All posts by scottmet99

2006 Films, Best Film of the Year, Drama, Jackie Earle Haley, Kate Winslet, Patrick Wilson, Phyllis Somerville, Romantic Drama, Scott's Top 100 Films, Todd Field

Little Children-2006

Leave a comment

Little Children-2006

Director Todd Field

Starring Kate Winslet, Patrick Wilson

Top 100 Films #52

Scott’s Review #334

70052692

Reviewed January 9, 2016

Grade: A

Little Children is a subtle, dark drama from 2006 that reminds me a great deal of The Ice Storm and American Beauty- both equally quiet masterpieces. All are similar films about dysfunctional, interpersonal relationships that are damaged.

The great film is one of my more modern all-time favorites.

On the surface, the small suburban Boston town in which the members of the film reside is whimsical, peaceful, and quiet. Spacious colonial and Victorian houses similarly line the sleepy streets.

The small town (unnamed) is affluent and, we learn very early on, is rife with scandal. A child-molester, Ronnie, (Jackie Earle Haley), who is also a resident of the town, living with his mother, has recently been let loose to resume his life, which makes the neighborhood tense and angry.

It is summertime, and the air is thick with heat and secrets.

Other than the child-molester story, the main drama involves Sarah Pierce (Kate Winslet), an intelligent, bored, stay-at-home housewife. She is angry and frustrated.

She cares for her three-year-old daughter Lucy, while her husband is addicted to porn and regularly sniffs panties that he purchases online, even risking his job to immerse himself in his addiction to porn.

They have a sex-less marriage.

Soon, Sarah embarks on a relationship with the resident hunk, Brad (Patrick Wilson), a stay-at-home Dad to four-year-old Aaron. His wife, Katherine (Jennifer Connelly), a “knockout”, produces documentaries and is the breadwinner of the family.

Thrown in the mix is crazed ex-cop, Larry, obsessed with protecting the neighborhood from Ronnie, and a trio of suburban house-wives, who are friendly with Sarah and secretly lust after Brad.

Little Children is a film about relationships, insecurities, and dreams remaining unfulfilled. How these relationships are damaged, filled with angst, or yearning for a resolution far out of reach, are explored and every character is sad in some way.

Each character is unfulfilled and in the middle of all of it is the torrid romance between Sarah and Brad. They while away the summer in romance that we just know will not last. They find some happy moments, but how will this continue?

Tragic is the situation with Ronnie- despite being a child molester he is portrayed as a sympathetic character. The entire town is against him- a sad scene involves the townspeople fleeing the community pool when Ronnie dares to go for a swim.

When he tearfully tells the police that he just wanted to cool down, there is such sadness in his eyes.

Despite being supporting characters in the film, my favorite performances are by Haley and Phyllis Somerville, as Ronnie’s feisty yet haggard mother, May.

Determined to ensure her son has a decent life, she lashes out at anyone who bullies her poor Ronnie. Somerville’s performance is heartbreaking and, in a perfect Hollywood world, she would have received an Oscar nomination.

Happily, Haley did, as injecting any sympathy in a character such as his is a difficult task, but Haley does so in spades.

The film is filled with narrative- in not dissimilar fashion to the classic Barry Lyndon (1975)- as the narrator explains the thoughts and inner turmoil of the characters in regular intervals. This adds layers and clarity to the film.

A masterful scene involves one centered around the dinner table, successfully done. Curious about husband Brad’s daytime life when she is away at work, Katherine invites Sarah and her daughter to join them for a cozy dinner.

As everyone eats and converses, the light bulb suddenly goes on in Katherine’s head and she pieces together events, realizing Brad and Sarah’s true relationship.

All of those days when she knew not where Brad was now came flowing back to her. A similar scene was played out in 2008’s The Kids Are Alright, working successfully in that film too.

The stories eventually intersect and I love this point of the film, especially being that it takes place in a smothering small town.

Character-driven, cynical, tragic, and dark. Little Children (2006) is a humanistic masterpiece that I never tire of watching- one of my favorites.

Oscar Nominations: Best Actress-Kate Winslet, Best Supporting Actor-Jackie Earle Haley, Best Adapted Screenplay

2000 Films, Albert Finney, Amy Irving, Benicio del Toro, Benjamin Bratt, Catherine Zeta-Jones, Crime Drama, Dennis Quaid, Don Cheadle, Drama, Erika Christensen, Gregory Jacobs, James Brolin, John Slattery, Luis Guzman, Michael Douglas, Mike Newell, Salma Hayek, Scott's Top 100 Films, Steven Soderbergh, Topher Grace, Viola Davis, Yul Vazquez

Traffic-2000

Leave a comment

Traffic-2000

Director Steven Soderbergh

Starring Michael Douglas, Catherine Zeta-Jones, Benicio del Toro

Top 100 Films #78

Scott’s Review #333

60003243

Reviewed January 8, 2016

Grade: A

Simply put, I adore this film. I loved Traffic when it was first released in 2000 and I still love it in present times.

During an age where the overlapping stories with hefty casts were still in the infancy stage (Crash-2006, and Babel-2006, similar films, would not be released for several years), Traffic was groundbreaking, compelling, thought-provoking, and just a damned good drama!

With drug use still a continuing problem in the United States, the film remains both relevant and important.

Featuring three main, intersecting stories with a central theme of drug trafficking, each is told from various perspectives: users, political figures, law enforcement, and criminal traffickers.

Traffic also wisely shows how the drug problem knows no specific classes- affluent, middle-class, and poor are all represented in the film.

A strong political story is represented- led by conservative Ohio judge Robert Wakefield (Michael Douglas), who is appointed “drug czar” as the President’s Office of National Drug Policy leader, he vows to end all drug trafficking and is the moral center of the film.

However, his prep school daughter, Caroline, (played exceptionally well by Erika Christensen) and her equally affluent friends are dabbling in cocaine, heroin, and other drugs, so much so that their lives are slowly spiraling out of control.

The Mexico story involves the riveting tale of Mexican police office Javier Rodriguez (played convincingly by Benicio del Toro). He becomes heavily involved in a web of deceit, money, and drugs. His partner, Sanchez, makes a deal with the devil and his fate is thereby sealed. Javier has moral questions to ask himself and only wants to do right by some local, neighborhood boys.

Finally, San Diego is the setting for a story of corruption involving the DEA’s investigation of a drug lord, Carl Ayala. After being arrested, his wife Helena (Catherine Zeta-Jones) faces a moral dilemma- either carry on the illegal proceedings or come clean. She,  up until this point unaware of her husband’s business, faces enormous pressure, both financially and through the threat of violence.

My favorite aspect of Traffic is that all of the aforementioned stories are fascinating in their own right- and could make terrific films on their own, but as the film progresses they begin to intersect and keys to the puzzle slowly unlock themselves.

I love how many of the central characters (Helena, Javier, and Wakefield) begin as “good” people only to have their moral intentions challenged, and in some cases, threatened.

They are each conflicted in some way.

The film poses an interesting, crucial question of what can be done about the United States drug trafficking problem. The answer at the end of the film is a disappointing and perhaps even depressing realization.

Drugs will never stop being a problem and Traffic wisely explains how drugs show no barriers when it comes to either wealthy or more financially challenged individuals.

How wonderful to see a stellar cast, even in smaller roles (Dennis Quaid and Amy Irving immediately come to mind) with all of the characters having a purpose in a wonderful example of how a mainstream Hollywood film can achieve a true ensemble effort that works.

Great job Steven Soderbergh!

Oscar Nominations: 4 wins-Best Picture, Best Director-Steven Soderbergh (won), Best Supporting Actor-Benicio del Toro (won), Best Adapted Screenplay (won), Best Film Editing (won)

2002 Films, Best Feature- Independent Spirit Award Winners, Best Film of the Year, Dennis Haysbert, Dennis Quaid, Drama, Independent, Independent Drama, John Wells, Julianne Moore, LGBTQ+ Drama, LGBTQ+ Films, Patricia Clarkson, Randy Quaid, Scott's Top 100 Films, Todd Haynes, Viola Davis

Far From Heaven-2002

Leave a comment

Far From Heaven-2002

Director Todd Haynes

Starring Julianne Moore, Dennis Haysbert

Top 100 Films #53

Scott’s Review #332

60025011

Reviewed January 8, 2016

Grade: A

Far From Heaven (2002) is a gorgeous film, set in 1950’s upper-class and sophisticated Connecticut, that tackles not one, but two, separate social issues, in a wonderful story-telling fashion.

An interracial couple fraught with discrimination, and a homosexual husband hiding his secret lifestyle encompass this amazing film by acclaimed director Todd Haynes.

In years to follow, Haynes would also direct such masterpieces similar to the period (and story) of Carol (2015).

For starters, the cinematography and art direction are simply breathtaking- the beautiful and colorful small town in Connecticut, on the surface, prim and proper, is oozing with secrets and scandal just waiting to bubble to the surface.

An aerial view of the town allows the viewer to see this perfectly carved town in a sweeping motion.

Far From Heaven contains many similarities to All That Heaven Allows, made in 1955, and also focuses on a great scandal in a small, seemingly idyllic New England town.

Cathy Whitaker (Julianne Moore) seems to have everything perfectly styled and kept at home in affluent Connecticut, a successful husband named Frank (Dennis Quaid), who is an advertising executive, beauty, and a neighborhood filled with friends.

One night when Frank is working late, Cathy surprises him with dinner at the office, only to be surprised herself by catching Frank passionately kissing another man. In an awkward scene, Frank admits to Cathy that he needs conversion therapy, but instead turns to alcohol and continues to secretly see men.

Devastated, Cathy befriends her gardener, Raymond Deagan (Haysburt), a handsome black man, and slowly begins a relationship with him. Needless to say, this causes gossip and scandal amongst the townspeople.

Far From Heaven is fantastic story-telling, weaving, in essence, two main social stories together.

