All posts by scottmet99

Saw VI-2009

Saw VI-2009

Director Kevin Greutert

Starring Tobin Bell, Shawnee Smith

Scott’s Review #518

70119356

Reviewed November 12, 2016

Grade: B

The Saw movies are a fun experience. They are like watching a puzzle form and there is usually some sort of twist or reveal at the end of each film, making them enjoyable.

John Jigsaw’s torture legacy lives on in this film.

This installment picks up where Saw V left off and there are many flashback scenes to earlier installments so things make sense and all come together.

The twist, however, is not as interesting as earlier ones, but the kills are extremely gory and the reasons behind the victims are always interesting.

In typical fashion, the victims deserve, in some way, their punishments, either causing someone else’s death or ripping someone off in their past, so the brutality is not exacted on the innocent.

Deaths and torturous methods such as a severed arm, busting temples, cages, hydrofluoric acid, and needles are all used readily.

For any Scream Queens reality show fans, Taneadra Howard has a role in this one.

Saw VI (2009) is a decent movie, but not as good as other Saws.

Straight Outta Compton-2015

Straight Outta Compton-2015

Director F. Gary Gray

Starring O’Shea Jackson Jr., Paul Giamatti

Scott’s Review #517

80041415

Reviewed November 12, 2016

Grade: B-

The rap group N.W.A. was a highly influential and controversial unit to emerge from Compton, California in the late 1980s and featured soon-to-be solo rap artists Ice Cube and Dr. Dre.

Another member, Eazy-E, rounds out the trio featured in this film along with their manager Jerry, played by Paul Giamatti.

Straight Outta Compton (2015) tells their story.

Ice Cube and Dr. Dre produced the film along with Eazy-E’s widow, Tomica Woods-Wright, and Ice Cube’s real-life son, O’Shea Jackson, Jr. portray Ice Cube.

The film is interesting as a way of learning about the rap group and their rise to and fall from stardom, but the film has a very slick and glossy style that detracts from the grittiness of the subject matter.

It feels very Hollywood and overly produced.

Especially, since the language is atrocious- almost overly, as if the point was being shoved down our throats.

Additionally, the acting, except for Giamatti, is not too impressive.

Lastly, the violence portrayed and the gang stuff seems a bit stereotypical for my tastes.

The film begins in 1986 and we meet a trio of friends. Determined to provide a raw, honest style of poetry to their music, they eventually meet their manager, Jerry, who takes them under his wing and leads them to their success.

Predictably, with success comes jealousy and contract disputes. The film delves into this subject matter as the partying and drug use, womanizing, and violence, all lead to the rap group’s constant struggles with the police force, especially since one of their top songs is anti-police.

Impressive is the real-life footage used of the 1991 beating of taxi driver Rodney King by the Los Angeles Police Department and the subsequent riots that occurred after the officers were found not guilty of any wrongdoing.

The racial tension in this city was interesting to revisit and palpable to the film’s subject matter.

The acting was noticeable to me and not in a good way. The young actor who plays Dr. Dre (Corey Hawkins) was fine, but the others (Jackson) and Jason Mitchell as Eazy-E were average at best. In any of their dramatic scenes where they appear to be angry, it just does not work, and the scenes lack grizzle and intensity.

Conversely, any dramatic scene that held any gusto belonged to Giamatti, who was excellent in his part. He makes the others seem better, but in other ways, their inexperience is evident compared to his.

In any event, he only makes the scenes he appears in more genuine. Early in the film, when Jerry lashes out at police officers, it is a meaty scene and forceful.

The filmmakers go for a message of violence and swearing in this film, but despite this, Straight Outta Compton still seems safe and overly produced. This may have had to do with the bright, slick cameras used.

It has a studio, high-budget appearance that does not completely work. I wanted it to look grittier and dirtier and see more of the seedy side of the business instead of merely being explained to me.

Women in this film are not treated very well and the characters who are the girlfriends are written sympathetically, but not given much substance to sink their teeth into.

Contrasting, Death Row Records CEO “Suge” Knight is portrayed as a maniacal, violent man.

Straight Outta Compton is a guy’s film.

I had difficulty relating to any of the central characters except perhaps Giamatti’s and it becomes unclear if Jerry had been ripping off the members of the rap group or if that is merely their perception. He seems to care about the members so that part is undefined.

Perhaps this film might hold more appeal for fans of N.W.A., which I never was, and rap is not my preferred style of music. I can appreciate the biographical way the film explains the trio’s story, ups and downs, reunions, death, and violence, but this film could have been much better and is flawed by its over-stylized filming.

Oscar Nominations: Best Original Screenplay

Lifeforce-1985

Lifeforce-1985

Director Tobe Hooper

Starring Steve Railsback, Peter Firth

Scott’s Review #516

699938

Reviewed November 11, 2016

Grade: F

Lifeforce, a film made in 1985, is a film that I did not enjoy at all.

It tells the story of a team of astronauts who find three pods of seemingly human bodies, who eventually return the bodies to Earth and turn said humans into zombies.

That is it in a nutshell.

The story makes no sense whatsoever and there is no rhyme or reason for the actions of the characters except to further the plot.

No mention or details as to why they are in outer space or anything that drives the character’s motives.

The film is way too complicated for its good and would have been wiser to go for a straightforward action film rather than what we are treated to (a combo sci-fi/horror mess).

The special effects are completely dated and very cheesy.

Lifeforce (1985) is completely plot-driven and I did not find it gripping at all and is a waste of time that deserves to be completely forgotten.

Dogtooth-2009

Dogtooth-2009

Director Yorgos Lanthimos

Starring Christos Stergioglou, Angeliki Papoulia

Top 10 Most Disturbing Films #9

Scott’s Review #515

70119657

Reviewed November 11, 2016

Grade: A-

Dogtooth is a Greek drama nominated for the 2010 Best Foreign film academy award. The film is not for the weak at heart and is most bizarre and disturbing- troubling even.

But upon digestion afterward, I realized how much I appreciated its creativity.

It tells the story of three siblings who are homeschooled and shut out from the rest of the world by their overprotective parents. The teenage kids are curious, damaged, and sad.

They know no other world besides the one their parents created for them.

Certain words mean certain things to them- a language of their own. It challenges the art of parental control as the kid’s curiosity builds and builds.

