All posts by scottmet99

The Passenger-1975

The Passenger-1975

Director Michelangelo Antonioni

Starring Jack Nicholson, Maria Schneider

Scott’s Review #259

70042799

Reviewed July 19, 2015

Grade: A

A true art film in every sense of the word, The Passenger (1975) is a thinking man’s film, not for those content to munch on popcorn and escape the day’s stressors, but rather, custom-made for a film fan willing to ponder the meaning of the film, revel in the slow pace, and appreciate the film as an art form.

The Passenger is tough to “get” throughout most of its over two-hour running time, but its complexities are also its most beautiful characteristics. To say that the film will leave the viewer with questions is quite an understatement, but is pleasing to analyze and come up with conclusions of meaning.

Michelangelo Antonioni directed this film and is well-known for directing Blowup and Zabriskie Point, neither of which I have seen as of this writing.

Jack Nicholson stars as a journalist named David Locke, who is on location in Africa (specifically the Sahara desert in Chad). David’s assignment is to produce a documentary film. While there he mysteriously assumes the identity of a businessman named Robertson, who he finds dead in his hotel room.

This task is easy because David and Robertson look very much alike. As events unfold, it becomes clear that Robertson is involved in arms dealings and smuggling matters related to the ongoing civil unrest within the country.

Flashbacks reveal David’s former life, including his friendship with the businessman, and his relationship with his wife, Rachel, and these scenes are mixed in with the current action until they become more linear with each other.

The film is complex, to say the least. The initial scene when David spontaneously decides to switch identities is excellent. We wonder, what are David’s motivations and what is the appeal of him taking over another man’s life? Who is the man? Why is David so unhappy in his own life?

The film succeeds immeasurably as the plot is not simply told to the audience like so many other mainstream films. Events seem genuine and not forced for plot purposes.

In the current time, whereabouts in London, Rachel sadly mourns the assumed “death” of her husband David, though we learn that Rachel has secrets of her own she has been hiding and suffers from tremendous guilt.

To further complicate matters for everyone, she is attempting to find the businessman, since she has learned that he was the last person to see her husband alive. Also mixed into the story is a mysterious young woman whom David meets when the story moves to Barcelona, Spain.

What makes The Passenger so compelling to me is its intricacies- story as well as camera styles. The seven-minute-long shot towards the end is brilliant filmmaking and the climax is quietly intense.

The camera’s focus is on a hotel room, switches to the parking lot, and returns to the hotel room. I was transfixed by the character of David enormously, struggling to empathize with him, while all the while enjoying an intelligent character study mixed in with a story of political intrigue.

I do not confess to understanding everything about The Passenger and will surely need more viewings to make more sense of it all, but the film fascinates me.

In a time of mediocre films, how refreshing to stumble upon a forgotten relic from 1975 and have a renewed appreciation for film as an art form.

Love and Mercy-2015

Love and Mercy-2015

Director Bill Pohlad

Starring John Cusack, Paul Dano

Scott’s Review #258

80017274

Reviewed July 17, 2015

Grade: B+

The life and times of the Beach Boys’ famous and troubled lead singer, Brian Wilson, is finally played out on the big screen (apparently many attempts were made to make a film) as Love and Mercy (2015) chronicles his difficult upbringing, unrivaled success, and his interesting life in later years.

He suffered from schizophrenia, traveled down a paranoid, nervous path, and was manipulated by a family friend who served as his doctor and main caregiver.

Thankfully, he weathered the storm due to his future wife, and remarkably still performs and entertains in 2015.

His musical career began in the 1960s.

The biopic features many well-known Beach Boys tunes to hum along to and be entertained by. It’s not a happy film nor a downer either.

It’s somewhere in the middle of the two and the life story of a rock star.

There is a risk in this. If the film is too sentimental it will fail. Love and Mercy do it correctly.

The film is not a sing-along, trip-down-memory lane film for lighthearted film fans. Rather, it is dark, murky, and troubling at times (the psychedelic scene when a young Brian is imagining different voices and noises in his head is rather frightening).

Wilson is played by two actors, first in the 1960s and later in the 1980s.

Paul Dano stars as a young Wilson in the early stages of his career, filled with passion for life, art, music, and talent beyond belief, but clearly in the onset stages of paranoia, thanks to his critical father. He is a demanding, angry man, possibly envious of Brian’s talents as a songwriter, who always wanted more from Brian.

Wilson’s father managed Brian and his brothers success but at a huge cost, and was ready to bail when the “next big thing” came along.

Miraculously, through conflict with his father and other members, Wilson completed the Beach Boys masterpiece, Pet Sounds, a groundbreaking album from the late 1960s. The film shows the struggles faced to achieve this success.

In later years John Cusack takes over the role of Brian. By this point in his life, he is damaged and he is a full-blown neurotic, insecure, and dependent on his psychotherapist, Dr. Landy, brilliantly played by Paul Giamatti.

Landy has control of Wilson’s assets and will destroy anyone who interferes in this.

The scenes in which he screams at and berates a drugged-out Brian Wilson to create music are tough to stomach. When Wilson romances their future wife Melinda Ledbetter, played by Elizabeth Banks, she ultimately saves his life as she is determined to rescue Brian from the wicked abuse and adjust the toxic levels of medications he was kept on.

I left the movie theater unsure of the factual accuracy and pondered the following questions.

Did Brian’s wife swoop into his life and “save” him as neatly as the film explains? How instrumental was the maid in this process? Was the Wilson brothers’ father as much a monster as the movie portrayed him? Was Giamatti’s vicious psychotherapist role true to life or were the aspects of Love and Mercy embellished ever so slightly for moviemaking magic?

One wonders, but from a film perspective, Love and Mercy (2015) works well as a work that takes risks, does not go for softness or niceness, and gives a character study that is quite admirable.

Independent Spirit Award Nominations: Best Supporting Male-Paul Dano

Cake-2014

Cake-2014

Director Daniel Barnz

Starring Jennifer Aniston, Adriana Barraza

Scott’s Review #257

80017263

Reviewed July 14, 2015

Grade: B+

Cake (2014) is a film about a woman suffering from chronic physical pain and depression that she constantly battles after a terrible accident that she was involved in.

Jennifer Aniston gives a wonderful performance as Claire Simmons, a grumpy, sarcastic, bitter victim of unimaginable loss. Aniston’s performance is the best part by far.

It is interesting to note that Aniston Executive produced this film.

Similarly and somewhat sadly, Reese Witherspoon had to produce her own 2014 film (Wild) centered on a female role for both women to showcase their powerful acting chops. Too few films about women are made these days unless female star power is used, which is too bad.

Claire has been through hell and back.

As the story opens, Claire sits angrily in a support group filled with other women with problems. One of the women, Nina, (played by Anna Kendrick) has just jumped off of a freeway overpass to her death—a giant photo of her glares jarringly at the other women.

When Claire prods about the details of the death and uses sarcastic tones, she is politely asked not to return to the group by the lead counselor, Annette, (played by Felicity Huffman).

Claire returns to her well-maintained Los Angeles home and the audience is introduced to her well-meaning housekeeper and confidant, Silvana, played by Adriana Barraza. Barraza herself gives a powerful performance.