Frank questions his sexuality, afraid to admit he is gay and risking his reputation and career. Undoubtedly, he is a tormented individual and we see him slowly come to terms with his sexuality.

Haynes, fantastic at crafting a worthy story, carves a similar tale in 2015’s Carol, only she is a woman confident about her sexuality, but hiding it from society. Since the time in both films is the 1950s, the sexual revolution has not occurred, let alone anything gay-related.

The center story though belongs to Cathy and Julianne Moore portrays her to perfection. I would argue that Cathy is Moore’s best role- along with Amber Waves from Boogie Nights.

Hurt and betrayed by her husband, she suddenly is filled with new and dangerous emotions- falling in love with a black man in a not very open-minded time.

Moore and Haysbert have fantastic chemistry from their very first scene together.

I love how Haynes showcases the perfection of the town- the lawns are perfectly mowed, the flower beds flawless, and everyone appears cheerful and colorful. But when something in their little town becomes amiss (in this case Cathy going against the grain) the fangs come out and the animals bear their teeth.

A wonderful scene showcases Cathy and Raymond’s slow dancing in a solely black bar. They sway as one and Cathy is accepted by the black patrons. Raymond (and his daughter) are not treated the same way by the white folks of the town once they catch wind of the shenanigans going on between the interracial couple.

Far From Heaven (2002) is a beautiful film- from the way it looks and is shot, to the powerful acting performances all around. Moore may be the star and the central character of the film, but Quaid and Haysbert certainly deserve their due.

They each give layered performances as wounded and tortured men- and the conclusion of the film- perceived as open-ended- is also not a happily ever after climax.

Oscar Nominations: Best Actress-Julianne Moore, Best Original Screenplay, Best Original Score, Best Cinematography

Independent Spirit Award Nominations: 5 wins-Best Feature (won), Best Director-Todd Haynes (won), Best Female Lead-Julianne Moore (won), Best Supporting Male-Dennis Quaid (won), Best Cinematography (won)

1976 Films, Gregory Peck, Horror, Lee Remick, Scott's Top 100 Films, Scott's Top 20 Horror Films

The Omen-1976

Leave a comment

The Omen-1976

Director Richard Donner

Starring Gregory Peck, Lee Remick

Top 100 Films #67     Top 20 Horror Films #18

Scott’s Review #331

60002150

Reviewed January 8, 2016

Grade: A

On the heels of similarly themed supernatural horror films, and all three classics in my view, The Omen (1976) follows suit with the religious-minded terrifying piece that resembles both The Exorcist (1973) and Rosemary’s Baby (1968).

All three films are cherished gems and favorite horror films of mine.

The Omen (the last to be released) is quite possibly the weaker entry having taken much from the other two films, and at the forefront is a child encompassed by devilish forces.

But to say “weaker” implies it is not good, which is not the case- The Omen is a masterpiece.

Set mostly in London, the film begins in Rome. Gregory Peck plays a powerful diplomat, Robert Thorn. Robert’s wife, Katherine (Lee Remick), has just given birth to a baby, who dies.

Unbeknownst to her, Robert and a priest have taken a newborn whose mother has just died, thereby fooling Katherine into thinking she has delivered a healthy baby boy. They name their child Damien.

Soon, Robert is named U.S. Ambassador of the United Kingdom- an astounding honor, but his and Katherine’s lives spin out of control when strange events begin to occur surrounding Damien, and they realize the child is not “right”.

I adore the many aspects of The Omen. The locale of sophisticated and royal London is perfect. The Thorns live in a grand, palatial estate just oozing with possible horror elements.

During a vast party for little Damien’s fifth birthday, the attendees are gathered on the perfectly manicured grounds of the Thorn home. It is a bright and cheery afternoon.

Suddenly, from the top floor bedroom window, Damien’s fresh-faced nanny publicly hangs herself from the window proudly shouting, “This is all for you, Damien”!

This scene is one of the most horrific and surprising scenes in the film.

When Damien’s new nanny shows up, she is off-putting and sinister. The inclusion of a pack of black dogs hovering around the estate is fiendish, and an innocent trip to the zoo results in the scared animals fleeing from Damien as if he is the antichrist, which of course, he is revealed to be.

Fantastic is the religious element of The Omen, a sure measure to frighten and freak out audiences brave enough to watch this film.

Who will not be on edge as a sweet-looking little kid is assumed to be the devil?  Religious elements in horror have been prevalent throughout the film ages.

Perhaps it is the Italian and British accents and settings that add layers of fear to the film.

What I love most about the film is its cynicism. The Omen is not a happy film by any means, nor does it result in a happy ending- Satan wins in the end.

Two memorable scenes are the pole through the heart of the priest scene and the gruesome decapitation of a photographer by a sheet of glass. In both scenes, Satan causes the deaths.

The finale of the film is incredibly compelling and downright shocking- the face-off of Robert and Damien in a church and the prevailing conclusion sets the stage for a sequel, which of course there was more than one.

The sinister smile at the end of the film is immeasurable in its evil nature.

The Omen (1976) is a film that I love to watch and revel in fright when the chills start to creep up my back.

What a fantastic film.

Oscar Nominations: 1 win-Best Original Score (won), Best Original Song-“Ave Satani”

1950 Films, Best Film of the Year, Billy Wilder, Buster Keaton, Cecil B. Demille, Drama, Erich von Stroheim, Film noir, Gloria Swanson, Hedda Hopper, Jack Warden, Jack Webb, Nancy Olson, Scott's Top 100 Films, Sidney Skolsky, William Holden

Sunset Boulevard-1950

Leave a comment

Sunset Boulevard-1950

Director Billy Wilder

Starring Gloria Swanson, William Holden

Top 100 Films #42

Scott’s Review #330

60010956

Reviewed January 8, 2016

Grade: A

I adore films about Hollywood (good ones), and Sunset Boulevard (1950) is an absolute treasure.

Directed by classic film director Billy Wilder, the film is a film noir about a legendary silent film star, Norma Desmond, who cannot cope with modern films involving sound and living a life of instability and mental illness as her career has long ended.

Handsome Joe innocently stumbles upon her mansion, forming an eerie relationship that ends in tragedy.

Sunset Blvd. is a famous street in Los Angeles and Beverly Hills, California. It is immediately featured in the film as Joe Gillis, played by William Holden, drives down the street, an unsuccessful screenwriter whose car is about to be repossessed.

Joe narrates the film, and we see a man lying dead in a vast swimming pool. Ironically, this is the film’s ending, and Wilder interestingly works backward so the audience knows tragedy will eventually ensue.

To avoid being chased by men, Joe pulls into a driveway and hides his car in a garage near a vast yet run-down mansion. He is mistaken for a coffin salesman and meets the infamous and creepy Norma and her servant, Max.

The coffin is for Norma’s pet chimpanzee, who has died. Intrigued and broke, Joe hatches a plot to re-write Norma’s terrible screenplay- and make some money from the aging Hollywood star.

Norma needs companionship. The two, with Max, embark on a weird relationship based on jealousy, passion, and rage.

The black-and-white style works exceptionally well in the film, and the lighting creates a mystique of intrigue and film noir.

Sunset Boulevard combines noir with a rich character study of Norma, and we feel her pain and isolation from being cast aside because of the times.

I love how Wilder focuses on the gloomy nature of Norma’s vast mansion—especially when she throws a New Year’s Eve party isolated with just she, Joe, and a hired band—and intersperses it with a lively party in Hollywood filled with young, energetic, up-and-coming talents.

The scenes mix perfectly and show the two different worlds and perspectives.

Sunset Boulevard is a brilliant depiction of old Hollywood at its best (and worst). A study in ambition, struggle, high hopes (Joe), and faded success and dreams shattered in reality, where delusion is the only defense (Norma).

Oscar Nominations: 3 wins-Best Motion Picture, Best Director-Billy Wilder, Best Actor-William Holden, Best Actress-Gloria Swanson, Best Supporting Actor-Erich von Stroheim, Best Supporting Actress-Nancy Olson, Best Story and Screenplay (won), Best Scoring of a Dramatic or Comedy Picture (won), Best Art Direction-Set Decoration, Black-and-White (won), Best Cinematography, Black-and-White, Best Film Editing

1987 Films, Adrian Lyne, Anne Archer, Best Film of the Year, David R. Ellis, Fred Gwynne, Glenn Close, Lois Smith, Michael Douglas, Scott's Top 100 Films, Thriller

Fatal Attraction-1987

Leave a comment

Fatal Attraction-1987

Director Adrian Lyne

Starring Michael Douglas, Glenn Close

Top 100 Films #45

Scott’s Review #329

60010341

Reviewed January 8, 2016

Grade: A

Fatal Attraction is a film that was a monster smash hit at its time of release (1987) and has all the makings of a trashy, forgettable, slick Hollywood film from a disastrous time in the film.

Guess what? It is a fantastic, gripping, thriller that still holds up well after all of these years.

Say what you will about Anne Archer, who is very good, but this film truly belongs to Michael Douglas and Glenn Close, who made it the believable thrill ride that Fatal Attraction is.

The subject matter is adultery, which made it the water-cooler topic of its day.

The plot is quite simple- Douglas plays Dan Gallagher, a successful New York City attorney, happily married to Beth (Archer), and raising a cute young daughter, Ellen.

When Beth and Ellen are away looking at new houses one rainy weekend, Dan embarks on a torrid affair with sexy, successful businesswoman, Alex (Close), not realizing that she is an unbalanced, needy woman, who is not about to let Dan out of her life.

I adore this film in large part because it’s a film that can be debated.

Many seem to blame either (mostly) Dan or Alex, but the question of monogamy can always be a topic of conversation after viewing this film, so in that regard, it is multi-faceted, rather than solely a well-acted Hollywood potboiler.

