorgeous backdrop.

Largo is a great Bond villain and on par with Bond. He also has charm, good looks, and charisma.

The main Bond girl is Domino, played by Claudine Auger. Largo’s mistress is typically clad in black and/or white, hence her name. Auger has the perfect balance of beautiful looks, sophistication, and intelligence and is an ideal match for Bond. The chemistry between Connery and Auger is apparent and a significant part of the film’s success.

What sets Thunderball apart from some Bond films is the central portion of the film, mainly in the second half, taking place underwater.

In a clear example of showing off the modern technology of the time (1965), some complained that these sequences went on too long and did not further the plot.

These points may contain some validity, but oh, are they so gorgeous to look at? The exotic underwater world is majestic.

Thunderball has it all and is one of the most gorgeous Bond films. It is big, bombastic, and filled with bright colors.

It contains all the elements of a great Bond film, so it has held up incredibly well all these years.

Oscar Nominations: 1 win-Best Special Visual Effects (won)

Planet of the Apes-1968

Planet of the Apes-1968

Director Franklin J. Shaffner

Starring Charlton Heston, Roddy McDowall

Top 100 Films #97

Scott’s Review #363

60000539

Reviewed January 9, 2016

Grade: A

Planet of the Apes is a 1968 science-fiction, message movie, that stars one of the legendary greats, Charlton Heston.

At the time of release, the film was a great film and quite visionary- and the message still holds up well today. Since certainly everyone on the “planet” must know the “surprise” ending, the film speaks volumes about the destruction of the world we know and love.

Intelligently written, Planet of the Apes is memorable and was followed by a bunch of not-so-compelling or strong sequels, remakes, and reboots.

A group of astronauts crash land on a strange planet- in the distant future. The men have no idea where they are or what period it is.

The planet is inhabited by apes, who are highly intelligent and speak and act just like human beings. They are dominant and the real humans are largely mute and incapable of doing much- they are kept imprisoned.

George Taylor (played by Heston) is the lead astronaut who, the apes realize, is capable of speech and assumed to be brilliant. The ape leader wants him killed, but sympathetic scientist and archaeologist apes Cornelius and  Zira  (played by Roddy McDowell and Kim Hunter) are curious about Taylor and wish to experiment more.

To say nothing of the story, the prosthetic makeup and costumes are dynamic. The apes are played by human actors, but the creatures do not appear fake or phony in any way.

Furthermore, the sets look genuine and grand and hold up well in present times, nearly fifty years later. Nothing about the film appears to be remotely dated or losing its original appeal as some films inevitably do.

Planet of the Apes is a political film, and this message also holds up well in present times. How human beings have ruined their planet is the main point of the film, but this is wisely not revealed until the very end, with the now-famous scene of an escaped Taylor, running along the beach, only to realize in terror that the submerged and tattered Statue of Liberty is there.

With horror, he realizes that human beings have destroyed planet Earth and the astronauts never actually left their planet!

Fun and serious to watch all rolled up into one, Planet of the Apes (1968) is a film for the ages, with a distinct meaning and a story that audience members everywhere can absorb and relate to.

Oscar Nominations: Best Original Score for a Motion Picture (Not a Musical), Best Costume Design

Forrest Gump-1994

Forrest Gump-1994

Director Robert Zemeckis

Starring Tom Hanks, Robin Wright, Gary Sinise

Top 100 Films #94

Scott’s Review #362

60000724

Reviewed January 9, 2016

Grade: A

Awarded a bevy of Academy Awards in the year 1994, Forrest Gump is a film that is engrained in many people’s memories since the film was a monster hit in the mid-1990s.

Some complained that the unrealistic nature of the film was silly, and the story too saccharine, but the film is an innocent, sweet piece about a simple-minded man’s journey through life and the insurmountable success that he achieves.

I adore the film largely from a sentimental standpoint and the memories that watching the film years later conjures up.

I find the film to be a comfort.