Nina appears throughout the remainder of the film in visions as Clare debates suicide.

Let me discuss Jennifer Aniston’s performance in particular. I thought it was amazing and she was shamefully overlooked for an Oscar nomination.

She was superior to at least a couple of the other Best Actress nominees from 2014 (Felicity Jones immediately comes to mind as one).

Her character of Claire starts as a bit of a shrew but gradually becomes quite sympathetic as the story becomes layered and the audience gets to know what makes her tick.

We do not know how she came to be in her predicament initially. We know she was in a terrible accident, but it slowly takes time for all of the details to emerge. We only know she is in pain and angry. Claire’s relationship with Silvana is an interesting one.

They spar, Claire takes Silvana for granted at times, but throughout the film, a close friendship emerges between the women. In a touching scene, they hold hands as they sleep.

Two scenes in particular are heartbreaking and honest. A man played by William H. Macy emerges on the doorsteps of Claire’s house and she is engulfed in rage at his appearance.

The power that Aniston emits in this scene is unrivaled. In another scene she sees a portrait hanging on her living room fireplace mantle given by a friend- she bursts into tears and sobs emotionally. At this point, the plot makes more sense and we feel Claire’s raw pain.

The subject matter of depression and suicide is not a cheery one, and Cake delves deeply into this territory. The film is a bit of a downer, slow, and, at moments, drags a bit, and teeters on the verge of a lifetime television movie (yikes!), but MUCH better than that thanks to Aniston’s compelling portrayal.

With a lesser actress, the film might have felt watered down and safe.

Some light moments fail. For instance, when Claire “blackmails” Annette and bribes her with vodka for the address of Nina, this seems very trivial and silly.

Thanks in large part to a gripping performance by one of Hollywood’s underrated talents, Cake (2014) takes a film on the border of being one-dimensional to a grander level of dynamic acting by its leading lady.

A supporting cast of similar talents helps the film rise above the mediocrity it may have been if served by lesser casting choices.

The Nanny-1965

The Nanny-1965

Director Seth Holt

Starring Bette Davis

Scott’s Review #256

70089620

Reviewed July 11, 2015

Grade: B

The Nanny is a 1965 Hammer productions thriller starring legendary film icon Bette Davis as a mysterious nanny caring for a ten-year-old boy named Joey.

Joey has recently been released from a mental institution and returned home to resume everyday life, but has he been “cured”?

There is obvious tension between Joey and Nanny, but the audience doesn’t know what that tension is precisely. Why do they dislike each other? Why is Joey afraid of her?

As the plot unfolds, the suspense and tensions thicken as various events occur and Joey’s parents and Aunt Pen are further fleshed out. Past events are revisited, and the story becomes thrilling.

At one point, long before Joey’s return home, his younger sister has drowned, and the circumstances are vague. It has devastated the family, including Nanny. Joey has been blamed for her death, though he insists that Nanny is the culprit.

Nobody except the neighbor girl believes Joey, and the audience wonders who to believe and who to root for: Joey or Nanny. Davis, like Nanny, brings a warmness to her character, but is she sincere? Is it an act? Is Joey a sweet boy or maniacal?

These questions race through the audience’s minds as the film progresses. When Virginia, the mother, eats tainted food, the obvious conclusion is that the Nanny poisoned it since she prepared it. But why? Did she do this?

As the plot is slowly explained, there are a few chills, though the ending is not too surprising.

Any film starring Bette Davis is a treasure, though admittedly, it is not her finest work. Still, her finest work is challenging to match.

The Nanny is a good film, though not great. It is shot in black and white, which is a nice touch for a thriller.

The main reason to watch Davis’s performance is that it is always mesmerizing. Traditionally playing gruff, mean, or bitchy parts (especially in her later years), The Nanny allows Davis to play a sympathetic role.

She is seemingly sweet, proper, well-organized, and a perfect nanny on paper.

The role of Virginia, played by Wendy Craig, is a bit too neurotic and slightly over-acted. She is rather one-note as the fretting mother worried about her son. The character of the father is also a bit one-dimensional.

The Nanny is more of a classic thriller from the 1960s that is often lumped together with some of Bette Davis’s other films around the same period (Dead Ringer-1964, Hush, Hush, Sweet Charlotte-1964, and Whatever Happened to Baby Jane? -1966), and are in large part superior to The Nanny. As a stand-alone, it is a decent film.

Inherent Vice-2014

Inherent Vice-2014

Director Paul Thomas Anderson

Starring Joaquin Phoenix, Josh Brolin

Scott’s Review #255

80013545

Reviewed July 7, 2015

Grade: A-

Inherent Vice (2014) is a bizarre detective film noir-type experience, set in 1970 Los Angeles.

Directed by the superb Paul Thomas Anderson (Boogie Nights-1997 and Magnolia-1999), the film has weirdness and incoherence that is a marvel to experience.

Fans of a straightforward plot will not be thrilled with this film, but for fans of Anderson, this will not disappoint. It has a complex plot, but the payoff is grand and a thinking man’s film.

The protagonist is Larry “Doc” Sportello (Joaquin Phoenix), a stoner private detective, contacted by his mysterious ex-girlfriend Shasta. She is worried about attempts by her boyfriend’s ex-wife and new lover to kidnap him and have him committed.

Mickey, Shasta’s boyfriend, is a wealthy real-estate developer.

Doc is also hired by two other people- one a former heroin addict looking for her missing husband, and the other a former convict looking for a prison mate who owes him money and is a former henchman of Mickey’s.

All of the stories intersect and such oddities as a peculiar massage parlor and a ship named the Golden Fang come into play throughout.

The intersecting stories lead to the revelation of a drug ring. I had little idea what was happening but was still enthralled by it.

There is an unpredictability surrounding Inherent Vice that is so pleasing and captivating. Joaquin Phoenix is compelling as Doc, a damaged character whose past is unclear.

When Doc is, by all accounts, framed for the murder of a convict and interrogated by the police, we wonder what history he has with them and what led him to branch out on his own as a private investigator.

Detective “Bigfoot” Bjornsen, wonderfully played by Josh Brolin, is a rival of Doc’s, though it is unclear why. “Bigfoot” is frequently seen with chocolate-covered phallic objects in his mouth and is married to a severe, overbearing woman.

Most characters are peculiar and have strange nuances, yet are never fully fleshed out, instead of remaining curious and thought-provoking.

Reese Witherspoon, Benicio Del Torro, and Owen Wilson appear in small yet pivotal roles.

Quite reminiscent of Roman Polanski’s Chinatown (1974) and Robert Altman’s The Long Goodbye (1973), in both the California setting and the plodding, slow-paced, magnificent storytelling, Inherent Vice is a confusing gem, but by all means a gem worth seeing and reveling among the intrigue.

Just don’t try to make too much sense of it all.

Oscar Nominations: Best Adapted Screenplay, Best Costume Design

Independent Spirit Award Nominations: 1 win-Robert Altman Award (won)

The Boy Next Door-2015

The Boy Next Door-2015

Director Rob Cohen

Starring Jennifer Lopez

Scott’s Review #254

80013272

Reviewed July 5, 2015

Grade: C-

A steamy direct rip-off of the 1987 classic film Fatal Attraction, The Boy Next Door (2015) is a mainstream thriller starring Jennifer Lopez as a separated suburban Mom raising her son alone.