Was it okay for Dan to cheat? Does Beth overreact or does she forgive too easily? Do we sympathize with Alex? Is she a victim?

The film is unique in that many folks were rooting for Dan and Alex, despite her being the other woman.

So many memorable lines or scenes contribute to this film- who can forget the infamous “boiling pet rabbit” scene or the wonderful line that Alex utters to Dan, “I will not be ignored, Dan”.

They are so ingrained in pop culture that it brings a smile to think of these aspects of Fatal Attraction.

The real selling point, though, is the natural and honest chemistry that Douglas and Close share. Their scenes, mainly the romantic weekend they spend together, flow so nicely that they have real rooting value and I instantly bought them as a couple.

Without this undeniable chemistry, Fatal Attraction would be a standard romantic thriller- and not much else. And the smoldering sexuality during their love scenes is erotic and intense.

Surely not suffering from the dreaded “1980s look”, Fatal Attraction is a gem that holds up very well and is a slick thrill-ride, easily watched and enjoyed time and again.

Dozens upon dozens of carbon copy films cropped up in the years to follow, but none were ever as fantastic as Fatal Attraction (1987).

Oscar Nominations: Best Picture, Best Director-Adrian Lyne, Best Actress-Glenn Close, Best Supporting Actress-Anne Archer, Best Screenplay Based on Material from Another Medium

1971 Films, Action, Bernard Lee, Connie Mason, Desmond Llewelyn, Guy Hamilton, James Bond, Jill St. John, Lois Maxwell, Scott's Top 100 Films, Sean Connery

Diamonds Are Forever-1971

Leave a comment

Diamonds Are Forever-1971

Director Guy Hamilton

Starring Sean Connery, Jill St. John

Top 100 Films #57

Scott’s Review #328

60000705

Reviewed January 6, 2016

Grade: A

Despite Diamonds Are Forever (1971) being one of the lower-rated James Bond films, this is actually one of my favorite films of all time and many would disagree with me.

Some say Sean Connery phoned this performance in, some say there was little chemistry between him and Jill St. John and tension-filled the sets leading to a sub-par offering, but I think this is a great film.

I love the Las Vegas locale, the bright lights, flashy costumes, and a ritzy underbelly- and the Vegas car chase is amazing.

A bright, shiny Ford Mustang takes center stage throughout the sequence, and if one looks closely, one will realize that nearly all the cars are Ford- fun fact!

The title song by Shirley Bassey is great- sultry and stylish only enhanced by the glitzy setting. One immediately imagines the film oozing with diamonds as it does.

The villains are interesting and Mr. Wint and Mr. Kidd were the first openly gay Bond villains, which, in 1971 was groundbreaking.

Yes, they are evil and slightly silly, but what a risky and surprising blatant scene to see the gentlemen holding hands.

St. John is a sophisticated and intelligent Bond girl and the action in this film is plenty.

Diamonds Are Forever (1971) contains all the elements for an enjoyable Bond experience.

Oscar Nominations: Best Sound

1997 Films, Anne Fletcher, Best Picture Oscar Winners, Billy Zane, Disaster, Epic, Gloria Stuart, James Cameron, Kate Winslet, Kathy Bates, Leonardo DiCaprio, Romantic Drama, Scott's Top 100 Films

Titanic-1997

Leave a comment

Titanic-1997

Director James Cameron

Starring Leonardo DiCaprio, Kate Winslet

Top 100 Films #49

Scott’s Review #327

1181461

Reviewed January 6, 2016

Grade: A

1997’s Titanic is a sweeping, gorgeous epic, directed by James Cameron, that is perfection at every level. This film has it all: romance, disaster, gorgeous art direction, and flawless attention to detail.

The film will make you laugh, cry, and fall in love with the characters, despite knowing the inevitable outcome. The film is based on the real-life sinking of the RMS Titanic in 1912 after the ship tragically collided with an iceberg.

I have witnessed this film be derided for being a “chick flick” or too “sappy”, but I vehemently disagree and feel it is a classic for the ages.

Titanic successfully re-invented the Hollywood epic.

Jack Dawkins (Leonardo DiCaprio) is a penniless artist who meets high-class socialite Rose DeWitt (Kate Winslet) aboard the luxurious Titanic, headed from the coast of England to the United States on its maiden voyage.

Rose is engaged to cagey Cal Hockley (Billy Zane).

Depressed, Rose contemplates diving overboard to her death, but Jack saves her and convinces her otherwise. They spend time together and he draws her portrait. As their romance blossoms, Cal catches on and plots revenge.

In the mix is Rose’s snobbish mother, Ruth, played by Frances Fisher.

The main theme of the film is social class and the difference that separates the haves from the have-nots.

James Cameron desired perfection from this film and he sure got what he wanted. Every detail of Titanic is flawless and historically accurate, from the dining room silverware to the costumes to the set pieces barely visible in the background.

Cameron even had a replica of the original Titanic built for filming purposes- with limitations, but what a vast undertaking this must have been. That, along with the smoldering romance between Jack and Rose, is what makes Titanic one of my favorite films.

Two fantastic scenes are when Jack is taken under the wing of Molly Brown, played by Kathy Bates. Molly is not the snob that many of the other upper class is, and lends Jack a tuxedo so that he will look dapper for Rose. She also tenderly teaches him the appropriate way to use silverware.

Tragically, the other scene is more melancholy- a gorgeous classical piece plays in the background as the vast ship is engulfed in water and slowly sinks, causing many deaths.

At well over three hours in length, the conclusion of the film is quite sprawling- and one has the feeling of being aboard the ship. By this time I was invested in the characters, both lead and supporting and the tragedy that ensues is both a marvel and heart-wrenching.

Titanic (1997) is a film that simply must be viewed on the big screen for full effect, and is a timeless masterpiece that has aged perfectly.

Oscar Nominations: 10 wins-Best Picture (won), Best Director-James Cameron (won), Best Actress-Kate Winslet, Best Supporting Actress-Gloria Stuart, Best Original Dramatic Score (won), Best Original Song-“My Heart Will Go On”, Best Sound Effects Editing (won), Best Sound (won), Best Art Direction (won), Best Cinematography (won), Best Makeup, Best Costume Design (won), Best Film Editing (won), Best Visual Effects (won)

1973 Films, Best Film of the Year, Ellen Burstyn, Horror, Lee J. Cobb, Linda Blair, Mercedes McCambridge, Scott's Top 100 Films, Scott's Top 20 Horror Films, William Friedkin

The Exorcist-1973

Leave a comment

The Exorcist-1973

Director William Friedkin

Starring Ellen Burstyn, Linda Blair

Top 100 Films #39    Top 20 Horror Films #13

Scott’s Review #326

14546619

Reviewed January 5, 2016

Grade: A

Making a lasting mark on cinematic history and impossible not to be familiar with through some form of pop culture, The Exorcist (1973) is a classic supernatural horror film that transcends the genre to become a Hollywood success story.

Along with Rosemary’s Baby (1968) and The Omen (1976), these three films have similarly haunting “religious” subject matters and deal with dark and sinister topics such as “god versus the devil” and “good versus evil”.

The Exorcist is a masterpiece on every level and is adapted from the 1971 hit novel of the same name.

The story centers on “demonic possession” and was quite simply a shocking subject when The Exorcist was released in 1973, scaring the wits out of those brave enough to see it (especially Christians) everywhere.

Some abhorred the subject matter and refused to have any part of the film-their loss.

Ellen Burstyn stars as Chris MacNeil, an actress of note who moves to Georgetown to film a movie. In tow is her twelve-year-old daughter Regan (Linda Blair).

As shooting on the film wraps, Regan begins acting very strangely- making noises, becoming belligerent, and peeing on the floor during a dinner party. Worried, Chris enlists the assistance of priests (Max von Sydow and Jason Miller).

Things progress from bad to worse as Regan spirals out of control and Chris and the priests determine that an exorcism is the only resolution to the problem.

The Exorcist-mainly director William Freidkin sets up the film in a clever way by using various technical elements to build the tension.

For starters, the eerie musical score is highly successful at scaring the audience and the score is similar to that of Rosemary’s Baby. The film is also lit very well, so it appears dark with dim lighting- the cinematography and the windy rustling of leaves in the exterior sets are great.

The cover art of the film should give an indication of the unique style used- black and white, a man with a hat and suitcase peers up at the second floor of a house where a glowing light is illuminating- the image is intriguing and haunting.

Enough cannot be said for Linda Blair’s performance as Regan, especially in the final act. During the “pea soup” and the “Jesus crucifix” scenes a different voice was used, but the facial expressions and the emotions that Blair uses are admirable.

As Regan is bed-ridden, angry, scared, and emotional, there is no limit to Blair’s range. Throughout a large part of the film, she is a sweet, young girl- innocent, so much so that her transformation is both shocking and disturbing to witness.

The final act of the film- the “exorcism” is riveting and a groundbreaking aspect of film history. The terrifying scene all taking place in one child’s tiny bedroom elicits fright and is nail-biting beyond belief.

The Exorcist (1973) is a very influential film that inspired filmmakers for decades to come and still resonates with audiences to this day.

Oscar Nominations: 2 wins-Best Picture, Best Director-William Friedkin, Best Actress-Ellen Burstyn, Best Supporting Actor-Jason Miller, Best Supporting Actress-Linda Blair, Best Screenplay Based on Material from Another Medium (won), Best Sound (won), Best Art Direction, Best Cinematography, Best Film Editing

1976 Films, Amy Irving, Betty Buckley, Brian De Palma, Horror, John Travolta, Nancy Allen, P. J. Soles, Piper Laurie, Scott's Top 100 Films, Scott's Top 20 Horror Films, Sissy Spacek, Stephen King

Carrie-1976

Leave a comment

Carrie-1976

Director Brian De Palma

Starring Sissy Spacek, Piper Laurie

Top 100 Films #37     Top 20 Horror Films #12

Scott’s Review #325

352989

Reviewed January 5, 2016

Grade: A

Carrie is a horror film from 1976 that is adapted from the Stephen King novel of the same name.