The movie itself is very difficult to follow (non-linear) yet is mesmerizing and perverse.

Warning: Some subject matters can be hard to take for some (incest, cruelty to animals, full-frontal nudity).

I thought it was a fascinating and bravely made film.

Oscar Nominations: Best Foreign Language Film

Restrepo-2010

Restrepo-2010

Directors Tim Hetherington, Sebastian Junger

Scott’s Review #514

70129360

Reviewed November 10, 2016

Grade: B-

Restrepo (2010) is an informative documentary concerning a group of American soldiers sent to Afghanistan to battle the Taliban.

Filmmakers spent one year in the life of this group of men, documenting their experiences, pains, losses, and joys throughout.

Camera crews follow them almost non-stop.

The most interesting aspect of this piece is the camaraderie that is evident among the soldiers- a bond that is a brotherhood of sorts.

Friendships that develop amid peril will undoubtedly never be broken or tarnished.

The fear and worry that these soldiers go through- under the constant uncertainty of attack, far away from their families, is powerful.

Slight gripes are the redundancy of the subject matter of the documentary itself. Seemingly endless are the projects developed surrounding one war or another.

I freely admit this is an important matter, but while watching Restrepo, I could not help but feel that I have seen other incarnations of the same documentary before- not to mention in mainstream film.

The war experience is a popular story to tell.

I also got the sense of an ‘us against them mentality’ in this documentary, which is not always a good thing. More about the relationships with the “good” Afghanistan people might have been nice.

Overall, though, Restrepo (2010) is a decent, interesting documentary.

Oscar Nominations: Best Documentary Feature

Independent Spirit Award Nominations: Best Documentary

28 Weeks Later-2007

28 Weeks Later-2007

Director Juan Carlos Fresnadillo

Starring Rose Byrne, Jeremy Renner

Scott’s Review #513

70058018

Reviewed November 6, 2016

Grade: B-

At the time of its release, I remember 28 Weeks Later (2007) to be a successful follow-up to the original 28 Days Later (2002), a clever play on the title and picking up events some seven months after the original.

Watching the film now, however, I see flaws, mostly in the lack of a character-driven story and the resulting traditional action-type film.

Still, the film is far from all bad.

The action begins as the audience meets a “family”, barricaded in a homey residence, attempting to resume normalcy in life by preparing and serving a delicious family dinner- almost reminiscent of Thanksgiving.

The scene is tranquil and rich in familiarity.

When a little boy pounds on the door to be let in, the terror begins and the Rage virus is proven to still be alive and well.

The story was written for 28 Weeks Later has nothing to do with the original and contains none of the original characters. Rather, a father, mother, and young boy and girl are the family that we follow throughout the film.

Rose Byrne stars as a doctor- laughingly named Scarlet- and Jeremy Renner as a U.S. military presence, NATO having been sent in to keep order as best they can.

The opening sequence is fantastic as peacefulness turns deadly rather quickly and the characters are in immediate peril. In another scene, when the father and mother are alone in a laboratory and events go awry, the sequence is gory, shocking, and quite heartfelt.

These are merely moments, however, and are not quite enough to carry the film into a successful sequel.

Another positive to note, even more, prevalent than in the original, are the wonderful location shots of London. From the London Eye to Big Ben to street shots of downtown London and the surrounding streets, are capably done and I loved seeing the ariel views of said city.

The conclusion at Wembley Stadium was also great. This was a treat for any fan of London and gave the film a clear sense of location.

Conversely, I was not a fan of the characters in 28 Weeks Later.

Whereas, in 28 Days Later, the characters were well-drawn and compelling, rich with beauty and emotion, the same cannot be said for the sequel. I am unclear what the purpose of Renner’s tough, no-nonsense military type was for, or Byrne’s sympathetic, but pointless turn as a scientist/doctor.

Both held little appeal and gave snore-worthy performances. Or perhaps the roles were just not written well. Regardless, neither worked.

The dynamic between the father and mother did work, but the kids were not the best actors and I found their additions pointless as well.

The last scene, a frenetic trip through a tunnel by the infected and arriving in gorgeous Paris- a shot of the Eifel tower as proof, is a nice touch.

With a few nice touches, cool location shots, and intense peril in a few sequences, but with limited compelling characters, 28 Weeks Later (2007) is okay, but hardly an upgrade to the original or even close to the character-driven film.

No follow-up film, while initially planned, was ever completed.

Wall Street-1987

Wall Street-1987

Director Oliver Stone

Starring Michael Douglas, Charlie Sheen, Daryl Hannah

Scott’s Review #511

60003330

Reviewed November 5, 2016

Grade: B+

Rather late in the game, but 2011 was my first time seeing the film Wall Street and it was a very good film.

Douglas and Sheen have great on-screen chemistry and the numerous scenes of New York City are pleasing- pre- 9/11 they capture a haunting feeling.

Despite being made in 1987 (not a great year for cinema), it does not feel dated except for the soundtrack.

Unfortunately, the circumstances in this movie still ring true today. There is a lot of dishonesty and greed in the financial world (check out the documentary Inside Job for proof of this).

The financial collapse of 2008 is a great indicator.

Michael Douglas is excellent in the role of Gordon Gekko, a power-hungry, greedy financial mogul.

He encompasses the role in every way and deservedly won the Best Actor statuette for this year.

Oscar Nominations: 1 win-Best Actor-Michael Douglas (won)

You Again-2010

You Again-2010

Director Alan Fickman

Starring Kristen Bell, Jamie Lee Curtis, Sigourney Weaver

Scott’s Review #510

70127239

Reviewed November 4, 2016

Grade: C

If not for the cast (Jamie Lee Curtis, Betty White, and Sigourney Weaver) You Again (2010) would have been a bad experience and a dimwitted, by-the-numbers comedy, but the talent involved has helped matters greatly.

This is not meant to parlay much credit to the film.

As it is, it is not a great film, and quite silly and dumb, but the cast successfully turns it into a light, fun, dumb movie instead of solely drivel- with a less likable cast this would have undoubtedly been the case.

Bell is not my favorite actress, but alas she seems to be currently receiving star turns in these types of films.