One day a handsome young man, Noah (Ryan Guzman), moves in next door. He makes friends with her son and develops an unhealthy obsession with her.

The film is your basic thrill ride with some jumps mixed in but predictable as they come and is safe mainstream fare.

Claire Peterson (Lopez) lives a cozy suburban existence with her socially awkward teenage son Kevin (Ian Nelson) and works as a literature teacher at the local high school.

She lives a modest yet successful life.

Her estranged husband Garrett (John Corbett) has cheated on her with his secretary.

One day a hunky twenty-year-old neighbor, Noah, moves in, takes a shine to Kevin and an attraction develops between Noah and Claire, despite him being half her age. The audience knows that there is something off.

The inevitable happens, a lonely Claire winds up in bed with Noah after a disastrous blind double date with her friend and confidant Vicky (Kristin Chenoweth), also the vice-principal of Claire’s school.

The sex scenes are titillating and sensual with lots of skin.

I went into my viewing not expecting an invigorating or thought-provoking film and was not disappointed.

The film is lightweight, predictable, and has a lifetime television movie feel. The acting is not great and the setups are seen a mile away. When Claire and Noah meet there is instant chemistry between them but there is also a sinister quality to Noah that the audience is aware of.

There is no doubt he will make trouble for Claire.

As we progress we become aware that Noah has a temper, another setup for things to come. If he feels wronged he strikes back. Once Claire realizes their passionate night was a mistake, Noah becomes obsessed with and vengeful of Claire and everyone around her.

The plot is filled with one implausibility after another. I could list silly nuances for hours, but here are a few that immediately come to mind.

I do not buy Jennifer Lopez as an intelligent, sophisticated, literature genius (despite the film hysterically having her wear nerdy glasses) nor the good-looking Ryan Guzman (Noah) as a scholarly expert in literature either.

This is done to construct the plot with no believability whatsoever.

Throughout the film, Noah can do whatever he wants, somehow hacking into Claire’s computer, arranging for printouts of his liaison with her to fly endlessly from the ceilings, tampering with brakes, and seamlessly splicing Claire’s voice into conversations.

The entire film is ridiculous and unbelievable, but, again, it’s what I expected it to be.

The ending surprised me abruptly with no cliffhanger or hint at a sequel as is common with thrillers. Perhaps the filmmakers had low expectations for audience turnout.

One jarring point is that Jennifer Lopez, clearly Latina, plays a character in a suburban neighborhood, named Claire Peterson. Nowhere is her Latina heritage mentioned. The character is about as white as you can get.

A dumb, entertaining ninety minutes of escapism, The Boy Next Door is not a good film (2015) but fun. Some thrilling moments, some fun to kick back relax, and take it for what it is.

It is comparable to a McDonald’s hamburger, you know what you will get and expect nothing more.

An American Werewolf in London-1981

An American Werewolf in London-1981

Director John Landis

Starring David Naughton, Griffin Dunne

Scott’s Review #253

60020844

Reviewed July 2, 2015

Grade: B

A melding together of British-American horror and comedy, An American Werewolf in London (1981) provides entertainment while also being a campy and silly comedy.

While two American buddies, Jack and David, traverse the countryside of England with backpacks in tow, a spring break jaunt of sorts, one is viciously attacked and killed by a strange werewolf setting off a series of strange occurrences that play out over the remainder of the film.

From this point, the film is told from the perspective of one of the males as the other appears to him in visions warning of his inevitable demise into a werewolf.

An American Werewolf in London does not intend to mock the genre of horror but is certainly campy and over-the-top.

Despite cult classic accolades being thrust upon the film which I respect, it is not among my favorites.

I would have preferred it tilt more towards the horror classification rather than the comedy because it comes across as some sort of a spoof as the main characters overact.

The film has a silly quality to it. It is light fare instead of dark or morbid and even the kills are meant to be fun, not horrific. In a way, it is almost cheesy and that is not a compliment.

This is not to say that the film is completely subpar. It is decent, but not very believable and I think that is a distraction and a missed opportunity.

However, my favorite characteristics of this film are the makeup/special effects and the musical score which features such fitting treats as “Moondance”, “Bad Moon Rising”, and “Blue Moon”.

Sense an intelligent theme? The makeup, especially during the reanimation sequences is creative and still impressive today considering the film was made in 1981.

Besides, the best scene of the film is undoubtedly the “Slaughtered Lamb” scene when Jack and David stumble upon the aptly named pub filled with interesting, blue-collar-looking locales.

When one of the tourists inquires about a mysterious five-pointed star on the wall the pub dwellers become angry and cold leading the young men to be confused and intrigued.

This scene is filled with interest and I only wish the pub characters had more of a chance to shine as they seem benevolent and filled with potential backstory.

I would have enjoyed learning more about the history of these folks.

Sadly, the focus is by and large on Jack and David and a poorly constructed love interest- Nurse Alex Price, who is not to be taken at all seriously and played for one-dimensional laughs.

A lighthearted, sort of fun late-night flick, An American Werewolf in London is a cult film, though I would not agree with the cult classic distinction.

Oscar Nominations: 1 win-Best Makeup (won)

The Young Girls of Rochefort-1967

The Young Girls of Rochefort-1967

Director Jacques Demy

Starring Catherine Deneuve, George Chakiris

Scott’s Review #252

60020331

Reviewed June 30, 2015

Grade: B

The Young Girls of Rochefort (Les Demoiselles de Rochefort) is a musical fantasy set in a small French town outside of Paris.

The story focuses on a set of gorgeous twin sisters, Delphine and Solange, played by real-life sisters Catherine Deneuve and Francoise Dorleac, who yearn to escape their small town for the bright lights of Paris and hope for romance in their lives.

The twins can have any man they want, but enjoy the thrill and excitement of conquests and being chased and sought after by seemingly all available French men. They spend their spare time discussing and fretting over various loves.

The film is so French and pure musical fantasy and logic are not the main focus. Much of it does not make much sense in fact, nor does it need to. It is pure fantasy.

The film excels by being dreamlike, bright, and sunny. The vivid, bursting colors and lovely sets enhance the look of the film.

In particular, the coffee shop set is a dream. All the central characters gravitate to the café for drinks, gossip, and song and dance.

A great deal of the action takes place here, which is a major plus to the film.

The Young Girls of Rochefort, which was made in 1967, is very state-of-the-art in terms of art direction and colors.

The loose plot, which is not at all the reason to watch this film, is silly. The twins, longing for love, meet several men, all possible suitors, but their true motivation is to get out of Rochefort and find real excitement in the big city of Paris.

One cannot help but realize that the men are a means to an end for the girls.

The heartfelt part of the story belongs to that of the twin’s mother, Yvonne, who also longs for love. Yvonne runs the café and still pines for a long-lost love whom she jilted because of a funny last name. She now regrets her decision and the audience’s roots for her to find happiness.

She is a wholesome character whereas Delphine and Solange are selfish and are attempting to further their careers as musical artists.