Many King adaptations have failed, but Carrie (along with The Shining) is among the best.

Going beyond the scope of horror and receiving more than one major Oscar nomination (largely unheard of in horror), Carrie influenced films and filmmakers for decades beyond release.

This is largely due to the dream-like and breathtaking direction of mood master Brian De Palma.

By this time (2016), the film and the character of Carrie White were legendary.

Carrie (Sissy Spacek) is a lonely suburban teenager, ostracized by her classmates for being “weird”. Her mother (Piper Laurie) is a devout Christian who spreads the word of god amongst the neighbors.

Carrie has a special ability to move things, usually during anger- this is called telekinesis.

After a humiliating incident in the girl’s locker room when Carrie begins menstruating, one of the nicer girls in the class, Sue Snell (Amy Irving) feels sorry for Carrie and convinces her boyfriend, Tommy Ross, to take Carrie to the prom.

When others in the class take revenge upon Carrie with a sick joke, things take a horrific turn.

Betty Buckley as the empathetic gym teacher, Miss Collins, and John Travolta and Nancy Allen, as dastardly Billy and Chris, also star and are perfectly cast.

The direction in the film is second to none. De Palma adds interesting camera work throughout the film.

During a tender, lovely prom dance between Carrie and Tommy, the camera circles the pair repeatedly, giving a spellbinding, but not dizzying quality.

The use of slow-motion in the important “pig blood” scene is immeasurably effective.

The seemingly eternal time it takes for the blood spilling to occur, and the camera (in slow motion) goes from Sue to Miss Collins to Chris to the bucket of blood is fantastic.

The list of inspired and intense scenes goes on and on- from the climactic scene between Carrie and Mrs. White to the “jump out of your seat” final scene.

The acting is also worthy of high praise. Spacek and Laurie deservedly received Oscar nominations for their work. Spacek elicits so much rooting value into her role with a shred of psychosis bubbling just beneath the surface.

Carrie wants to fit in and have a happy life so the audience is immersed in her corner and celebrates her short-lived happiness with Tommy at the prom. Spacek is just perfectly cast.

Laurie on the other hand exudes crazy in every sense, but we do feel pangs of sympathy for her. We largely believe she cares for her daughter and wants to protect her from the dangerous world.

Carrie (1976) is a masterpiece that continues to hold up well and influence generations who can relate to school bullying,  taunting, and the desire to see the nasty popular kids get their just desserts.

More than a great horror film, it is a revered classic with a dreamy, moody vibe.

One of my all-time favorites.

Oscar Nominations: Best Actress-Sissy Spacek, Best Supporting Actress-Piper Laurie

1972 Films, Burt Reynolds, John Boorman, Jon Voight, Ned Beatty, Scott's Top 100 Films, Thriller

Deliverance-1972

Leave a comment

Deliverance-1972

Director John Boorman

Starring Jon Voight, Burt Reynolds, Ned Beatty

Top 100 Films #74    

Scott’s Review #324

433193

Reviewed January 5, 2016

Grade: A

Deliverance is a disturbing, gritty, yet wonderful 1972 thriller, directed by John Boorman, starring a cast of all-male principal actors.

The film is an adventure, albeit a dark one, with a subject matter difficult to watch, the film takes dark twists along the way, which is also the beauty of it. The viewer will get a harsh look at the backwoods of Georgia, not to mention gorgeous outdoor scenery.

A group of middle-aged, metropolitan businessmen, (played by Burt Reynolds, Jon Voight, Ned Beatty, and Ronny Cox), from Atlanta, decide to go rafting for a weekend getaway along a remote river in a desolate area of Georgia.

It is a guy’s weekend.

Lewis and Ed (Reynolds and Voight) are experienced at canoeing and are therefore the leaders of the group.

The guys are jovial but soon come upon a strange group of very poor townspeople. The men ask for a ride to the river and one of the men, Drew (Cox) engages a strange young boy in a friendly duel of banjo versus guitar, but Drew is then snubbed by the boy.

Later, events take a dark turn when a hunter versus hunted game emerges between the city-dwelling men and the country rednecks.

The film is interesting as it begins as a light-hearted adventure- nearly a buddy movie. The men laugh and joke as they relish in anticipation of the exciting weekend lying ahead of them.

The film then becomes slightly eerie during the banjo scene. We know that something strange or sinister has occurred, but we cannot put our finger on it.

Does the redneck boy hate the city men or is he simply mentally challenged? Why the strange looks of the poor people of the tiny town?

From this point, Deliverance takes a dark turn as a brutal event occurs involving two deaths- one under mysterious circumstances, and a male rape scene that is disturbing in its intensity and humiliation.

The rawness of these aspects of the film is unprecedented, especially interspersed with the contrast of the beautiful nature that is also at the forefront.

The acting is spot-on. In my opinion, Jon Voight makes this film and gives a layered, character-driven performance, so much so, that the audience becomes invested in his life. Ed is a good guy- arguably the kindest of the bunch- and is forced to become a different person as the film progresses, far from his true self.

He struggles in one scene- one beautifully peaceful scene- to shoot and kill a deer calmly grazing in the woods. He cannot do it. I love this scene as it shows Ed’s true nature. He does not dare tell the other men of his perceived shortcomings.

Ironically, he is then forced to make another painful decision involving human life.

On the surface a straightforward mainstream film, but as the film moves along, it becomes a layered masterpiece. Happy, tragic, strange, depressing, peaceful, and brutal capture Deliverance (1972).

The film is a disturbing, memorable gem and needs to be viewed to appreciate the golden age of 1970s cinema.

Oscar Nominations: Best Picture, Best Director-John Boorman, Best Film Editing

1948 Films, Alfred Hitchcock, Best Film of the Year, Cedric Hardwicke, Farley Granger, Hume Cronyn, James Stewart, John Dall, Scott's Top 100 Films, Thriller

Rope-1948

Leave a comment

Rope-1948

Director Alfred Hitchcock

Starring Farley Granger, John Dall, James Stewart

Top 100 Films #33

Scott’s Review #323

60020558

Reviewed January 5, 2016

Grade: A

Rope (1948) is one of my favorite Alfred Hitchcock films and a film that instead flies under the radar amongst his catalog of gems. Made in 1948, the film- set as a play (and based on a 1929 play), using one set only- and appearing to be one long take- is an understated film.

The action is inside a luxurious Manhattan apartment with a gorgeous panoramic skyline. Intelligent with subtle nuances that in current viewings are not as subtle, the tiny (nine) cast is fantastic at eliciting a fine story that never seems dated.

Starring Hitchcock stalwart Jimmy Stewart, the film features Farley Granger (Strangers On A Train-1951) and John Dall.

Granger and Dall portray Phillip and Brandon, two college students who strangle a fellow student as an experiment to create the perfect murder. Immediately after the murder, they host a dinner party for friends, including the father, aunt, and fiancée of the victim, all in attendance.

Stewart plays Brandon and Phillip’s prep school housemaster,  Rupert Cadell, who is suspicious of the duo.

To further the thrill, the dead body is hidden inside a large antique wooden chest in the center of their living room, as their housekeeper unwittingly serves dinner atop the dead body.

The film is macabre, clever, and quite experimental.

The very first scene is of Phillip strangling the victim, David, with a piece of kitchen rope, which is an unusual way to start a film. Typically, there would be more buildup and then the climax of murder, but Hitchcock is far too intelligent to follow the rule book.

Ironically, Phillip is the weak and submissive one despite committing the crime. Brandon is dominant and keeps Phillip in check by coaxing him to be calm and in control.

The fact that many of the guests have a relationship with the deceased, munching on their dinner while wondering why David is not attending the party, is gleeful irony. Plenty of drinks are served, and as Phillip gets drunk and drunk, he becomes more unhinged.

The film reminds me of some aspects of Who’s Afraid of Virginia Woolf, also based on a play and primarily featuring one set- both dinner parties with alcoholic consumptions, secrets, and accusations becoming more prevalent as the evening goes along.

The plot unfolds chillingly throughout one evening as Rupert slowly figures out that what he had previously taught Brandon and Phillip in an intellectual, hypothetical classroom discussion has been taken morbidly seriously by the two.

The homosexual context is hard to miss in this day and age, but remarkably, it was over the heads of the 1948 Production Code censors, who had no idea of what they were witnessing.

Phillip and Brandon are a gay couple who live together, and this Hitchcock has admitted to in later years. If watched closely, one will notice that in any shot where Brandon and Phillip are speaking to one another, their faces are dangerously close, so we can easily imagine them kissing.

This is purely intentional by Hitchcock.

Rope (1948) is a daring achievement in innovative filmmaking. It should be viewed by any aspiring filmmaker or anyone who enjoys robust and clever camera angles and stories and is seeking an extraordinary adventure in a calm, subtle, great story.

2003 Films, 2004 Films, Action, Best Film of the Year, Daryl Hannah, David Carradine, James Parks, Lucy Liu, Martial Arts, Michael Madsen, Michael Parks, Quentin Tarantino, Samuel L. Jackson, Scott's Top 100 Films, Uma Thurman, Vivica A. Fox

Kill Bill: Volume 1 and Volume 2-2003/2004

Leave a comment

Kill Bill: Volume 1 and Volume 2- 2003/2004

Director Quentin Tarantino

Starring Uma Thurman, David Carradine

Top 100 Films #58

Scott’s Review #322

6003123660032563

Reviewed January 3, 2016

Grade: A

Despite being released as separate films (Fall of 2003 and Spring of 2004), Kill Bill: Volume 1 and Kill Bill: Volume 2 are one grand, sprawling feature.

The films were shot as one, but at a running time of over four hours, it was impossible to release them as one, so director Quentin Tarantino decided to release his masterpiece martial arts film as two sequential films.