Zemeckis, a feel-good film director (Back to the Future-1985, Who Framed Roger Rabbit? -1988), carves a whimsical tale of a fellow, Forrest Gump (played brilliantly by Tom Hanks), a slow-witted, but gentle soul, from Alabama, and his decades-long journey through life.

His lifelong love is Jenny (played by Robin Wright), who is a troubled girl and relies on Forrest over their friendship spanning decades.

Forrest is always in the right place at the right time and influences the events of history in his innocent way.

Forrest Gump is unique in its clever use of editing to incorporate Forrest into real-life historical events, which is a big part of the appeal of the film.

In one instance, Forrest meets with Richard Nixon and reveals the Watergate scandal. He also met President John F. Kennedy after winning a football scholarship.

And who can ever forget the numerous lines made famous from the film- “Stupid is as stupid does”, and “Life is like a box of chocolates. You never know what you are going to get.”, to name just two.

What I love most about the film is that it has heart and the relationships that Forrest shares with the central characters in his life are rich. Forrest’s haggard, but kind mother (Sally Field) loves her son and they share a tender, emotional relationship.

When Forrest enlists in the Army during the Vietnam War, his grizzled commanding officer, Lt. Dan Taylor (an Oscar-nominated performance by Gary Sinise), surprisingly becomes one of Forrest’s closest friends.

The film takes a darker turn when we begin to see a more human side to Taylor after a horrible accident, which leaves him without legs. To counterbalance this tragedy, Forrest is comically wounded in the buttocks.

I am not sure if I love or loathe the character of Jenny. Wright is perfect at giving her some vulnerability and her terrible upbringing can excuse some of her actions and take advantage of Forrest for arguably her gain.

Still, she has Forrest’s heart so she cannot be all that bad.

A favorite scene occurs in Washington as Forrest speaks at an anti-war rally. Jenny, in the crowd, recognizes Forrest and their reunion is sweet. Jenny, now a hippie and expelled from school, returns to Forrest’s life.

The fate of both Jenny and Mrs. Gump are scenes that will undoubtedly require tissues to get through as they are tender and emotional as can be.

Zemeckis’s Forrest Gump (1994) has emotion, sweetness, and heart, and those are nice qualities for a film to have.

It is not too sappy overwrought or manipulative, instead provides an honest story.

Oscar Nominations: 6 wins-Best Picture (won), Best Director-Robert Zemeckis (won), Best Actor-Tom Hanks (won), Best Supporting Actor-Gary Sinise, Best Screenplay Based on Material Previously Produced or Published (won), Best Original Score, Best Sound Effects Editing, Best Sound, Best Art Direction, Best Cinematography, Best Makeup, Best Film Editing (won), Best Visual Effects (won)

Supervixens-1975

Supervixens-1975

Director Russ Meyer

Starring Shari Eubank

Top 100 Films #75

Scott’s Review #361

220px-Supervixensposter

Reviewed January 9, 2016

Grade: A

I first watched Supervixens in 2008 and, if I am being completely honest, did not much care for it, or rather, was very perplexed by it. I did not know what I had just viewed and was simply caught off guard and blown away- I have since realized that this is part of my love for the film.

Is it a comedy? Is it too over-the-top and shameless? Is it trying to degrade women? Now, a mere eight years later, it lands firmly ensconced on my Top 100 Films list and it is similar to a fine wine- it just gets better and better with age.

Never before did I think I would fall in love with a sexploitation film, but I have.

Directed by Russ Meyer, noted for his series of 1970s sexploitation films, Supervixens, is set somewhere in the desert of eastern California.

Gas station attendant, Clint Ramsey, a handsome young man, is found irresistible to a series of sexy and large-breasted women, all with names beginning with “Super”.

We are introduced to his steady girlfriend, SuperAngel, a bored, horny, feisty woman played by Shari Eubank. Jealous and possessive, she commands Clint to leave his job and come home to her immediately, which leads to hilarity as they spar outside utilizing an ax as they wrestle and fight.

Their nosy neighbor looks on, both tantalized and frightened.