My main criticism of the film is the casting of Gene Kelly as one of the love interests of the sisters. Far too old and well past his prime at this point, the casting just doesn’t work. Yes, he is an amazing dancer, but the age is too great to be believable.

In the end, the main reason to watch The Young Girls of Rochefort (1967) is to escape, let loose, and enjoy a bright, cheery, fantasy film.

Certainly not to be analyzed, the film succeeds in providing good escapist cultured, French fare.

Oscar Nominations: Best Score of a Musical Picture- Original or Adaptation

Maleficent-2014

Maleficent-2014

Director Robert Stromberg

Starring Angelina Jolie

Scott’s Review #251

Maleficent_poster

Reviewed June 27, 2015

Grade: C+

Maleficent (2014) is an updated re-telling of the classic fairy tale “Sleeping Beauty” told from the perspective of Maleficent, the evil godmother, who in this version, it is revealed, was not always.

She is rather sympathetic towards the beginning of the film.

Later in life, becoming the antagonist, she begins life in a world of goodness, wonder, and hope until she is duped by a young man she loves and turns wicked with hatred and revenge.

The casting of Angelina Jolie as Maleficent is excellent and the main reason to watch the film.

Also worth noting is the wonderful, creative art direction and costumes that look gothic and interesting.

Otherwise, the film meanders a bit, is slightly watered down, and contains a sappy Disney-style love story. The story itself is the weakest part of Maleficent.

Maleficent, protector of the fairies in the magical land of the Moors, as a young girl is betrayed and is NOT a villain. Her male suitor (Stefan) is someone she trusts, loves, and respects, is then duped and has her wings stolen by him.

He becomes the King of the neighboring land of humans, vastly different from the peaceful world that Maleficent lives in.

These events lead her to devastation followed by revenge as she places a vicious sleeping curse on Stefan’s firstborn, Aurora.

Jolie is wickedly delicious in this role- the sultry, pouty looks, and those eyes! She plays scorned, revenge-driven to the hilt without being too over the top as lesser actresses would have.

As the actress ages, she is beginning to take on more character, villainous parts rather than sexy bad girls or heroines and I am all for that. It gives the actress something meaty to sink her teeth into. Her dark costumes perfectly give the character an edge.

The art direction is magical and the difference between the two lands is distinctive. The beauty of the Moors with gushing streams, mountains, and flowers contrasts with the stark nature of the human world.

The fairies symbolize peace and freedom with a life filled with treasures, whereas the human kingdom symbolizes ambition, greed, and coldness. The tiny fairies flittering around add zest and life to the film.

The silly love story, though is not believable nor compelling to me, especially the latter film romance between Stefan’s daughter- Aurora, and her wealthy suitor Phillip. They seem manufactured to be together without having a chance to get to know each other.

This seems contrived and produced to add something young to the story.

On a storytelling note, Maleficent’s sleeping curse is set to transpire on Aurora’s sixteenth birthday when she pricks her finger on a spindle and falls into a deep sleep that can only be remedied by love’s true kiss.

Why does he send Aurora away to live in hiding when she is a newborn? Doesn’t he have sixteen years to enjoy her?

The film then dwindles to the inevitable battle finale with lots of movement and fire and a stand-off between Maleficent and Stefan that is dull and predictable.

Overall, the first half of Maleficent (2014) is the better part and the performance of Angelina Jolie is wonderful.

Oscar Nominations: Best Costume Design

Getting Go-The Go Doc Project-2013

Getting Go- The Go Doc Project-2013

Director Cory Krueckeberg

Starring Tanner Cohen, Matthew Camp

Scott’s Review #250

70288648

Reviewed June 23, 2015

Grade: C

Getting Go- The Go Doc Project (2013) is a small-budget documentary that focuses on a shy, awkwardly gay college student named Doc, who is completing his thesis project by filming a documentary surrounding an online crush he has developed, via porn, on a New York City exotic dancer named Go.

When Doc finally contacts Go and inevitably meets him, the filming of Go’s life begins. From this point a relationship forms, but at what price and what will the turnabout be?

The film is okay but is surprisingly dull as it develops and begins to quickly drag towards the predictable conclusion.

The underlying themes of this documentary are loneliness and obsession from two differing perspectives. Doc, the boring, lonely college student is enamored by the gorgeous, buff, seemingly independent Go.

As the two get to know each other, more is revealed about Go, his life past and present, his hopes, dreams, and fears. Doc is also psychologically explored and the two form an unlikely bond.

The film succeeds in teaching the audience that there is more to a dancer than his body and more to a nerd than his brain. Both are complex individuals.

The first half of the feature is fairly interesting. The initial courage that Doc musters up to contact and ultimately meet Go is admirable and I enjoyed seeing what transpired next.

Will Go be receptive to Doc or callously treat him as another enamored gay man?

When Go agrees to be filmed and his life story is slowly revealed, I feel sympathy for him and am intrigued to learn more about him.

What was his family life like? Was he abused or victimized as a child, I wondered?

Getting Go- The Go Doc Project loosely explores matters like this, though no supporting characters are introduced. Go and Doc and their budding relationship are the only focus.

The film then plods for the final forty-five minutes with an uninteresting love story that is fairly lacking in the suspense department. Are we to believe the pair will live happily ever after? Not a chance.

Unfortunately, the acting is not great either, especially on the part of Go, played by Matthew Camp. Tanner Cohen is a bit better and the more interesting character of the two, with more depth. He is not comfortable with himself, his body, or even with being gay.

However, at this age (early twenties) one wonders if the character would even be comfortable with girls had he been made to be straight.

The main problem with the film is that the two are mismatched. Even though they develop a fondness for each other, the audience is aware that this will not last.

Props to the filmmakers for trying something a bit different. In the end, Getting Go- The Go Doc Project (2013) starts well, meanders, and ultimately stalls, but tries hard to present a different type of story and that is not so bad.

Wild-2014

Wild-2014

Director Jean-Marc Vallee

Starring Reese Witherspoon, Laura Dern

Scott’s Review #249

80013281

Reviewed June 21, 2015

Grade: B+

Wild (2014) is a personal story of a young woman’s 1995 challenge to hike the 2,650-mile Pacific Crest trail as a form of therapy for her divorce and her recovery from drug addiction.

The film stars Reese Witherspoon in a thoughtful biography of a real-life figure, Cheryl Strayed, and is adapted from a novel entitled Wild: From Lost to Found on the Pacific Trail.

The film depicts Cheryl’s struggles to survive in the remote area of northern California through various weather patterns, and her interesting encounters with strangers.

The film is a showcase for Witherspoon as she takes center stage, appearing in almost every frame of the film.

Her producing the project undoubtedly has something to do with this. Regardless, it is a winning turn for Witherspoon as she is excellent. She portrays the role with vigor, emotional rawness, and vulnerability, which comes across on-screen.

She deserved her Oscar nomination for this part.

What sets her apart from other actresses who may have gotten this part is that Witherspoon is a small woman, which makes her physical struggles to commandeer trails and wilderness while hauling a large backpack containing her necessities, believable.