I have decided to review them as one since Volume 2 is a clear continuation of Volume 1.

From a story perspective, Kill Bill is a basic revenge thriller. The plot is not complex nor ingenious and is rather ordinary containing B-movie components- think the really bad Kung-Fu films of long ago.

What makes Kill Bill an extraordinary masterpiece, however, is the style that exudes from the film, thanks to the direction and creation of Tarantino.

The film is brimming with good flavor and crackling dialogue of an intelligent sort.

Characters have long conversations with each other-not for redundancy’s sake- in between the endless martial arts and bloody sequences.

We meet our heroine, The Bride (Uma Thurman), in a chapel in El Paso, Texas. About to be married to her groom, the entire wedding party is suddenly assassinated in a bloody fashion by the Deadly Viper Assassination Squad.

Their leader, Bill (David Carradine), shoots The Bride after she reveals to him that she is carrying his baby.

The film flashes forward four years later- The Bride has survived the massacre but has been comatose ever since. When a hospital worker rapes her, she escapes and vows revenge on each one of her attackers- the revenge culminating with Bill.

Her path of destruction leads her to Japan.

Like most of Tarantino’s films, Kill Bill is divided into chapters and often goes back and forth from past to present.

The brilliance of Kill Bill is its pizazz. We know The Bride will get her revenge on the assassins, we just do not know in what way or how bloody the slaughters will be.

The film contains copious amounts of blood and swords and machetes are everywhere to be found.

The slow drawl dialogue as The Bride has conversations with her prey before she kills them, oftentimes ends in a big fight scene. Her first revenge, against Vernita (Vivica A. Fox), is unique in that it takes place in Vernita’s kitchen as her young daughter is happily eating her breakfast cereal.

The entire battle ensues in the kitchen and we are left watching blood and cereal.

It is Tarantino’s unique style of filmmaking and storytelling, adding violence, and long character conversations, that give Kill Bill, and all of his other classic films, his unique brand, and stamp of approval.

I dearly hope he continues to make films that challenge the norm, for years to come.

1974 Films, Faye Dunaway, Film noir, Jack Nicholson, Roman Polanski, Scott's Top 100 Films

Chinatown-1974

Leave a comment

Chinatown-1974

Director Roman Polanski

Starring Jack Nicholson, Faye Dunaway

Top 100 Films #30

Scott’s Review #321

374030

Reviewed January 3, 2016

Grade: A

Chinatown (1974) is like a perfectly aged fine red wine- with each passing year or viewing, it becomes more and more spectacular.

A thinking man’s film, if you will, Chinatown is a complex puzzle, just waiting to unravel in a layered, complicated fashion. However, this is to its credit, as it is a fantastic, rich, film noir, and as good as cinematic writing gets.

Set in the 1930s the set pieces and art direction are flawless- as great a film in look as in the story.

Director Roman Polanski and star Jack Nicholson are largely responsible for the success of the film.

The direction is a marvel as the cinematography, flow, and pacing are astounding. A slow build, the film takes off at just the perfect point as the mystery gets deeper and deeper, building to a crescendo.

Nicholson plays Jake Gittes, a handsome Los Angeles private investigator hired by a woman claiming to be Evelyn Mulwray. Evelyn desires to have her husband followed, as she suspects him of an affair with another woman.

Jake begins tailing the woman’s husband, only to uncover an intriguing mystery involving the Los Angeles water supply. Soon, the real Evelyn Mulwray (Faye Dunaway) turns up and the film segues into a masterful web of complications and turns of events.

One will not see the ending coming.

Nicholson leads the film as only he can. With his charismatic, aww shucks attitude, mixed with humor, he is eye candy for the camera, as he takes the case and becomes more and more immersed in the action.

This film was a pivotal point for him as he began a slew of worthwhile and abundant performances in pictures.

Let us not forget to mention the acting performance of Dunaway. Smoldering, sexy, classy, intelligent, and vulnerable, she perfectly plays almost every emotion.

Chinatown, Bonnie and Clyde (1967), and Mommie Dearest (1981) are her best works in a career that spanned decades of success.

Chinatown (1974) is an entity unto itself in film noir. It is incredibly well-written, nuanced, and flawless.

This film simply must be seen.

The final thirty minutes- in addition to the “great reveal” are also violent, shocking, and extraordinary. A blueprint of what great filmmaking truly is.

Oscar Nominations: 1 win-Best Picture, Best Director-Roman Polanski, Best Actor-Jack Nicholson, Best Actress-Faye Dunaway, Best Original Screenplay (won), Best Original Dramatic Score, Best Sound, Best Costume Design, Best Art Direction, Best Cinematography, Best Film Editing

1991 Films, Anthony Hopkins, Best Film of the Year, Best Picture Oscar Winners, Charles Napier, Diane Baker, George A. Romero, Horror, Jodie Foster, Jonathan Demme, Scott Glenn, Scott's Top 100 Films, Scott's Top 20 Horror Films, Ted Levine

The Silence of the Lambs-1991

Leave a comment

The Silence of the Lambs-1991

Director Jonathan Demme

Starring Anthony Hopkins, Jodie Foster

Top 100 Films #31     Top 20 Horror Films #9

Scott’s Review #320

14546747

Reviewed January 3, 2016

Grade: A

The Silence of the Lambs (1991) has the honorary achievement of being one of only three films to win the top five Oscar statuettes, having been awarded Best Picture, Best Director (Jonathan Demme), Best Adapted Screenplay, Best Actor (Anthony Hopkins), and Best Actress (Jodie Foster) at the 1991 Oscar ceremonies.

This is no small feat, especially considering the film was released in March (not an Oscar-happy month) and is a horror film. These elements speak volumes for the level of mastery that is The Silence of the Lambs and the film holds up incredibly well as the years go by.

The film was a sleeper hit at the time of release and gradually built momentum throughout the year, becoming a phenomenon and forever a classic.

The film is adapted from the novel of the same name- written by Thomas Harris and, despite being a horror film, contains little gore. The film stars Foster as Clarice Starling, an FBI trainee, sent by her superiors to interview the infamous Hannibal Lecter.

Hannibal, “The Cannibal”, is a highly intelligent former psychiatrist who has been banished to a maximum security insane asylum after having been found guilty of killing and eating his victims.

The FBI hopes that Hannibal will aid them in a current case involving “Buffalo Bill”, a serial killer who skins his female victims.

Hannibal and Clarice embark on an intense and strange relationship in which he gets under her skin and questions her unhappy childhood in exchange for information about “Buffalo Bill”.

This relationship leaves Clarice vulnerable, though the pair develop a strong connection. As Hannibal makes more and more demands in exchange for information, he eventually escapes from custody and a chilling and bizarre escape.

The psychological elements and the intense relationship between Hannibal and Clarice are of monumental importance and Hopkins and Foster share an amazing chemistry.

Hopkins gives a top-notch and downright creepy performance as the cannibalistic killer. His mannerisms are stiff and calculating, his tone of voice monotone, and he simply embodies his character, making him a legendary and recognizable presence in film history.

Two memorable lines that he utters are, “I do wish we could chat longer, but I am having an old friend for dinner.”, and “I ate his liver with some fava beans and a nice Chianti”.

The character of “Buffalo Bill” is as terrifying as Hannibal Lecter.

Portrayed by Ted Levine, the character is maniacal, sexually confused, and otherwise downtrodden. A tailor, he aspires to make a full “woman suit” costume out of his victim’s skin. His current hostage, a Senator’s daughter, is kept confined in an old well and terrorized by Bill’s antics.

His famous line, “It puts the lotion on or it gets the hose again” still terrifies me.

Highly influential, mimicked for years to come, and containing multiple lines and characters permanently etched in film history, The Silence of The Lambs (1991) is a classic not soon forgotten.

The film was followed by multiple sequels, none of which come close to the power and psychological complexities of the original.

Oscar Nominations: 5 wins-Best Picture (won), Best Director-Jonathan Demme (won), Best Actor-Anthony Hopkins (won), Best Actress-Jodie Foster (won), Best Screenplay Based on Material Previously Produced or Published (won), Best Sound, Best Film Editing

2015 Films, Bruce Dern, Channing Tatum, Demián Bichir, James Parks, Jennifer Jason Leigh, Kurt Russell, Michael Madsen, Quentin Tarantino, Samuel L. Jackson, Tim Roth, Walton Goggins, Western

The Hateful Eight-2015

Leave a comment

The Hateful Eight-2015

Director Quentin Tarantino

Starring Kurt Russell, Samuel L. Jackson, Jennifer Jason Leigh

Scott’s Review #319

80064515

Reviewed January 3, 2016

Grade: A

Quentin Tarantino does it again!

The modern equivalent of Alfred Hitchcock, Stanley Kubrick, David Lynch, or any of the great directors, his films are an experience to be reveled in.

The viewer is taken to another world and experiences a great fantasy. This time he dives into western territory with The Hateful Eight (2015), a brutal tale of eight strangers holed up in a shelter during a Wyoming blizzard shortly after the Civil War.

The film delivers blood, unique characters, and brilliant writing.

We are introduced to Major Marquis Warren (Samuel L. Jackson) and John “The Hangman” (Kurt Russell) early on, as Marquis hitches a ride on John’s stagecoach.

They are bounty hunters heading to Red Rock to deliver their prisoners and collect a large loot. Marquis has three dead bodies, but John has captured brutal female criminal Daisy Domergue, played wonderfully by Jennifer Jason Leigh, alive and well.

The group then picks up the new Red Rock sheriff, Chris Mannix, who is headed there to accept his new position.

Everyone is in a panic to reach safety before a vicious blizzard hits and the group comes to a shelter where they meet the other film principals, Joe Gage (Michael Madsen), Oswaldo (Tim Roth), Marco the Mexican (Demian Bichir), and General Sandy Smithers (Bruce Dern).