Others who make appearances during Clint’s journeys are SuperLorna, a horny gas station customer (strangely appearing in only one scene, but gracing the film cover packaging), who sets her sights on Clint much to SuperAngel’s chagrin.

SuperCherry is a buxom girl who picks up Clint hitchhiking, SuperSoul, an Austrian farmer’s wife, seduces Clint at the farm, SuperHaji, a bartender at the local watering hole, and finally, SuperEula, who is black, deaf, and with a white father.

Supervixens, as well as some of Russ Meyer’s films, have influenced countless other famous films to come, and I continue to note the overall influence Supervixens has had on Quentin Tarantino, specifically.

With the bloody violence mixed with cartoonish characters, as well as Nazi references (a frequent theme of Tarantino’s) and German marching music, Supervixens has a sly sense of humor- wicked almost, but never apologetic.

Tarantino uses a similarly outrageous style.

Carrie (SuperVixen bloody in the tub), The Shining (Harry breaking down the bathroom door amid a screaming SuperVixen), Friday the 13th- Part 3 (the camera angle at the top of the hayloft panning down on the approaching climber) are just a few film comparisons that I have noticed during repeated viewings.

My love of the film is its outrageousness and I find the film to be empowering to women most of all and not degrading. There is also male nudity and reference to the male anatomy numerous times so it is not a one-sided exploitation film.

Each female is a superhero, of sorts, and despite the sexploitation aspect, the film is quite romantic in spots- the tenderness between Clint and SuperEula is one of my favorites.

I also love the romance between Clint and SuperVixen (a dual role for Eubanks), as she is a reincarnation of SuperAngel. Working side by side at a roadside gas station that she owns, they pump gas and prepare burgers together, while running through the desert in a happy, lovely way.

Of course, their romance is threatened by the sinister Harry, who has returned for revenge.

Hilarious, outrageous, and in-your-face sexual, Supervixens (1975) is a camp classic that is so much more than that. Influential and creative, it simply must be seen to be believed.

I hope it is never forgotten.

The Hand That Rocks the Cradle-1992

The Hand That Rocks The Cradle-1992

Director Curtis Hanson

Starring Rebecca De Mornay, Annabella Sciorra

Scott’s Review #360

569891

Reviewed January 9, 2016

Grade: A

One may argue that the slick 1992 thriller, The Hand That Rocks The Cradle, is a direct rip-off of the 1987 blockbuster hit Fatal Attraction, which spawned countless imitators, and they may be accurate, but I simply adore this film.

It contains great tension and is well-acted, but above all, The Hand That Rocks The Cradle features Rebecca De Mornay in a wonderful performance as one of the screen’s most memorable villains, Peyton Flanders.

This is a film that will admittedly not win any awards for originality, but that I love all the same.

Peyton Flanders is very pregnant when we meet her. Her husband is creepy Dr. Mott, an obstetrician who sexually molests Claire Bartel (Sciorra) in his office during an exam.

Humiliated and upset, Claire, after being encouraged by her husband, Michael, files charges against Dr. Mott. He commits suicide and Peyton loses her child. Filled with vengeance, she vows to destroy Claire.

The plot may sound like a tawdry daytime soap plot device, but The Hand That Rocks The Cradle somehow works like a charm.

Unlike Fatal Attraction, there is little rooting value between Petyon and Michael- we know she is a crazed lunatic- the fun is seeing how she gets hers. She manipulates him and insinuates herself into their home- she pretends to be a nanny and subsequently manipulates Michael and Claire’s daughter.

Julianne Moore- in an early role in her storied film career- is believable as Claire’s best friend, who is the only one who sees Peyton for the monster she truly is.

Sadly, her screen time is limited.

Regardless of the other fine performances from the rest of the cast, this is De Mornay’s film- she is psychotic, then sweet, and plays both to the hilt.

I suppose a film like The Hand That Rocks The Cradle (1992) is not intended to be analyzed too much since it tries to thrill, scare, and make the audience uneasy, but boy is it sure fun.