Shot using many flashbacks of Cheryl’s life before the enormous hike, we are introduced to the character of Cheryl and her challenging life before. We know that she is a recovering addict, but we do not know what led to these events.

Living in Minneapolis, she is very close to her mother Bobbi, played by Laura Dern, who tragically dies. This leads to a path of destructive behavior for Cheryl and ultimately to her divorce from her husband Paul, who periodically sends Cheryl care packages along her journey.

The bond that Cheryl shares with her mother, a struggling woman herself, is deep. Bobbi has difficulties raising a family and striving to improve her education and life and this is explored during the flashback scenes featuring Cheryl as a teenager.

I love the encounters Cheryl faces along the trail and feel it adds depth to the film.

Few and far between are these gems of interchange since she is mostly alone with nature, and the characters are interesting. Alone in the dark and desperate for a meal, she flags down a farmer named Frank.

At first, it appears Frank may be dangerous and wielding a gun so Cheryl is wary as she goes home with him for dinner.

Happily, Frank is married to a kindhearted woman named Annette, and the three of them enjoy a lovely feast. Later, she encounters a young boy whose mother has died. They bond as the boy sings a song that his mother used to sing to him, and when the boy leaves, Cheryl sobs in emotion for her mother.

These small snippets of real-life conversations and togetherness make the film feel happy and we root for Cheryl to accomplish her enormous feat.

Thanks to a bravura performance by Witherspoon, Wild (2014) is much more than a woman surviving on her own in the wilderness. It is encased in quiet emotion and understated supporting performances that give layers to a human story.

Oscar Nominations: Best Actress-Reese Witherspoon, Best Supporting Actress-Laura Dern

Selma-2014

Selma-2014

Director Ava DuVernay

Starring David Oyelowo, Carmen Ejogo

Scott’s Review #248

80013278

Reviewed June 19, 2015

Grade: A-

An Oscar-nominated factual feast, set in the mid-1960s during the Civil Rights movement, Selma (2014) is a re-telling of the life and times of Martin Luther King Jr. and the struggles that black Americans endured during a tumultuous period in history.

The film includes dealings with then-President Lyndon B. Johnson and the famous and important 1965 Selma to Montgomery voting rights march, which led to the signing of the pivotal Voting Rights Act of 1965.

This film reminded me quite a bit of 2013’s The Butler in subject matter and style-ironic since Lee Daniels was slated to direct and instead signed on for The Butler.

Both feature a charismatic and intelligent black man struggling with racial matters.

Despite being an independent undertaking, it is glossy, polished, and reflective of the time. Both The Butler and Selma boast a huge cast, and historical political figures, in a tumultuous era in history.

Selma features a bevy of real-life figures from George Wallis to President Johnson to the obvious leader of the Civil Rights movement, Martin Luther King Jr., and his wife, Coretta Scott King, and the casting is very well thought out.

Tim Roth, David Oyelowo, Tom Wilkinson, and Carmen Ejogo portray their roles professionally and passionately. None of the above received Oscar nominations and I am okay with that.

I did not feel that any were definite standouts from a crowded field of talent, though perhaps Ejogo could have been in the running with her understated though compelling performance.

The drama surrounding the lack of expected Oscar nominations is not shared by me. The truth is, the film was included in the Best Picture category and won Best Song.

While an emotional and compelling film, neither is it a masterpiece nor will change the art of cinema, though I must stress it is good.

I find Selma to be an important film- a look back on history and the shame and humiliation placed on blacks who attempted to obtain voting rights. A heartbreaking scene depicts a determined woman (played by Oprah Winfrey) being denied this right by a cold and racist authority figure as she is asked impossible and tricky questions to prove her patriotism, which of course, she cannot possibly answer correctly.

Yes, the film is directed by a black, female director (Ava DuVernay) and yes, one might argue that it has a black point of view. However, the film successfully sympathetically portrays several white characters and avoids the assumption that all white people were racist in this period.

Let’s face it- racism still exists, especially in the South, and in the 1960s even more so. I did not find the message in black people vs. white people’s terms, but rather as a humanistic struggle for rights.

And the struggles continue as the film makes abundantly clear in the message of the film.

While King was a life changer to the black people of the United States, his life was abruptly cut short in his prime. One wonders how much more good this man could have achieved.

The song “Glory” is an emotional, powerful number, especially during the marching and subsequent slaughter scenes highly emotional and effective.

And who will not become teary-eyed as the innocent marchers are beaten and treated like cattle, simply for taking a stand? One will gasp at the senseless bombing scene that rocks a building and takes four innocent little girls’ lives away with it.

Selma successfully transplanted me to a time before my time and made me appreciate and capture the positive and negative experiences of a race of people not long ago.

This film inspires and moves me and teaches me what a movement occurred in 1965.

Oscar Nominations: 1 win-Best Picture, Best Original Song-“Glory” (won)

Independent Spirit Award Nominations: Best Feature, Best Director-Ava DuVernay, Best Male Lead-David Oyelowo, Best Supporting Female-Carmen Ejogo, Best Cinematography

The Babadook-2014

The Babadook-2014

Director Jennifer Kent

Starring Essie Davis, Noah Wiseman 

Scott’s Review #247

70300205

Reviewed June 14, 2015

Grade: B

The Babadook (2014) is an Australian (English language) psychological horror film that tells the story of a mysterious, haunted book, that torments its owner or owners.

Touted as one of the scariest films of 2014 I kindly beg to differ, though admittedly the film does contain some genuine frights and jumps.

What has happened to the horror genre where frightening films have not been made since the 1970s?

Exceptions like The Conjuring (2008) must be mentioned.

The Babadook attempts to be scary without CGI or any extravagant effects but has a classic feel.

Amelia, the mother in the story, has tragically lost her husband, Oskar, in a terrible car crash on the way to the hospital to give birth to her son Samuel. Now six years old, Samuel begins to exhibit signs of psychological problems as he becomes terrified of an imaginary monster.

After a child’s book, Mr. Babadook mysteriously appears in their home and Amelia reads it to Samuel, even stranger events occur throughout their house.

The film has remnants of The Sixth Sense (1999)- a loner, bullied kid is haunted and a disbelieving single Mom touting along as a ghost story or who is alive or dead questions are explored.

The father, Oskar, is instrumental in the storytelling. Because of this, the viewer is often confused throughout, but that is not necessarily a knock on The Babadook.

It is not exactly clear to me if Amelia is the central character or if that honor belongs to Samuel- the interesting part of the film is the relationship between mother and son.

The Babadook is a scary story. Can a book come to life and haunt? So says the film and that is worth thinking about.

In horror, there can be some ridiculous premise that is so unrealistic it cannot even be fathomed.

Where the film suffers in my view is that it is not that scary. Having something jump out at you or some other surprise is nice, but where is the terror? The exact motivations of the book also remain unclear.

I admire The Babadook for attempting to bring back old-school horror to modern audiences and telling a solid, haunting story.

However, the film did not quite measure up to the hype surrounding it.

The great film reviews are a bit much as I do not believe The Babadook (2014) is quite on the level of one of the scariest films ever made.