These eight make up “The Hateful Eight” in the title.

The setting could not be better. The cold, wintry blizzard and the grand mountains of the West are authentic. However, most of the film is set inside Minnie’s Haberdashery, an inn where the eight (and some others) spend most of the film.

I found the setting tremendously effective as the howling wind,  the driving snow through the windows, mixed with the glowing warmth of the lighting and the hot, steaming, soothing stew that they ate, and the hot coffee, which is ingeniously featured throughout the film.

These hot and cold elements contrast so well.

Shot in 70 mm film to ensure a widescreen, epic look, the film succeeds in the snowy, outdoor scenes, though I am not sure I would notice this camera style without it being touted with the release.

The characters bristle with authenticity and engagement and each one is interested in his or her own right- even the secondary characters.

My favorites are John “The Hangman”, Daisy, Marquis, and Sandy Smithers. John is probably the most likable character of the bunch and Kurt Russell (almost unrecognizable under the thick beard), gives the character charm and wit.

As the story unfolds, each character is mysterious, and their motives unclear, which makes the film fun. Are some in secret cahoots with others? When someone poisons the coffee, a whodunit erupts.

This is the beauty- the character motivations slowly come into play and a slow reveal occurs.

The gore/violence is fantastic. Without revealing too much, there are many deaths and the film is non-linear, with the middle portion of the story occurring before the first section. To keep things organized, Tarantino divides into chapters, and over three hours long, the film is a monster.

I like how Tarantino features an interracial relationship (black inn owner Minnie and her white husband).

Favorite scenes include the vomiting blood sequence and the brutal scene of the severing of the arm of a character.  There is also the scene of Marquis dragging a victimized, naked soldier through the snow that is intense and shocking, involving brutal sodomy.

As with all of Tarantino’s films, the characters are cartoonish and not to be taken completely seriously and the violence will undoubtedly offend some, but that is the beauty of his films.

This is a masterful work by a masterful modern director.

Oscar Nominations: 1 win-Best Supporting Actress-Jennifer Jason Leigh, Best Original Score (won), Best Cinematography

1951 Films, Alfred Hitchcock, Best Film of the Year, Farley Granger, Film noir, Howard St. John, Kasey Rogers, Leo G. Carroll, Pat Hitchcock, Robert Gist, Robert Walker, Ruth Roman, Scott's Top 100 Films, Thriller

Strangers on a Train-1951

Leave a comment

Strangers on a Train-1951

Director Alfred Hitchcock

Starring Farley Granger, Robert Walker

Top 100 Films #27

Scott’s Review #318

70002912

Reviewed January 2, 2016

Grade: A

A thrill-ride-per-minute film, a classic suspense story filled with tension galore, Strangers On A Train is a great Alfred Hitchcock film from 1951, which began the onset of the “golden age of Hitchcock,” lasting throughout the 1950s and 1960s.

A British version of the film exists somewhere, but I have yet to see it.

The American version is a brilliant, fast-paced experience with complex, interesting characters, including one of the greatest villains in screen history, and a riveting, heart-pounding plot.

Who can forget the essential ominous phrase “criss-cross”?

The film begins with a clever shot of two pairs of expensive shoes emerging from individual taxi cabs. Both are men, well-to-do, and stylish.  They board a train and sit across each other, accidentally bumping their feet.

We are then introduced to the two main characters: tennis star Guy Haines (Farley Granger) and wealthy Bruno Anthony (Robert Walker). They engage in conversation, and immediately, we become aware that Bruno is assertive and Guy is more passive.

Ultimately, Bruno manipulates Guy into thinking they will exchange murders- Bruno will kill Guy’s unfaithful wife, Miriam, while Guy will murder Bruno’s hated father.  While Bruno takes this dire “deal” seriously, Guy thinks Bruno is joking.

A psychological complexity of the film is the implied relationship between Guy and Bruno. Indeed, there are sexual overtones as flirtation and bonding immediately develop while they converse on the train.

They are complete opposites, which makes their relationship compelling—the devil and the angel if you will. The mysterious, profound connection between these two men fascinates throughout the film.

Robert Walker makes Bruno a delicious villain. He is devious, clever, manipulative, and even comical at times. His wickedness is mesmerizing, so much so that the audience roots for him.

Hitchcock wisely makes the victim, Miriam (wonderfully played by Laura Elliot), devious, adding to Bruno’s rooting value during her death scene. His character is troubled and almost rivals Norman Bates and Hannibal Lecter as a lovable, evil villain.

Later in the film, when Guy is playing tennis, he gazes into the stands to see the spectators turning left and right in tandem with the moving tennis ball, and the audience sees a staring straight ahead Bruno immersed in the sea of swaying heads.

It is a highly effective, creepy scene.

The pairing of Guy and his girlfriend Anne (a seemingly much older Ruth Roman and, interestingly, despised by Hitchcock) does not work. Could this be a result of the implied attraction between Bruno and Guy? Or is it a coincidence?

Roman’s casting was forced upon Hitchcock by the Warner Brothers studio.

Hitchcock reveals his “mommy complex,” a common theme in his films, as we learn that there is something off with Bruno’s mother, played by Marion Lorde, but the exact oddity is tricky to pin down.

She and Bruno comically joke about bombing the White House, which gives the scene a jarring, confusing edge. Is she he reason that Bruno is diabolical?

The theme of women’s glasses is used heavily in Strangers On A Train. Miriam, an eyeglass wearer, is strangled while we, the audience, witness the murder through her dropped glasses. The scene is gorgeous and cinematic in black and white and continues to be studied in film schools everywhere.

Later, Anne’s younger sister Barbara (comically played by Hitchcock’s daughter Pat Hitchcock), who also wears glasses, becomes an essential character as Bruno is mesmerized by her likeness to the deceased Miriam, as a mock strangulation game at a dinner party goes wrong.

The concluding carnival scene is high-intensity and contains impressive special effects for 1951.

The spinning out-of-control carousel, panicked riders, and cat-and-mouse chase scene leading to a deadly climax is a fantastic end to the film.

Strangers On A Train (1951) is one of Hitchcock’s best classic thrill films.

1954 Films, Alfred Hitchcock, Best Film of the Year, Gig Young, Grace Kelly, James Stewart, Raymond Burr, Scott's Top 100 Films, Thelma Ritter, Thriller

Rear Window-1954

Leave a comment

Rear Window-1954

Director Alfred Hitchcock

Starring James Stewart, Grace Kelly

Top 100 Films #50

Scott’s Review #317

60000397

Reviewed January 2, 2016

Grade: A

I dearly love several Alfred Hitchcock films, and Rear Window (1954) is high on that list.

The film is a unique experience in that much of it is shot from the point of view of the main character, L.B. Jeffries, played with conviction by James Stewart, a fixture in several of Hitchcock’s great films.

Wheelchair-bound and confined to his Manhattan apartment, he has nothing more to do than spy on an apartment entire of neighbors across the street.

He witnesses a crime, and a cat-and-mouse game ensues.

What is great about this film is that the viewer gets to know the series of neighbors L.B. watches and glimpses into their lives, some happy and some sad.

Rear Window is shot sort of like a play. The chemistry between Stewart and Grace Kelly is nice but secondary to the tremendous main story.

Rear Window (1954) can be watched repeatedly and enjoyed with each subsequent viewing.

Oscar Nominations: Best Director-Alfred Hitchcock, Best Screenplay, Best Sound Recording, Best Cinematography, Color

1962 Films, British, British Horror, Horror, Janet Blair, Peter Wyngarde, Sidney Hayers

Burn Witch Burn (Night of the Eagle)-1962

Leave a comment

Burn Witch Burn (Night of the Eagle)- 1962

Director Sidney Hayers

Starring Peter Wyngarde, Janet Blair

Scott’s Review #316

220px-Night-of-the-eagle-poster

Reviewed January 1, 2016

Grade: B

Burn Witch Burn, retitled for U.S. release from the original British title Night of the Eagle, is a 1962 black-and-white horror film.

It is based on a 1943 novel entitled Conjure Wife.

The film is quite decent and delves into the fascinating and arguably unusual subject of witchcraft. It’s careful not to be too dark a film, and it resembles more of an extended episode of the Twilight Zone. It’s a good episode.

I enjoyed the film’s wit and charm. It never took itself too seriously and added humor and lightness.

Norman, a psychology professor at the local university, is intelligent, successful, and well-adjusted. He has a blonde, pretty, sophisticated wife named Tansy.

The perfect housewife, she coordinates Friday night bridge parties with fellow professors and staff and a Mrs. Cleaver type, the mother character from the famous 1950s television series Leave it to Beaver.

When Norman discovers Tansy is practicing witchcraft and possesses various charms, dolls, and weird things, he forces her to destroy all of them.

This leads to a series of bad events.

Norman is accused of rape by a student, and other dire circumstances occur. Tansy assumes this is a result of the destruction of her witchcraft.

Burn Witch Burn is a fun film that doesn’t take itself too seriously despite its heavy subject matter. Tansy certainly does not look like the stereotypical witch. She is more like a PTA mom; we almost cheer for her.

At the same time, the film is not so over-the-top that it becomes ridiculous, either. I found it entertaining but not a masterpiece or scary.

As the film progressed, I found the action confusing from a story-line perspective, but that was admittedly okay. I went with it and enjoyed it.

For instance, the plot thickens when an enormous eagle affixed to the front of the university building comes into play or the sinister university secretary’s motives are revealed.

The special effects and ambiance of the thunderstorm are worth mentioning. The heavy storm was crucial in making Burn Witch Burn a compelling horror film. It added a heavy dose of spookiness to the events, and the atmosphere was spot on.

Burn Witch Burn (1962) is a fun, late-night horror flick that does not take itself too seriously. It is a worthy film for horror fans to enjoy.

An underappreciated British horror flick.