The premise is basic and tried and true- A twenty-eight-year-old “beautiful” woman (Kristen Bell) who was an ugly duckling in high school, returns to her hometown for her brother’s wedding and his fiancé turns out to be her high school nemesis.

It is a standard Hollywood comedy cliched with typical gags, and a “we have seen this before” story.

A gripe- Kristen Bell is a cute, sort of all-American, girl next door, but I would be remiss if I did not point out she is not the beauty they make her out to be.

Thanks to the aforementioned cast, and the wit that Curtis and Weaver bring to their rivalry (as mothers of the respective fiancé and Bell’s character- they were high school rivals a generation before), You Again (2010) does get some meager credit.

Not much, but some.

Let Me In-2010

Let Me In-2010

Director Matt Reeves

Starring Kodi Smit-McPhee, Chloe Grace Moretz

Scott’s Review #509

70135744

Reviewed November 4, 2016

Grade: A-

I loved Let Me In (2010).

It is nearly as exceptional as the original, Let the Right One In (2008), which is Swedish.

Billed as horror, it contains none of the typical horror cliches or corny dialogue- rather it is mysterious, compelling, and character-driven.

This in itself is refreshing.

Additionally, the cinematography is exceptional in its coldness, darkness, and good old-fashioned ambiance.

Let Me In is about a twelve-year-old outcast, named Owen (Kodi Smit-McPhee),  who befriends a neighbor girl-Abby (Chloe Grace Moretz)- who we learn is a vampire.

Owen is bullied at school and through Abby, learns to stand up to his tormentors.

I am partial to foreign language films so, to me, the American version lacks the engaging language a bit and is not…well, foreign, so that detracts slightly, but not much at all, and this effort is quite remarkable.

This film is a horror film- in the classic sense of containing vampires and not being played for goofs- and quite gory, but also a beautiful, emotional film, and the concepts of sadness and loneliness are explored.

Let Me In (2010) is one of the best horror films I’ve seen in recent years.

Solitary Man-2009

Solitary Man-2009

Director Brian Koppelman, David Levien

Starring Michael Douglas, Susan Sarandon

Scott’s Review #508

70117589

Reviewed November 3, 2016

Grade: B-

Solitary Man (2009) is an indie drama that has good points and bad.

Michael Douglas stars as a one-time successful, but womanizing, car dealership owner who hits rough times and loses everything.

Michael Douglas’s performance is very good and believable as a cad who hits a difficult stretch in his life. As an actor, Douglas still possesses his good looks and charm despite being an older leading man by this time- he plays 60 very well.

The film centers around him and wisely so- despite the film containing other notable actors. His character of Ben Kalman has swagger and is narcissistic, but yet lovable at the same time and this is unmistakably due to Douglas’s talents.

Annoyingly, the supporting characters played by Susan Sarandon, Danny Devito, and Jesse Eisenberg are quite one-note and not interesting, which is a shame in light of their immense talents.

The story is okay, but nothing fantastic.

I felt as though I had seen films like this many times before- the quirky edge and the attempted dark humor with laughs and some melodrama mixed in was forgettable.

However, as a character study, the movie succeeds.

Solitary Man (2009) is recommended for Michael Douglas’s performance only.

28 Days Later-2002

28 Days Later-2002

Director Danny Boyle

Starring Cillian Murphy, Noah Huntley

Scott’s Review #507

60027998

Reviewed November 2, 2016

Grade: B+

Before the influx of zombie-related horror films and television shows filled the land- arguably offset by the success of The Walking Dead series, a little film came along- now almost teetering on its influence being forgotten- that presented this genre with fresh insight and creative storytelling posing questions amid the mayhem.

28 Days Later (2002) rejuvenated this largely dormant film category with a gritty story of peril among a group of survivors spared from a deadly virus.

The film is smart as it explores morality issues and the needs of society to continue.

We initially are immersed in confusion as chaos immediately ensues. After a brief prologue of a group of laboratory chimpanzees gone mad, inflicted with rage, being let loose by animal liberators, and killing all present as well as inflicting the humans, we meet a lone man named Joe- the timing is relevant as it is “28 days later” from the incident.

The young man awakens in a hospital to find himself alone amid downtown London- not a soul in sight.  Fortunately, he has been in a coma and missed the crumbling of society due to an outbreak- somehow Joe has been spared.

Gradually, Joe meets others uninfected by the virus and they forge through the country in search of a military base rumored to be a haven.

The infected humans are not zombies, but rather, violent creatures who destroy anyone in their path. The film not only presents the grotesque creatures but also challenges the audience to think in a political sense- how will the survivors forge a new society?

How will women be treated differently from and by their male counterparts in a world that now lacks any police force or government?

My initial reaction to watching 28 Days Later- years after its initial release- is that it now seems slightly dated, but that has more to do with the legions of copycat films that have come after it and have been exposed to.

We have become more encompassed by this type of film, both in genre and in style. Appreciation is warranted for its gritty, fast-paced camera-work, extreme violence, and the use of “infected” who turn from human beings to vicious beings.

A fantastic part of this film is that it is not simply a horror film, it is more layered than that. There are moments of great beauty and tender moments among Joe and Selena- the sole surviving female other than the young, waif-like, Hannah, whose world has been shattered by the death of her loved ones.

In one sad scene, a couple has peacefully committed suicide, rather than face what would surely become of them.

There is a sense of a human story in 28 Days Later, which made me find the film heartfelt and almost sweet. Even the military soldiers- their motivations questionable- are relatable based on the world being turned upside down. A layered, complex, zombie film with some character-driven elements.

Halloween III: Season of the Witch-1982

Halloween III: Season of the Witch-1982

Director Tommy Lee Wallace

Starring Tom Atkins, Stacey Nelkins

Scott’s Review #506

569108

Reviewed November 1, 2016

Grade: B

Halloween III: Season of the Witch was met with much disdain when it was released in 1982- a mere one year following the very successful Halloween II- the sequel to the iconic Halloween (1978).

Fans (and critics) expecting a third chapter in the maniac-wielding Michael Myers saga were sorely disappointed and perplexed at what they were “treated” to.

After all, the title is billed as “III”. Therefore, the film was met with disapproval.

This film is not even in the slasher genre although I’ll categorize it as such for name recognition alone- more of a science fiction meets Twilight Zone.