St. Vincent-2014

St. Vincent-2014

Director Theodore Melfi

Starring Bill Murray, Naomi Watts, Melissa McCarthy

Scott’s Review #246

70295665

Reviewed June 5, 2015

Grade: B-

St. Vincent (2014) succeeds only due to the charming, funny appeal of its star Bill Murray, who fronts this cute, mainstream comedy.

Set in blue-collar Brooklyn, New York, it tells the story of a curmudgeonly old man (the title character, Vincent), who befriends a lonely young boy named Oliver, new to the neighborhood.

Mixed in with the cast of characters are Oliver’s struggling mother Maggie (played by Melissa McCarthy) and Vincent’s pregnant, stripper girlfriend, Daka, played by Naomi Watts.

I found intrigue in how we get to know Vincent first and then watch him evolve from a grumpy, cutting old man to a begrudging babysitter of the neighbor boy while clashing with Maggie and fighting with Daka.

Murray returns to comic wit using his now-legendary flawless dry, sarcastic humor and perfect timing and displays much of that in St. Vincent. Throughout all of this Vincent remains brutally honest with his snarky remarks (mainly aimed at Maggie) yet heartwarming and I love this aspect of the film.

Thanks to Murray, Vincent is lovable, making the film, which with lesser talent, would be overly sentimental

As the film progresses we see Vincent’s struggles- his wife suffers from Alzheimer’s, and he is indebted to bookies (primarily Terence Howard- in a bit of a throwaway role).

The film staggers with some predictability issues and is formulaic and easy to predict a warm finale.

Of course, in true form, Vincent is a Vietnam vet who drinks and gambles and is angry at the world, but has a heart of gold so, despite being temperamental, the audience falls in love with him (patriotism helps).

The character contains every cliche in the book. A mean old man- who rises to new heights and becomes a nice grandfather figure to a bullied boy is what this film is going for.

The bullying of Oliver is also contrived- during one scene Oliver, after being picked on once again by the prominent bully, flies into a seething rage and breaks the bully’s nose.

The audience is supposed to buy that the waif-ish, shy kid triumphs over the bully. If only life were that simple. Inevitably, after both serve after-school detention, they bond over bathroom cleaning and become best friends.

Who did not see that coming?

In addition, most of the characters are one-note.

Naomi Watts is a sexy, and aging Russian (not sure I bought that accent) stripper with a soft spot- she comes across as uptight but is caring- another cliche.

Melissa McCarthy is a hard-working, soon-to-be divorcee, trying to raise her kid right- one-dimensional. Even Vincent is seemingly tough as nails, but of course, has a soft spot for the neighbor kid.

The casting of Watts, McCarthy, and Howard is okay, and I surmise the film was going for casting “name” actors, but these parts might have been played by unknowns and had the same effect.

The gem is Murray.

Murray effortlessly breathes life into a character who otherwise would have been as dull as dishwater. I found the writing the weakest point of the film.

A major incident brings the cast together united as one (yawn). The film closes with the family all happily eating dinner together. I do not see this as a spoiler as this ending can be seen a mile away.

Despite the flaws and sentimentality of the film, it is admittedly sweet, and humorous at times, and sends a nice message to the audience- be kind to one another and help each other get through life.

Without Bill Murray, this film would have been completely bland and unlikeable.

St. Vincent (2014) is a feel-good film that is perhaps too feel-good.

The Wicker Man-1973

The Wicker Man-1973

Director Robin Hardy

Starring Edward Woodward, Christopher Lee

Scott’s Review #245

60021185

Reviewed May 31, 2015

Grade: B+

The Wicker Man is a cult horror film from 1973 that is considered one of the finest by horror critics.

While the film does not enamor me quite as much as some other favorites in the horror genre (Halloween, Rosemary’s Baby, The Shining, Dressed to Kill, and Suspiria) immediately spring to mind while thinking of 1970s-style horror gems, I cannot help but admire The Wicker Man’s creativity and religious overtones.

Despite not awarding the film a solid “A” rating, I look forward to viewing this film again and, perhaps over time, as some films do, it will see an adjustment in scoring.

Set on an island in the Scottish Hebrides, named Summerisle, a devout Christian (Edward Woodward) named Sergeant Howie travels to the island in search of a missing young girl named Rowan Morrison, thought to have disappeared under mysterious circumstances.

The inhabitants are vague, aloof, or hostile towards the policeman. He immediately is disturbed to notice the group worships Celtic gods and notices other strange acts of worship and sexual behavior (a naked dance), which he resists and disapproves of.

He is tempted by a gorgeous seductress, Willow, played by Britt Ekland- most notably known as a Bond girl in The Man with the Golden Gun, and butts heads with the island leader, Lord Summerisle, played by horror legend Christopher Lee.

As he attempts to locate the missing girl, he uncovers some very dark goings-on around the island as the annual Mayday harvest celebration is about to occur. He deduces that Rowan is slated to be the sacrifice at the celebration and he races to find her before it is too late.

But is there more to the island than meets the eye?

The Wicker Man is not mainstream fare and that is what I admire most about it, as well as its British flare. It strives to challenge the norm in horror and question who is right and who is wrong and who the audience should champion.

Religion and the occult have been portrayed in horror films for eons, but rarely given a normal face. Typically, the villains are scary, horrid, or even cartoonish, clearly defined as bad.

Despite all of the townspeople being in on the sacrifice, they are seemingly ordinary appearing. They raise their kids, farm, run stores, and teach the kids in a classroom setting.

On the surface, they appear wholesome and that is part of what makes The Wicker Man so scary. Rosemary’s Baby did the same thing.

Typically, any sort of satanic overtones or human/animal sacrifices, frighten audiences, especially if the culprits could be their neighbors, friends, or even loved ones. The realness is unnerving.

Differing, controversial, religious beliefs are a prevalent theme throughout The Wicker Man as are elements of good vs. evil.

The film is not predictable. It delves into questions of morals and beliefs- for example, Howie is a virgin- saving himself for marriage and trying to be a good, decent person.

He is the moral center of the film and, in his belief, everyone on the island is either perverted, crazy or a sinner.

By this logic, Howie looks down on others who are dissimilar to him and comes across as preachy. I do not get the impression that the film wants the audience to love Howie- or hate him.

The balance between the old gods (Christianity) and new gods (Celtic paganism) makes the film interesting.

The shocking conclusion involving an enormous, life-sized burning wicker man is terrifying beyond belief and by far the best part of the film, as the hero must come to terms with his fate.

The final thirty minutes are quite spectacular from the final twist through the ending.

My lack of an exceptional grade for The Wicker Man stems from it being a tad too slow-moving. Perhaps a few additional jumps or frights along the way would have been beneficial, but, on the other hand, it is not a scary film, nor does it try to be.

It is, however, quite intelligent and, I suspect will increase my enjoyment with each subsequent viewing.

A fine addition to the relics of classic horror, The Wicker Man (1973) is a creative, mysterious, and left-of-the-center film.

Frenzy-1972

Frenzy-1972

Director Alfred Hitchcock

Starring Jon Finch, Barry Foster

Top 100 Films #24     Top 20 Horror Films #8    

Scott’s Review #244

Frenzy_movieposter

Reviewed May 17, 2015

Grade: A

Frenzy (1972) is a latter-day Alfred Hitchcock film that returns the masterful director to his roots in London, England, Hitchcock’s country of origin, and where his early films were made.