1967 Films, Alan Bates, British, Drama, Epic, John Schlesinger, Julie Christie, Period Drama, Peter Finch, Robert Powell, Romantic Drama, Terence Stamp

Far from the Madding Crowd-1967

Leave a comment

Far from the Madding Crowd-1967

Director John Schlesinger

Starring Julie Christie, Terence Stamp, Alan Bates

Scott’s Review #315

70111488

Reviewed January 1, 2016

Grade: A-

A sweeping, gorgeous epic made in 1967, Far from the Madding Crowd is pure soap opera (this is not a negative), done very well, which features a woman with three male suitors and contains many similarities to another brilliant epic, Gone with the Wind.

The cinematography, score, and writing are excellent, and, at close to three hours, are a lengthy experience.

The film is based on the popular novel, written by Thomas Hardy.

The setting is lovely, rural England, the landscape green and lush- mostly farmland, where Bathsheba resides having recently inherited her Uncle’s enormous estate and is, frankly, overwhelmed with the heavy responsibility required to successfully run it.

Three men appear in one form or another to lend a hand and each falls madly in love with her- she had her choice of any of them. Throughout the film, each is given a chance to win her heart, and the trials and tribulations of each occur.

The wealthy neighbor, William Boldwood, is older and insecure. Frank Troy is a bad boy who is a cavalry sergeant, and Gabriel, a former farmer, has lost all of his sheep.

Having only seen this film twice (so far), I notice more and more the similarities to Gone with the Wind. Both are set around the same period (the 1860s) and both films feature very strong, independent, gorgeous female characters with multiple male suitors.

Unlike Gone with the Wind, though, Bathsheba is not self-centered, but wholesome and honest.

Julie Christie was certainly the “it” girl during the time in which the film was made, having recently starred in Darling, and Doctor Zhivago, among others, and Far from the Madding Crowd is a perfect film for her, focusing on her beauty and earnestness.

She is exceptionally cast.

What I enjoy most about the film is we do not know which of the men Bathsheba will wind up with…if any of them. Gabriel Alan Bates) is my personal favorite, but at the beginning of the film, she rebuffs his marriage proposal.

In a heartbreaking scene, one of his dogs goes mad and leads his entire flock of sheep to their death. He then is forced to work as her shepherd, a job beneath him. He is the most likable of the three men and it is fun to root for their ultimate union. But is he prone to bad luck?

Frank Troy is dashing- a clear lady’s man, yet I did not root for him. A character, which I found to have strange motivations, having impregnated, and almost married a young lady named Fanny, only to turn her away based on a misunderstanding, then ultimately change his mind about Bathsheba.

In one scene he manipulates his way into getting the townsmen drunk on brandy, which leads to a crisis. He is charismatic and used to getting his way.

Finally, Boldwood is wealthy and sophisticated and appealing to Bathsheba in a certain way (main stability), but there is also something I find “off” about the character throughout the film- unstable maybe, needy? I did not find his character likable either.

The overlap and the relationships between the men are also interesting aspects of Far from the Madding Crowd. Will they become friends? Would they kill each other for Bathsheba’s affection?

Many emotions run through all four characters, which makes the film rich in character development.

Grand, sweeping, and beautiful are words to describe Far from the Madding Crowd, a film that I enjoy exploring and evaluating upon each viewing.

Oscar Nominations: Best Original Music Score

1968 Films, Best Film of the Year, Gary Lockwood, Keir Dullea, Science Fiction, Scott's Top 100 Films, Stanley Kubrick

2001: A Space Odyssey-1968

Leave a comment

2001: A Space Odyssey-1968

Director Stanley Kubrick

Starring Keir Dullea, Gary Lockwood

Top 100 Films #16

Scott’s Review #314

207856

Reviewed December 31, 2015

Grade: A

In my mind, 2001: A Space Odyssey (1968) is a masterpiece, pure and simple, and simply must be seen repeatedly to let the message and the experience sink in.

It is one of those films that is comparable to a fine wine- it just gets better and better with age is palpable with deep-thought and allows the viewer to experience the good taste in film art.

The delicious quality is meant to be savored and enjoyed- the slow pace and odd elements only enrich the film. Needless to say, it is one of my favorite Stanley Kubrick films.

Simply an epic journey through space.

Made in 1968, and the year 2001 way off, the film challenges and breaks down barriers and film, as Kubrick simply makes a film that he wants to make and the results are genius.

The film contains no dialogue during the first twenty or the last twenty minutes.

The film begins in the African desert millions of years ago as the evolution of man is apparent- two tribes of ape-men dispute over a watering hole. A black monolith appears and one of the tribes is guided to use bones as weapons.

Millions of years later, we meet a team of scientists- led by Dr. David Bowman and Dr. Frank Poole- as they embark on a mission aboard the United States spacecraft, Discovery One, on a mission to Jupiter.

The ship is mainly controlled by an intelligent talking computer named HAL 9000- nicknamed “Hal”. Hal boasts that he is “foolproof and incapable of error”. As events unfold, the film dives into a study of humans versus technology in a cerebral game of mental chess.

The film is very tough to review analytically as it is so intelligent and visually stimulating- it must be experienced. It challenges the viewer to think and absorb the events occurring.

Visually it is breathtaking and still holds up shockingly well from this perspective. The use of classical music throughout- especially in dramatic scenes is effective.

The stunning scene where David and Frank converse about their suspicions regarding “Hal”, as the intelligent computer system looks on, simply an orange light, but seemingly displaying a myriad of emotions (surprise, rage) in the viewer’s mind, is incredibly compelling.

2001: A Space Odyssey (1968) is an enduring masterpiece.

Oscar Nominations: 1 win-Best Director-Stanley Kubrick, Best Story, and Screenplay Written Directly for the Screen, Best Art Direction, Best Special Visual Effects (won)

1980 Films, Best Film of the Year, Horror, Jack Nicholson, Scott's Top 100 Films, Scott's Top 20 Horror Films, Shelley Duvall, Stanley Kubrick, Stephen King

The Shining-1980

Leave a comment

The Shining-1980

Director Stanley Kubrick

Starring Jack Nicholson, Shelley Duvall

Top 100 Films #20     Top 20 Horror Films #7

Scott’s Review #313

959008

Reviewed December 31, 2015

Grade: A

The Shining is one of the great horror masterpieces of all time.

Released in 1980 and atypical of the slasher craze that was running rampant at that time, the film is a psychological ghost story with frightening elements including a musical score, long camera shots, and a haunting grandiose hotel in a deserted locale.

Without the brilliant direction of Stanley Kubrick, The Shining would not be the masterpiece that it is- to say nothing of the talents of Nicholson and Duvall in the lead roles.

Based on the popular horror novel by Stephen King.

Nicholson plays Jack Torrance, an author and alcoholic, who takes his wife Wendy (Duvall) and son Danny to serve as caretakers at the vast Overlook hotel- for the winter in snowy Colorado.

The lavish hotel will be deserted for the season and Jack looks forward to months of peace that will enable him to complete his novel.

Unfortunately, the hotel is haunted by spirits of the past, and the added burden of the previous caretaker going mad and chopping his family to bits with an ax.

The real success of The Shining is that the hotel itself is a character and has nuances of its own. The hotel is deathly quiet as the Torrances take over for the season-long hallways are featured and the forbidden Room 237 takes on a life of its own.

Creepy images of two young girls and red blood gushing from the elevators take over. Young Danny can communicate with the chef without speaking to each other. Jack imagines a gorgeous nude woman in the bathtub only to discover she is a shriveled old hag.

The film’s cinematography coupled with the looming, morose, musical score perfectly go hand in hand and, in my opinion, are the reasons for the success of the film.

Throughout the film, there is a sense of dread and a forbidden presence that works beautifully.

The very first scene is an aerial shot of the Torrances driving along a mountainous road to be interviewed for the caretaker position. The vast land and mountains as we eventually see the Overlook immediately reveal to us the feeling of isolation, which is really what the film is about.

These exterior scenes are also gorgeous to marvel at.

The crisp, gloomy, winter scenes and the endless maze of animal shrubbery come into play during the film’s final act as Jack, now completely mad, chases Danny through the snowy paths that seemingly lead to nowhere.

The catchphrase, “Here’s Johnny!”, that is uttered from an ax-wielding Nicholson, is permanently ensconced in the relics of pop culture.

Nicholson and Duvall have such dynamic and palpable on-screen chemistry that makes the film work from a character perspective. There is something slightly off with each of the characters, readily apparent from the outset, but that has more to do with each actor being rather non-traditional in appearance.

I can imagine no other actors in these roles.

Author, Stephen King, who reportedly despised the film version of his novel, has since grown to respect the film and Kubrick’s direction, a great deal. The Shining is one of my favorite horror films in addition to being one of my favorite films of all time.

1997 Films, Alfred Molina, Anne Fletcher, Best Film of the Year, Burt Reynolds, Don Cheadle, Drama, Heather Graham, Independent, Independent Drama, Joanna Gleason, John C. Reilly, Julianne Moore, Luis Guzman, Mark Wahlberg, Melora Walters, Paul Thomas Anderson, Philip Baker Hall, Philip Seymour Hoffman, Scott's Top 100 Films, William H. Macy

Boogie Nights-1997

Leave a comment

Boogie Nights-1997

Director Paul Thomas Anderson

Starring Mark Wahlberg, Burt Reynolds

Top 100 Films #21

Scott’s Review #312

1180077

Reviewed December 31, 2015

Grade: A

Boogie Nights (1997) is a fantastic film about the pornography industry (The Golden Age of Porn) of the 1970s and 1980s and does a wonderful job of portraying the characters as human beings with feelings and emotions, rather than as nymphomaniacs or perverts.

They bond with one another as a family- a group of misfits striving to survive. This and many other reasons are why Boogie Nights is one of my favorite films of all time.