Years later, this film would be heralded as a not-so-bad offering from a stand-alone film perspective. A different title might have been wise but at the risk of being a forgotten film.

I agree with the sentiment-it’s not a fantastic film- the plot is far from its strong suit, but a brave film and one that has aged well.

The franchise creators (John Carpenter and Debra Hill) had hoped to create an anthology-type film series with different chapters all surrounding the holiday of Halloween. This was not to be and Michael Myers would return for the fourth installment.

Director Tommy Lee Wallace was also affiliated with the original Halloween.

The story begins a week before Halloween (reaching a crescendo on Halloween) as shop owner, Harry Grimbridge runs along a highway in northern California, panicked and fleeing from corporate-looking men in business suits- he clutches a Halloween mask.

Finally rushed to the hospital by a stranger, he is killed by one of the businessmen, who then sets himself on fire.

Grimbridge manages to tell Dr. Dan Challis that “They’re going to kill us.” Challis and Grimbridge’s daughter, Ellie, mount an investigation to solve the mystery of her father’s demise.

Naturally, a romance ensues between the pair.

The film, while not a stinker, does have some issues. The corporate greed that we realize exists by the villain, Cochran, the founder of a company producing Halloween masks and responsible for the prosperity of a town is silly.

Even more perplexing are his motivations- he plans to sacrifice children wearing the masks to honor some ancient witchcraft- huh?

He creates androids as his henchmen and airs creepy television commercials to release a signal- and there are strange bugs that emerge from the masks, thereby killing the mask wearers.

The story is ludicrous.

Other gripes involve no chemistry between leads Tom Atkins and Stacey Nelkin, and the shameful waste of actress Nancy Loomis’s (Annie Brackett from Halloween) time and talents as she is reduced to a one-scene appearance as nagging and haggard-looking, ex-wife of Challis.

She deserved better and would have been perfect in the lead female role. The fact that Loomis was married to director Wallace makes this even more surprising- they were later divorced.

The negative attributes listed above would make one think that I detested this film, but somehow it is compelling in its own right.

The musical score is one highlight of Halloween III. Techie and new-wave-ish, it does wonders at portraying peril and creepiness- especially where the male androids are concerned.

And the sing-along jingle to the tune of the classic children’s song, “London Bridge is Falling”, encouraging children to buy the masks, is superb.

Though the story does not work- the subject does contain a throwback to science fiction films of yesteryear- most notably, highly resembling Invasion of the Body Snatchers in its eeriness and mystique, which renders the film appealing.

In the end, a character we do not suspect is revealed to be an android spinning the plot into a fun finale.

Halloween III: Season of the Witch (1982) is flawed, but becomes a bit of an acquired taste- appreciated a bit more over the years- if for no other reason than going against the grain and trying to be something different and creative.

The story fails, but other little nuances succeed immeasurably.

Halloween: H2O-1998

Halloween: H2O-1998

Director Steve Miner

Starring Jamie Lee Curtis, Adam Arkin

Scott’s Review #504

16915002

Reviewed October 30, 2016

Grade: B

Halloween: H2O is the seventh installment of the Halloween franchise, though only associated story-wise with Halloween and Halloween II.

Made in 1998, the film capitalized on the twentieth anniversary of the original classic horror film.

To measure up to that masterpiece would be an impossibility, but the film is not bad on its own merits and nice odes to the past are peppered into the story making for a film franchise pleaser.

Jamie Lee Curtis returns to the role that made her famous.

Before we are even re-introduced to Curtis’s character, we are treated to a nostalgic scene involving chain-smoking Nurse Marion Chambers (Nancy Stephens) from parts I and II. Her house is vandalized by Michael Myers as he steals a file she has kept on Laurie Strode.

How nice to see this character back in the fray- though her screen time is limited. She is pivotal to the kick-off of the new story.

Laurie (Curtis) has faked her death and is now living life anew in California- running a prep school as its headmistress. Her son John (Josh Hartnett) attends the school and her boyfriend Will (Adam Arkin) teaches there.

John’s girlfriend Molly (Michelle Williams), a poetic security guard (LL Cool J), and a dizzy secretary, Mrs. Watson,(Janet Leigh) round out the cast.

For the past twenty years, Laurie has been troubled by the notion of Michael Myers returning to kill her, and her fears come to fruition. The film has an interesting slant- no longer is Laurie the victim, cowering in cars and corners. Now, she is intent on exacting her revenge on Michael- her brother.

She wants this long chapter in her life to finally close.

What nods to history this film contains!  And that is the best part of it. Otherwise, without the history, it would be a run-of-the-mill slasher film.

Besides the obvious Michael/Laurie connection, what a treat to see Jamie Lee Curtis’s real-life mother (and original scream queen herself), Janet Leigh.

Furthermore, her character’s car is the exact make and model, and the same license plate, from the 1960s Psycho, in which she starred- a brilliant treat for horror and classic film fans.

The film also uses some impressive stylistic choices- the use of mirrors and reflections are used successfully, as well as events occurring in the background- seen by the audience, but not the other characters are well used.

Halloween: H2O contains several young, up-and-coming stars, who, years later, would be big stars (Hartnett, Williams, and a very young Joseph Gordon-Levitt). Who knew these talents got their start in one of the greatest horror franchises?

Let’s be clear- Halloween: H2O (1998) is not a masterpiece- far from it. The horror clichés run rampant- the silly, supporting characters (friends of John and Molly’s) eager to drink and party and meant for comic relief, in addition to the LL Cool J character.

These characters are stock types.

Predictably, we more than once think that Michael Myers is finally dead- only to resurface- perfectly timed to the plot.

The inevitable standoff between Laurie and Michael Myers is well done and a satisfying conclusion to a fantastic franchise. Laurie gets her revenge while Myers dramatically gets his just desserts.

Night Catches Us-2010

Night Catches Us-2010

Director Tanya Hamilton

Starring Kerry Washington, Anthony Mackie

Scott’s Review #503

70129370

Reviewed October 29, 2016

Grade: B+

Night Catches Us (2010), as a film, has some very good qualities and is quite captivating and interesting to watch. Largely, it is set during the 1970s in Philadelphia and encompasses racial tensions during that time.

Kerry Washington and Anthony Mackie star and do a very nice job with the material given.