As with numerous other Hitchcock stories, the protagonist is falsely accused of murder and struggles mightily to prove his innocence before time runs out and he meets his doom.

The film is quite British, with an entirely British cast, and mixes in a humorous side story of the primary investigator’s wife, a horrid cook, who prepares exotic, yet tasteless meals for her husband.

This comic relief perfectly balances the heavy drama encompassing the main murder story as Frenzy is one of Hitchcock’s most violent and graphic.

Made in 1972- post-movie sanctions, he was able to get away with much more explicit content. A neck-tie murderer, who also rapes his female victims, is on the loose in London.

In the opening sequence, we see a dead woman floating in the Thames River during broad daylight, nude, except for a neck-tie that she has been strangled with. A crowd of spectators races to see what all the fuss is.

We then meet the central character of the film- down-on-his-luck bartender Richard Blaney, who is fired from his job as a bartender by his hateful boss.

Blaney has a loyal girlfriend in Babs, a barmaid at the same local watering hole. Babs is sexy, yet plain. He also has a successful ex-wife, Brenda, who runs a dating company. Blaney regularly sponges money and dinners from Brenda. Also in the picture is successful fruit-market trader, Bob Rusk, who is a friend of Blaney’s.

All four of these central characters have much to do with the main plot.

As events begin to unfold, the film is not a whodunit as traditionally it could have been. Instead, the audience knows very quickly who the murderer is and their motivations, which is an interesting twist in itself.

Regardless of this knowledge, the film is quite compelling as a classic Hitchcock horror thriller.

It is interesting for Hitchcock fans to compare this film with many of his earlier works. Released in 1972, at a point in film history where aforementioned sensors were more lax, it is the first Hitchcock film to feature nudity.

It is also the film of Hitchcock’s that features the most brutal rape/murder scene of all, surpassing the shower scene from Psycho, in my opinion.

The victim’s ordeal is prolonged, as she begins praying, thinking she will only be raped, at first unaware that her attacker is also the neck-tie murderer and her life is running short. This leads to a sad, gruesome outcome for her.

One of the most interesting murder scenes takes place off-camera and is an ingenious idea by Hitchcock. The neck-tie murderer lures a victim to his apartment complex under the guise of being a friend of hers.

They walk upstairs to his unit and go inside, all the while the camera remains poised outside of the apartment so the viewer only imagines the horrors occurring inside.

The camera then slowly goes back down the stairs and out onto the street and looks up at the murderer’s window. The fact that the victim is one of the principal characters makes one’s imagination run wild as to what is transpiring inside the apartment and the viewer is filled with grief.

This is a brilliant choice by Hitchcock and so effective to the story.

Another great scene is the potato truck sequence.

As the neck-tie murderer has dumped his victim, like garbage, into a potato sack, he is panicked to realize that she has taken his pin from his jacket and presumably clenched it in her fist as a clue, despite her demise.

What will he do now?

The long scene features the murderer inside the potato truck attempting to unclench his pin from her hand and escape the moving truck without being caught.

It is my favorite scene in Frenzy.

Frenzy (1972) is a return to triumph for Hitchcock, after the complex Topaz (1969) and Torn Curtain (1966), underappreciated political thrillers made a few years before this film.

He returns to the horror genre like gangbusters throwing some good, sophisticated British humor into his recipe for good measure.

What a treat this film is.

The Virgin Spring-1960

The Virgin Spring-1960

Director Ingmar Bergman

Starring Max von Sydow, Birgitta Valberg

Scott’s Review #243

60011418

Reviewed May 15, 2015

Grade: A

The Virgin Spring is a quiet masterpiece by director Ingmar Bergman.

A Swedish film, it won the Best Foreign Language Oscar in 1960, which is surprising for such a dark film.

I have heard about this film for years, but it has eluded me until now. I am finally glad I viewed it. It is breathtaking and mesmerizing.

A unique film for many reasons, it inspired “revenge” films to follow, specifically The Last House on the Left and I Spit on Your Grave, which is a horror film, yes, while The Virgin Spring is interestingly an art film.

The film also questions morals, the main character’s religious beliefs, and reflections on guilt.

The filming is in black and white, and the first point that struck me about the film was its gorgeous cinematography and lighting. The brilliant, deep contrast of black and white with the illumination of a character’s face while the background is death black is bold and reminiscent of Citizen Kane (1941).

It gives the film warmth and glow that contrasts perfectly with the bleak subject matter.

The story of The Virgin Spring is a tragedy, yet the filming is so magnificent that it was not until the film concluded and I pondered the actual story that I realized just how horrific it truly is. And that is what Bergman was going for-provoking a thought.

This is not a film to watch while munching a tub of popcorn. It is a film meant to make one think.

An affluent Swedish couple owns a farm and lives a peaceful, quiet existence. They are stellar members of their community and church. Although they are humble, they can afford to have servants.

They have a beautiful and pampered young daughter named Karin, who is sent to deliver candles to their church one sunny day. Karin is a trusting, virginal, and proper girl. She meets a trio of males- two adults and a young boy.

At first, gleefully sharing food with them and enjoying her newfound friends, they soon turn on her, and she is viciously raped, robbed, beaten, and murdered.

The look of surprise, pain, and horror on Karin’s face is monumental. As this occurs, a pregnant and spiteful servant, Ingeri, watches in horror from a hiding place. A rival of Karin’s, Ingeri wanted misfortune thrust upon Karin, but as she sees in horror, her expressions portray regret.

As the family hopes and prays that they can find the missing Karin, the men and boy show up at the farmhouse in need of food and shelter.

Unbeknownst to the family, they are Karin’s rapists and killers, and once the truth is known, the once-sweet parents are out for brutal revenge. The young boy of the trio is guilt-ridden and physically sick from the circumstances.

Is the family’s revenge justified, or should they (as good Christians) forgive? This is the moral point of the story.

The conclusion is powerful as the father begs God for forgiveness. He questions his actions. But is he a changed man?

Bergman uniquely and intelligently shoots these scenes with only the father’s back in view as he throws his hands to leave. In these moments, we, the viewer, become one with the father, which makes for powerful storytelling.

Influential to many subsequent films, The Virgin Spring (1960) is a powerful tale reminiscent of a fairy tale that makes viewers think about the ending.

Subdued yet horrifying, it is meant to be viewed and analyzed.

Oscar Nominations: 1 win-Best Foreign Language Film (won), Best Costume Design, Black-and-White

Pulp Fiction-1994

Pulp Fiction-1994

Director Quentin Tarantino

Starring John Travolta, Samuel L. Jackson, Uma Thurman

Top 100 Films #22

Scott’s Review #242

880640

Reviewed May 12, 2015

Grade: A

Pulp Fiction (1994) is one of the most influential films of the 1990s and single-handedly kicked the film industry in the ass. It led an entire generation of filmmakers, who were starved and determined to make more creative work after the largely dull decade of the 1980s.

The success of the film, both creatively and critically, helped ensure that edgier and more meaningful artistic expression would continue to occur.