Written, produced, and directed by Paul Thomas Anderson (Magnolia-1999, There Will Be Blood-2007, Inherent Vice-2014), he is a champion at exploring the underbelly of society and flawed and desperate characters.

Boogie Nights is no different.

The dysfunctional family is the common theme of the film. Most of his characters are not happy people, but they are survivors and desperately look for a piece of happiness.

Many in his cast of Boogie Nights also appear in Magnolia. Mark Wahlberg (Eddie/Dirk Diggler), Burt Reynolds (Jack Horner), Julianne Moore (Maggie), Don Cheadle (Buck), William H. Macy (Little Bill), John C. Reilly (Reed Rothchild), Heather Graham (Rollergirl), Philip Seymour Hoffman (Scotty), Malora Walters (Jessie), and Alfred Molina (Rahad Jackson), round out the large cast.

The setting of the film in Los Angeles and the period runs from 1977-1984. Though only seven years take place, much happens to most of the characters during this time and we experience their trials and tribulations.

The unique thing about Boogie Nights is that I care about every character, thanks to great writing and fantastic acting. They succeeded in obtaining my empathy for them. Boogie Nights is an extremely character-driven film, which is an enormous part of its brilliance.

The cast is an ensemble one, but the main character is Eddie Adams, a high school dropout, who we meet working as a dishwasher at a nightclub. He has an abusive mother who kicks him out of the house, leading him to audition for and move in with Jack Horner.

Jack is a patriarch type, who shares a house with Maggie, the matriarch of the household, and roller girl, a fellow high school dropout always wearing roller skates. Eddie’s talent is his large “manhood”.

We watch Eddie, at first shy and polite, rise to superstardom in the porn industry, becoming rich and living a lavish, drug-fueled, lifestyle, where his ego gets the best of him. He, like many of the characters, hit rough times as the early 1980’s shift to videotape was the death of many 1970’s porn actors careers.

The musical soundtrack is very important to the success of Boogie Nights. Many scenes contain songs that were hits of the time or prior, including “Sister Christian”, “Jessie’s Girl”, “God Only Knows”, “Got to Give it Up”, “Ain’t No Stoppin’ Us Now”, and countless others- so much so that the soundtrack is almost a character of the film and we look forward to hearing what song might be featured next.

At one point later in the film, circa 1983, as things begin to spiral out of control for many of the characters- the musical score turns ominous with low bass music, a nighttime setting, the lighting becomes darker, and several stories begin to intersect on one late L.A. night on the streets.

Jack, filming a scene in a limousine starring Rollergirl and a young college jock they pick up off the streets, Dirk-forced to prostitute himself for $10 to a young man in a pickup truck, and Buck-who innocently stops to buy doughnuts for his very pregnant wife Jessie.

Each of these stories ends in brutal violence and the tone is crucial to the success of the scenes. This lengthy scene reminds me quite a bit of a Quentin Tarantino scene in its macabre tone.

Particular favorite scenes include the heartbreaking scene when Maggie loses custody of her son, the New Year’s Eve party at Jack’s house, and the ill-fated drug sale at Rahad Jackson’s.

Each is heartbreaking, powerful, fraught with tension, or otherwise empathetic to the characters, which makes them each quite powerful in different ways.

Induced in the drug sale scene is some black comedy- Rahad’s presumed Chinese houseboy has a fetish for firecrackers, which startle Dirk, Reed, and Todd, as the fear of possible gunshots fills the air. Maggie’s sob scene elicits viewer emotion as we cry with her, and the New Year’s Eve turn of events involving Scotty and Little Bill is tragic.

Boogie Nights (1997) is one of my favorite films because it contains brilliant writing, characters who are fleshed out, damaged, and human, a killer soundtrack, and a dark, mysterious industry (porn) that is both misunderstood and categorized.

Thanks to director, Anderson, we see the people within this lifestyle as real people, with issues, but also with full hearts and kindness.

Oscar Nominations: Best Supporting Actor-Burt Reynolds, Best Supporting Actress-Julianne Moore, Best Screenplay Written Directly for the Screen

1974 Films, British, British Horror, Christopher Lee, Horror, Horror-Camp, Peter Cushing, Telly Savalas

Horror Express-1974

Leave a comment

Horror Express-1974

Director Eugenio Martin

Starring Christopher Lee, Peter Cushing

Scott’s Review #311

7780013

Reviewed December 30, 2015

Grade: B

Horror Express (1974) is a fun 1970s Spanish/British horror film starring legendary horror actors Christopher Lee and Peter Cushing.

A horror version of Agatha Christie’s Murder On The Orient Express with a bit of camp thrown in, it is an entertaining late-night experience, on a low-budget level.

It is the early 1900’s, and while traveling from Shanghai to Moscow, via the Trans-Siberian Express, a British anthropologist named Professor Alexander Saxton (Lee) brings an enormous,  mysterious crate on board that contains a creature he discovered in a cave.

What we know is it has something to do with human evolution.

A fellow passenger, Doctor Wells (Cushing), and various other passengers become suspicious of the crate and demand to have it opened.

Things go awry and victims begin to be murdered by the creature (an ape-like monster) and left with eyes completely white with missing pupils and irises.

The best part of Horror Express is the setting. The cozy train is a perfect backdrop for the events taking place and it makes the film exciting as the different cars are set-decorated nicely.

This lends itself to a sense of entrapment and being unable to escape the creature as it roams freely from car to car.

For being a low-budget film,  the train sets are quite believable, as are the sounds of the train. It feels like the actors are on a real train as the tooting horns and the sounds of the tracks are authentic.

Having actors as big as Lee and Cushing gives the film respect in horror circles and both actors do believable work.

This film would not have been as good without the talents (and name recognition) of both.

There are also interesting supporting characters and I didn’t find the acting to be too over-the-top as is known to occur in similar types of horror films.

Specifically, the countess’s role and the appearance of Telly Savalas as a Cossack officer investigating events are interesting.

Fans of this genre of horror will understand that suspension of disbelief is necessary as the plot gets a bit goofy- something about the creature taking the information from the victim’s brain and the victims subsequently turning into zombies- it doesn’t make a whole lot of sense.

Especially towards the end, as some drunken Russians and some weird resurrections happen, but that is somehow okay.

For a late-night viewing with some spirits, you can’t ask too many questions and Horror Express (1974) is a decent flick.

2015 Films, Alicia Vikander, Amber Heard, Ben Whishaw, Biography, Drama, Eddie Redmayne, Emerald Fennell, LGBTQ+ Drama, LGBTQ+ Films, Matthias Schoenaerts, Romantic Drama, Sebastian Koch, Tom Hooper

The Danish Girl-2015

Leave a comment

The Danish Girl-2015

Director Tom Hooper

Starring Eddie Redmayne, Alicia Vikander

Scott’s Review #310

80058477

Reviewed December 29, 2015

Grade: A-

The Danish Girl (2015) tells the loosely based story of Danish painters and married couple Lili Ebe and Gerda Wegener and Lili’s struggles as the first known recipient of sex reassignment surgery, unheard of at the time that it was (1930).

The film showcases terrific acting (Eddie Redmayne and Alicia Vikander especially) and a journey of one person’s struggle with gender identity.

The subject matter is important and timely as the recent transgender movement has emerged at the forefront of social issues today.

A happy, young couple living in Copenhagen, and married for six years, Gerda and Einar are inseparable and madly in love. They are best friends and help each other with their art. Because of a female model’s tardiness, Gerda convinces Einar to stand in for the female model.

This event triggers a lifelong identification as a female named Lili Elbe. Lili has emerged sporadically since childhood.

Through painful self-assessment and encouragement from progressive loved ones, Lili decides to go through with a highly experimental and risky sex change operation.

Gushing with sensitivity and tenderness and groundbreaking, though I bet even more so if made ten years ago, one feels for both lead characters as it is important to note that they both go through emotional turmoil.

It would be easy to lessen Gerda’s emotions and, perhaps with a lesser actress this might have happened, but Vikander (unknown to me before seeing this film) gives an emotional performance that is raw and exudes empathy.

One can imagine how they would feel if their spouse identified as the opposite sex. Confusion, blame, anger, and sorrow, would all be common reactions. Gerda is strong, brave, and helpful while crumbling beneath the surface.

Vikander brings all of this to the screen flawlessly.

Similarly, Redmayne brings depth and empathy to his role.  Redmayne’s Einar is masculine, but there is something sensitive and slightly feminine to him from the start.

Was this purposely done to soften the blow? He also appears to be very slightly built. Redmayne lost weight to portray this role and have a softer appearance.

Actors can easily dress up in drag, but the emotional investment needs to be there and Redmayne makes the viewer care about Lili. One is teary-eyed along with Lili as she sees no other choice but to undergo the risky operation. We see the desperation in Lili’s eyes thanks to Redmayne’s acting skills.

I loved how supportive the characters are in the film. Granted, Einar/Lili and Gerda travel in liberal and progressive circles, but for 1930, this was wonderful to see.

Of course, Copenhagen and Paris are open-minded cities, but Lili’s childhood friend Hans, a sophisticated, macho guy, offers support. The same goes for the Doctor taking on Lili’s surgery.

These aspects lend to a delicate, peaceful film of encouragement.

To be clear, Lili is not gay, and this is made crystal clear during the film as she meets a gay man, and the distinction between them is made. She does, however, identify and feel that she is a woman. She was born with the wrong parts.

The greatest aspect of The Danish Girl is its powerhouse acting and compelling subject matter. One’s gender is a given for most, but watching a riveting drama about someone who is unrestful with their gender is eye-opening and still rather taboo.

2015 was a year of progressive transgender films and The Danish Girl is towards the top in its class and graceful in dealing with the subject matter in a judgmental-free way.

Oscar Nominations: 1 win-Best Actor-Eddie Redmayne, Best Supporting Actress-Alicia Vikander (won), Best Production Design, Best Costume Design