The film tells the story of a former 1960s Black Panther (Mackie) who returns home after a decade to start his life over, or so he hopes.

Night Catches Us is a combination of love stories and political/social commentary and is an important film to watch.

The leads, along with Wendell Pierce, are great and the real-life 1960s Black panther rally footage is interesting to see from a historical perspective.

My only criticism is I wanted a bit more.

Certain events seem plot-driven and forced- slightly clichéd in the romance department, but overall I enjoyed the film very much, especially for Mackie and Washington’s performances.

Great acting and a socially relevant story.

Independent Spirit Award Nominations: Best First Feature

Sweetgrass-2010

Sweetgrass-2010

Director Ilisa Barbash, Lucien Castaing-Taylor

Scott’s Review #502

70128353

Reviewed October 28, 2016

Grade: F

While generally, I am an advocate and champion of film documentaries, I always love to learn something new, Sweetgrass (2010) had a strange effect on me- simply put-I despised the film.

Even if the subject matter is such that it does not particularly interest me, it will usually garner at least some recognition and praise for what it is.

Sweetgrass is a documentary about a group of sheepherders from Montana transporting their herd to another location. It was unclear to me why the sheep were being transported or where to, but I assume rather close by.

The documentary contains no narrative and little dialogue except one of the sheepherders ranting and raving about how tough it is to be a sheepherder, all the while smoking incessantly.

Most of the time is spent watching sheep and sheep and sheep and sheep- and still more sheep wandering about and drifting down a mountain range.

Then we see still more sheep moving about.

As my mind began to wander, I began to wonder if the sheep were a metaphor of some kind. Then some dogs and horses were thrown in for good measure.

The location scenes are nothing special and after a brief five minutes of appreciation of the gorgeous landscape, I was over it.

At one hour and forty-five minutes in length- way too long for a documentary that moves along at a snail’s pace- it is about an hour too long for my tastes.

After pondering the film, my only determination is that the filmmakers were hoping to give the viewers a real-life slice of what it is like to be a sheepherder- snore!

I would have rather experienced interviews and commentary with some merit on the subject.

Worse than the redundancy of the pacing, the constant mistreatment of some of the sheep is inexcusable and has no bearing on the topic at hand, which I confess to being unsure what the point of the documentary even was, other than as a cure for insomnia.

Sweetgrass (2010) is a complete waste of time.

Independent Spirit Award Nominations: Best Documentary, Truer Than Fiction Award

Machete-2010

Machete-2010

Director Ethan Maniquis, Robert Rodriguez

Starring Danny Trejo, Robert De Niro, Jessica Alba

Scott’s Review #501

70125125

Reviewed October 28, 2016

Grade: B

Machete (2010) is a clear, fun homage to exploitation films of the 1970’s movies, directed by Robert Rodriguez (a protege of Quentin Tarantino) and quite heavily influenced by his mentor.

It very much resembles a Tarantino film with the comic, over-the-top elements, and the violence, but is somewhat less compelling in the story department, and lacks the crisp, rich storytelling.

It tells the story of a Mexican ex-Federale (named Machete) involved in a plot to kill a corrupt United States Senator (played by Robert De Niro).

He attempts to flee Mexico for Texas, is shot, and spends the remainder of the film vowing revenge on his assailants.

Machete contains many celebrity cameos and is fun to watch- in a light way. The film is not intended to be looked upon earnestly.

For the interested, you also get to see Lindsay Lohan topless.

The film is a fun, violent, popcorn flick, with a nice political message, but if interested in these types of movies, rent Grindhouse: Planet Terror (2007), which is a better experience.

Kisses-2008

Kisses-2008

Director Lance Daly

Starring Kelly O’Neill, Shane Curry

Scott’s Review #500

70109157

Reviewed October 28, 2016

Grade: B+

Kisses (2008) is an Irish film that tells the story of two pre-teenage kids (Dylan and Kylie), who run away to Dublin on Christmas to escape their dysfunctional families and their small town, morose life.

Instead, they become attracted to the “big city” and the hope of finding Dylan’s older brother, himself having run away to escape the oppressive environment.

At first, Dylan and Kylie barely know each other, neighbors, but far from close. Gradually they become best friends and form an unbreakable bond.

While in Dublin, they face terror and charming moments of wonderment as they traverse the city, mainly at nighttime.

Great acting and chemistry from the two leads, especially being untrained actors. Kylie- an extrovert and full of life, successfully brings out the best in Dylan, who is reserved and withdrawn, so the pair complement each other as they experience their adventures.

The cinematography in Kisses (2008) is fantastic as one gets to experience the hustle and bustle of Dublin, and the quiet countryside of a small Irish town, which is an immense threat, and a contradiction in lifestyles.

What Happened, Miss Simone?-2015

What Happened, Miss Simone? -2015

Director Liz Garbus

Starring Nina Simone

Scott’s Review #499

70308063

Reviewed October 25, 2016

Grade: B+

Nina Simone, who died in 2003 at seventy, was an iconic singer and pianist with a musical style all her own. As important as her soulful musical creativity, Simone was also a civil rights activist during the restless 1960s and was outspoken about black power and racial discrimination.

This led to much controversy.

What Happened, Miss Simone? (2015) tells her story in a thorough, rich fashion.

Executive produced by her daughter, Lisa Simone Kelly, who is interviewed throughout the documentary, the piece is standard fare, using interviews and performances by Simone.

We experience her upbringing in North Carolina, her acceptance into the prestigious Juilliard, her family’s reliance on her for money, and her years of struggle performing in dingy nightclubs.

I loved seeing the old clips of her performances. They are raw, gritty, and full of something special- poetic almost. Simone had trouble relaxing as she gave every ounce of energy in her shows and knew no other way to be.

Simone is like no other and the documentary does not need to explain this. Her performances tell it all. Not one to phone in performance and arguably not really “performing” at all, Simone was as real as they come. She immersed herself into her music – and seemed to drift off into another reality.

As an activist, Nina Simone is shown to be controversial, not against supporting violence by blacks against whites in the name of freedom.

Simone had tumultuous relationships with both her husband and daughter and has claimed to have been beaten repeatedly and forced to work.

Clear comparisons to other singers such as Aretha Franklin are explored. There is an element to Simone that other singers of that day did not have. She had a style all her own and did not “play the game” to achieve her success.

Instead, she chose to only be true to herself.

This is not a slight against Franklin, but the documentary states that if Simone had been happier, she might have had more commercial appeal, but would she have been satisfied with that?

I doubt it as she was an intense soul.

Shocking to me are claims of physical abuse vocalized by her daughter, but this is explained away as a result of her mental illness and not herself at times. Prescription drugs and diagnoses were not what they are now in those days.

From a critical perspective, the documentary delivers what it should, an overview of this amazing talent, warts and all. We see her from the child until retiree, and cannot help but pity her in a way because of her apparent mental illness, which caused her not always to be the charming celebrity we would want her to be.

What Happened, Miss Simone? (2015) helped me learn something fresh about an artist I wasn’t familiar with. That is what a documentary should do.

Oscar Nominations: Best Documentary-Feature

April Fool’s Day-1986

April Fool’s Day-1986

Director Fred Walton

Starring Amy Steel, Jay Baker

Scott’s Review #498

60024022

Reviewed October 24, 2016

Grade: B-

Emerging at the tail end of the late 1970s and early 1980s slasher film craze that encompassed that period in cinema (for better or worse), April Fool’s Day (1986) capitalized on the “holiday theme” marketing tool that escalated Halloween and Black Christmas to superstar ranks.

Unfortunately, for this film, it is not a traditional horror flick, in that it has plenty of comic elements, but also contains the standard slasher characteristics, thereby making it a blockbuster failure.

It does not know what its identity truly is.

From a story perspective, the film has one great twist but otherwise suffers from mediocre writing and unmemorable characters that nobody cares about.

We are treated to an ensemble of actors, most of the unknown variety, except for horror maven Amy Steel, (Friday the 13th Part 2), who portrays Kit, arguably the most relatable of the female characters.

A clever facet, weaved by director Fred Walton, is the casting of eight principals in April Fool’s Day, all with similar amounts of screen time, rather than one obvious “final girl” surrounded by minor characters, who we know will be offed.

The set-up is all too familiar in the slasher genre- the group of college-aged kids escapes mundane life for a spring break weekend getaway at their wealthy classmates, Muffy St. John’s, island estate.

Conveniently, her family is away- leaving the friends to have the run of the mansion, with a dinner party as part of the plan. Even more convenient is that the ferry the group takes does not run on weekends, so once they are dropped off at the island, they stay until Monday.

This sense of foreshadowing gets the anticipated peril and dread going.

We also sense that there is something very off with Muffy- despite being everyone’s friend. When Muffy finds a jack-in-the-box stored in her attic and has a childhood recollection, we know this is the set-up to the mystery.

Is she mentally unstable? Is someone out to get Muffy for a childhood prank or event that once occurred?

Since it is April Fool’s Day weekend, the groups spend most of the film playing pranks and amateurish jokes on each other (a whoopee cushion, an exploding cigar), mixed with a dash of intrigue- someone is leaving trails of history as part of the jokes.

One girl had an abortion, so the prankster leaves an audiotape of a baby crying. In another room, heroin paraphernalia is left for someone with a former drug habit.

Slowly, one by one, the college kids disappear, but is it just a hoax? Or is the hoax just a hoax?

The final twenty minutes or so is really the main reason to watch this film. As Kit and boyfriend Rob is the last remaining “alive” there is suddenly a startling twist that changes the entire dynamic of the film- in one moment everything the audience thinks of the story is turned upside down-this is wise writing, but comes too late in the game.

Sadly, some parts of the film are downright silly and most of the characters are of the stock variety- the flirtatious blonde, the obnoxious jocks, the stuck-up preppy, which ruins the creative twist that is aforementioned.

With glimpses of genius and striving for something more clever than the standard, run-of-the-mill 1980s horror film, April Fool’s Day (1986) has some potential but ultimately winds up with something missing.

Show Me Love-1998

Show Me Love-1998

Director Lukas Moodysson

Starring Alexandra Dahlstrom, Rebecca Liljeberg

Scott’s Review #496

60000454

Reviewed October 22, 2016

Grade: B

Throughout the latter part of the 1990s, films with more of an LGBT perspective (then simply referred to as the gay and lesbian genre) were being released more readily, though it was not until the 2000s when mainstream offerings on the subject (Monster-2003, Brokeback Mountain-2006) hit the big screen to wide acclaim.

Show Me Love (1998) is a Swedish coming-of-age story about two high school girls, opposites in social acceptance, who find love.

Interestingly, the film was directed by a male- Lukas Moodysson.

Show Me Love originally had a different title, a crude reference to the town the film is set in, in western Sweden, but when the film was considered for Academy Award contention (it did not cut), filmmakers were advised to modify the title for the film to have any shot.

The film contains a grainy look- using handheld cameras in parts and, of course, is in the Swedish language.

Agnes is sullen, introverted, and brooding. Known throughout the high school hallways as the angry, weird lesbian, she has few friends, and the ones who are kind to her, she shuns away.

Elin, by contrast, is popular, lively, and charming- everybody loves her. However, Elin is restless in the tiny Swedish town where she lives and yearns for excitement. When Agnes develops a crush on Elin, she confesses all to her computer, but nobody else.

The film is nicely put together and given the time of 1998, is quite brave. Today, many years have passed and progress within the LGBT community made, a film like Show Me Love is a more common occurrence.

Director, Moodysson, does not go for anything gratuitous or steamy but rather spins a sweet coming-of-age tale, not only of teen love and hormones but of outcasts and feelings of loneliness.

It’s a film that most can relate to in some way.

The actresses portraying the leads (Dahlstrom and Liljeberg) are fantastic in their roles and play the parts with conviction and believability. Despite being opposites, we buy their attraction and chemistry. Nothing is forced or dishonest.

My favorite scenes are the awkward 16th birthday party for Agnes, thrown by her well-meaning yet clueless parents. When nobody except a handicapped girl shows up, Agnes viciously insults her, causing her to leave.

The family sits in the living room eating the food that was planned for anticipated guests. It’s a poignant moment and rather sweet. Despite Agnes’s unpopularity at school, she has a very strong, loyal family unit- that is nice to see.

Later, Elin and her sister attend the party, but more as an excuse to avoid another one. Finally, Elin and Agnes share a kiss, but is it a mean dare or is it authentic?

A clever aspect of the film is how Moodysson distinguishes both Elin and Agnes’s sexuality. Agnes is gay, open, and out. Elin is very different and has boys interested in her.

The girls could not be more different and this adds a layer of complexity as each is in a different place in self-discovery. This feature also makes Show Me Love very honest in its storytelling.

The film is not a masterpiece and could have dared to venture into more controversial territory. Could they be harmed for being lesbians given the town they live in? Why is Agnes so sullen?

This is a stereotype (the brooding lesbian) that needs to be changed- though, given the time of the film, I will give it a slight pass. Why not make Agnes a happy, cheerful girl who is gay? How will Elin’s sister deal with Elin’s sexuality or is it merely a phase for her?

All sorts of darker issues might have been explored, but Show Me Love (1998) is tender, sweet, and lighter fare, but still an adventurous offering.

Creed-2015

Creed-2015

Director Ryan Coogler

Starring Sylvester Stallone, Michael B. Jordan

Scott’s Review #495

80058397

Reviewed October 16, 2016

Grade: C+

Creed (2015) will please die-hard fans (and there are legions) of the Rocky (1976) franchise, eager for a trip down memory lane to revisit Sylvester Stallone’s “Rocky Balboa”.

For those yearning for a slice of nostalgia and a harkening back to when the first Rocky was released, Creed will be a crowd-pleaser. For others expecting something new or innovative the story will not be as satisfying.

The film is predictable with all of the expected elements of a sports film.

Instead of Rocky Balboa being the main attraction, he is now a senior citizen and long since retired, now owning a modest Italian restaurant in Philadelphia, the action centers on a young fighter, the bastard child of Apollo Creed, Rocky’s nemesis turned friend from the first few installments.

Adonis Johnson Creed (played by up-and-coming star Michael B. Jordan) is his name and before being rescued from a group home (he has a temper and fights a lot, naturally) by Apollo’s wife (Phylicia Rashad) he does not know fighting is truly in his blood.

Determined to make it big in the boxing world, he moves to Philadelphia and convinces Rocky Balboa to train him.

Along the way, he meets a love interest, Bianca (played by Tessa Thompson), a musician.

The main positives are the nods to history and a few sentimental moments throughout the film. How wonderful to see Rocky Balboa again. It’s like catching up with an old friend we have not seen for years.

We learn that sadly, Paulie and Adrian (Rocky’s brother-in-law and wife) have long since died and a sweet moment shows Rocky visiting their side-by-side graves, pulling up a chair, and reading the newspaper to them.

Rocky’s son has moved far away so Rocky is left a lonely man, and Apollo’s son revives a father figure element within Rocky.

Also nice are some flashback scenes to the earlier Rocky films and we see portions of Rocky’s and Apollo’s fights. The plethora of external Philadelphia scenes does bring authenticity and familiarity to the film and this is a wise decision, instead of too many interior scenes in a studio.

Otherwise, the film is largely a miss.

The formulaic, predictability must have been intentional to make Creed an ode to fans and a film that is easy to watch.  We are served the many “inspirational” training scenes as Adonis trains and trains for the big match, with an arrogant, loud, Londoner, with an equally unlikable coach.

The “good vs. bad” mentality that the film develops is contrived and completely plot-driven. It makes Adonis that much more likable and gives him the rooting factor.

This occurs time and time again in sports films. Why not make both fighters nice guys?

But, of course, the film also gives Adonis a temper to ensure that he appeals to the testosterone-driven fans expecting such.

Phylicia Rashad and Tessa Thompson are stock characters. We get the standard reaction shots from both as they wince along with the blows that Adonis receives, and Rashad gets an unintentionally comic moment. When Adonis lands a flattening blow on his opponent, she proudly professes “That’s what I’m talkin’ about!”.

Interesting to note, however, is the clever decision to make Bianca suffer from progressive hearing loss. Having her handicapped gives her nice humanity, though once the fight scenes begin this is never mentioned again.

A standard boxing film with the expected elements- testosterone, brutal fighting, sentimentality for good measure, and dutiful female characters with little substance, Creed (2015) is a guy’s movie, basic and predictable, with a little edge and lots of machismo.

However, it does capitalize on the Rocky franchise and offers a nice little nod to the past. Otherwise, it is a rather forgettable film with a mediocre story.

Oscar Nominations: Best Supporting Actor-Sylvester Stallone

Songs My Brother Taught Me-2015

Songs My Brother Taught Me-2015

Director Chloé Zhao

Starring John Reddy, Jashaun St. John

Scott’s Review #494

80038286

Reviewed October 14, 2016

Grade: B+

Songs My Brother Taught Me (2015) is quite an understated film experience, but despite the slow pace, I found the film of great interest.

The Native American population is largely ignored in cinema (and perhaps other avenues) so what a treat it was to see a film, albeit a small, quiet film, being made to represent this group of people.

Forest Whitaker produces the film.

Undoubtedly the funding was responsible for allowing it to be made at all.

Living on an Indian reservation in remote South Dakota, the story focuses on Lakota Sioux brother and sister Johnny and Jashaun- aged sixteen and eleven, respectively.

When their father dies in a house fire, they are forced to ponder their future within the Indian reservation, and also their desires to escape their lives and move to Los Angeles with Johnny’s girlfriend- also an inhabitant of the land.

The film is largely a slice of life on a reservation and the trials and tribulations of the members who live there. Johnny’s mother is a kindhearted yet boozy young woman with another son in prison.

Jashaun’s mentor, a tattooed man who is creative and attends alcoholics anonymous meetings, only to be caught drunk by Jashaun. A rivalry between Johnny and some rival boys develops.

Finally, Johnny aspires to purchase a truck from an older gentleman. The film is laced with different facets of real-life situations- trivial to some, but an entrance into a culture most know so little about.

I found the film quite interesting and compelling in a very subdued way. A marvel is the frequent long views of the prairie land- sweeping winds and gorgeous scenery for miles. Many shots of Johnny and Jashaun are featured- simply gazing into the crisp air in deep thought.

We see the conflict put upon both youngsters. Johnny, quite handsome and the object of affection by more than one young lady, yearns for a more exciting life. His girlfriend will be attending college in California. Pretty and smart- she is sure to move on to success, but Johnny plans to go with her.

Her brother inquires how Johnny will live with no job and no money- all valid points. Will Johnny age and remain on the reservation for the rest of his life or escape to a different world?

Jashaun, quite young, is filled with quiet energy and curiosity. She is educated and wise beyond her years. What will become of her without a father and surrounded by some unsavory types that her family knows?

Not an offering for those intent on seeing more action than thoughtfulness, but for the patient viewer, it is a fascinating introspective treat.

Songs My Brother Taught Me (2015) taught me a lesson in good storytelling.

Independent Spirit Award Nominations: Best First Feature, Best Cinematography, Acura Someone to Watch Award

The Girl on the Train-2016

The Girl on the Train-2016

Director Tate Taylor

Starring Emily Blunt, Justin Theroux

Scott’s Review #493

80105068

Reviewed October 12, 2016

Grade: B+

The blockbuster was the apparent must-see film of the fall of 2016. Almost everyone flocked to see it, and I happily saw it shortly after its release.

While containing some flaws, The Girl on a Train (2016) is an excellent thriller and companion to Gone Girl (2014). It is similar in style, tone, and, in a way, story.

A whodunit with psychological, almost Hitchcockian elements, it navigates twists and turns to an unfortunate, disappointing finale.

Still, it is a more than adequate offering that does not bore.

Based on the hit novel of the same name, which I understand is superior to the film.

First and foremost, how gorgeous was the scenic eye candy of suburban New York City, where the train chugs along the Hudson River in breathtaking beauty?

The film’s point is that affluent houses are nestled along the river banks, hidden with secrets. Beautiful neighborhoods are often riddled with affairs, drama, and backstabbing.

The train’s setting and element—peering through windows to witness smoldering events—were perfect.

The film’s standout is Emily Blunt, who gives a compelling, sometimes heartbreaking turn as a boozy, jobless, young woman fraught with heartbreak after heartbreak.

She finds solace on the Metro-North train as she peers into a particular well-to-do house, making up stories about a young woman she re-names daily, usually inebriated.

Though The Girl on the Train is not the typical “Oscar-type film,” I’d argue that a potential nomination is warranted for Blunt, who is brilliant on her emotional roller coaster.

Rachel fantasizes about being the stranger’s friend, revealing her desperation. We quickly learn about her life circumstances and feel empathy.

I anticipated an experience like Hitchcock’s classic Rear Window (1954), in which Rachel notices a crime and somehow becomes involved. This is partly true, but it is also different.

I was, however, treated to a film that never lags or waivers, and the action is plenty, not in bombs or car-chase way, but instead a circulating array of plot twists and emotions.

How wonderful to see Allison Janney, Lisa Kudrow, and Justin Theroux in a big-budget, mainstream film rather than independent small films for a change.

All three knock the material they are given out of the park, and kudos to the writers for making Kudrow, in little more than a cameo, a significant part of the grand reveal.

Arguably, Janney’s character of Detective Riley is the weakest written and seems to change motivations depending on the story shift. This is perplexing and too plot-driven.

In a way, the same might be said for Theroux’s character of Tom Watson, but, alas, it is a thriller, which sometimes happens in this genre.

Without giving much away, the conclusion to the film is unsatisfactory. We are given an ending wrapped in a neat, tidy bow, which contradicts the rest of the film.

The film is confusing, dream-like, and muddled—in a good way. Rachel’s thoughts disturb us, and we wonder what reality is. The climax is too clear, and instead of leaving much to the imagination, we are fed a linear, straightforward story ending, almost geared toward a Hallmark television movie (gag).

Wise would have been to write Rachel as still vague about her surroundings, but this does not occur.

The Girl on the Train (2016) will not redefine cinema or go down in history as fine art, but it is not intended to be the type of film designed to keep you on the edge of your seat and does so.

The story is above average and slick, but Blunt is worth heaps of praise and is head and shoulders above the rest of the film and the cast, which is no small feat considering the talent involved.

Great acting job, but the writing could have been slightly better.

I Spit on Your Grave-2010

I Spit on Your Grave-2010

Director Steven R. Monroe

Starring Sarah Butler

Scott’s Review #492

70138803

Reviewed October 9, 2016

Grade: B+

Too often in the horror genre, remakes of classic or cult classic gems are spewed out with high hopes, but of little worth, and more often than not, quickly forgotten, fading into oblivion.

This is not the case with I Spit on Your Grave.

I Spit on Your Grave is a 2010 remake of the original film from 1978 and is just as disturbing. Having seen the original and being shocked at the content, I did not expect the same of the re-telling.

Much to my surprise, this version contains the same intensity and is fraught with brutality- however, not in an unnecessary way.

The film tells the story of a young writer who leaves the hustle and bustle of New York City for a couple of months of relaxation in the country to work on a novel she is writing.

While there, she is brutally raped by a bunch of local men.

As terrible as this is, the victim then exacts revenge on all of them, one by one, which is the real crux of the story and we cheer on her (just as brutal) vengeance.

The rape scenes are quite intense and difficult to watch, but necessary, as the viewer wants the perpetrators tortured and maimed…which they are.

This film is for horror fans who like it brutal.

Howl-2010

Howl-2010

Director Rob Epstein, Jeffrey Friedman

Starring James Franco

Scott’s Review #491

untitled

Reviewed October 9, 2016

Grade: B+

Howl (2010) is a compelling courtroom drama biopic starring James Franco who is wonderfully cast.

This role, despite being in a small film with little recognition, cements Franco’s talents as an edgy actor who is willing to tackle challenging work rather than sticking to mainstream safe fare.

Franco has become one of my favorite young actors. He is so diverse and believable in any role he takes on.

The story is about 1950s poet Allen Ginsberg and his trial to determine whether his poems were art or should be banned for being indecent.

Much of the action transpires inside the courtroom and the film wisely mixes animation (in scenes of Ginsberg reading his poetry) in between traditional scenes.

The film allows the viewer to get to know the characteristics of Ginsberg. He was troubled (his sexuality, delusions, stints in a mental hospital), for sure, but also had a true, authentic love of writing and poetry, which is inspiring in an age of digital technology.

Sometimes good old-fashioned words are the truest art.

Howl (2010) is an interesting little film.