The leader of the charge, of course, was director, Quentin Tarantino.

With Pulp Fiction, a black comedy crime film, Tarantino mixes violence, witty dialogue, and a 1970’s cartoonish feel to achieve a filmmaking masterpiece.

The plot is non-linear and the story contains three main focuses that intersect- a new style of filmmaking that has become commonplace in commonplace in modern cinema, but at the time was a novel adventure.

Set in Los Angeles, Samuel L. Jackson and John Travolta portray hitmen named Jules and Vincent, who work for a powerful gangster, Marsellus Wallace, played by Ving Rhames. We get to know them as they interrogate four college-aged youths who double-crossed Marsellus, all the while discussing fast-food hamburgers and adventures in Europe.

On another front, Butch (Bruce Willis) is hired by Marsellus to lose a fight to another boxer. Later, Marcellus instructs Vincent to take his wife Mia (Uma Thurmon), a former unsuccessful television actress, out for dinner and a night on the town.

Finally, we meet Pumpkin and Honey Bunny (Tim Roth and Amanda Plumber), two small-town robbers plotting a heist at a local diner. As the film develops these plots relate to each other in unique ways.

The film is quite stylistic, resembling a 1970s film production in the way it looks, and the use of 1970s style sets- the diner, in particular, looks very of that time, and an automobile where a death occurs, is a 1970s, Chevy Nova.

The film, however, is set in present times.

The dialogue throughout Pulp Fiction is immensely impressive to me. Long dialogues occur between characters, usually sitting over a meal, discussing the meaning of life, religion, fast-food burgers, and other wonderfully real conversations.

I love the many food references- from Butch’s girlfriend salivating over an impending meal of blueberry pancakes to the French version of the Big Mac being discussed, to the price of a shake, these make the conversations between the characters rich and unique and oh so creative.

My favorite sequence is the one between Vincent and Mia, mostly taking place at a trendy 1950s-themed diner named Jack Rabbit Slim’s, where the staff dresses up in costume impersonating their favorite stars of the day, such as Marilyn Monroe.

After winning a dance contest (and a possible homage to Saturday Night Fever) the two go back to Mia’s place where she accidentally overdoses on heroin thought to be cocaine.

The song “Girl, You’ll Be a Woman Soon” by Neil Diamond, is both integral and haunting to the scene.

An intense and shocking scene of male gay rape is extremely violent and the hillbillies involved could be straight out of Deliverance from 1972 despite being in Los Angeles.

This scene is disturbing yet mesmerizing at the same time, and might I say even comedic in a dark way?

Pulp Fiction is not a mainstream affair and has its share of detractors and plain old non-fans, but for film-goers seeking a fun, entertaining, cleverly delicious work of art, influential to Hollywood and Independent filmmakers alike, Pulp Fiction (1994) is a film to watch over and over again and admire its style and creativity.

Oscar Nominations: 1 win-Best Picture, Best Director-Quentin Tarantino, Best Actor-John Travolta, Best Supporting Actor-Samuel L. Jackson, Best Supporting Actress-Uma Thurman, Best Screenplay Written Directly for the Screen (won), Best Film Editing

Independent Spirit Award Nominations: 4 wins-Best Feature (won), Best Director-Quentin Tarantino (won), Best Male Lead-Samuel L. Jackson (won), Best Supporting Male-Eric Stoltz, Best Screenplay (won)

Into the Woods-2014

Into the Woods-2014

Director Rob Marshall

Starring Emily Blunt, Meryl Streep

Scott’s Review #241

70305948

Reviewed May 8, 2015

Grade: B

Based on the stage production of the same name, Into the Woods (2014) is a feature-length Disney film that incorporates several different fairy tales into the main story.

The film is a fantasy musical with numerous songs performed by the cast, featuring a large ensemble of seasoned actors.

The classic fairy tales are modern versions of Little Red Riding Hood, Rapunzel, Jack and the Beanstalk, and Cinderella.

The action mainly revolves around a baker and his wife (James Cordon and Emily Blunt) who are sad and lonely because they cannot conceive a child due to a long-ago curse put upon the baker’s family by a witch- played by Meryl Streep.

Circumstances surrounding the baker’s father caused the once beautiful witch to be turned ugly. The witch offers a bargain to the baker and his wife- if they bring her four items (a white cow, a red cape, yellow hair, and a gold slipper) for a special potion, she will lift the curse, enabling them to conceive a child and live happily ever after.

This prompts the couple into the dark forest to obtain the requested items. From this point, the couple intersects with other characters from the fairy tales as they all question various aspects of their lives.

There are subsequent stories- the witch is Rapunzel’s adoptive mother and keeps her locked in a tower to prevent her from being hurt by the world.

Cinderella (Anna Kendrick) escapes her taunting stepsisters and attends a ball only to flee when noticed by the handsome prince (Chris Pine).

Jack attempts to sell beans to provide food for his mother- and Little Red Riding Hood brings sweets to her Grandmother but is confronted by the Big, Bad, Wolf (Johnny Depp), a strange Woman Giant is stomping through the forest searching for Jack.

All these stories revolve around the baker and his wife’s efforts to retrieve the witch’s requests.

The production and art direction in the film is great. I love the dark, gloomy forest, which translates so well on the screen and gives the magical effect of a mysterious, secret forest.

I enjoyed the songs quite a bit- especially the catchy “Into the Woods”. However, some of the songs are quite one-dimensional and bland and not discernible from each other, let alone memorable.

The duet of the Prince’s, “Agony” is silly and useless to the plot, with gyrations, and dance moves.

Meryl Streep- dynamic in anything she appears in again steals the show as the vile witch turns beautiful at the end. She has a fantastic solo number mid-story, entitled “Stay with Me”.

One drawback I found with the film is, at times it drags a bit and I was not sold on the casting of Anna Kendrick as Cinderella.  Something about her performance was lacking, perhaps she was not as sympathetic or convincing as another actress might have been.

Also, I would have enjoyed seeing Johnny Depp as the Wolf be more prominently featured and a larger role for the Woman Giant. As integral as she is to the plot, it was tough to get a clear glimpse of her face let alone anything more substantial.

An entertaining feast of fairy tales immersed in one film, Into the Woods (2014) has some compelling moments but lost opportunities that bring it far from the reaches of a masterpiece level.

A solid film, but not a great film.

Oscar Nominations: Best Supporting Actress-Meryl Streep, Best Production Design, Best Costume Design

Carrie-1952

Carrie-1952

Director William Wyler

Starring Jennifer Jones, Laurence Olivier

Scott’s Review #240

60011689

Reviewed May 3, 2015

Grade: B

Carrie, not to be confused with the 1976 horror classic Brian DePalma, is a 1952 drama starring Laurence Olivier and Jennifer Jones—two big Hollywood stars of the time.

Shot in black and white, the film tells the story of a self-titled ingénue (Jones) from a Midwest upbringing who travels to Chicago to make her fortune.

Attempting to launch her career, Carrie becomes immersed in a love triangle with Olivier, who is unhappily married and runs a restaurant with salesman Charles Drouet, played by Eddie Albert.

Directed by William Wyler, the film has a melancholy tone as one of the characters sinks into a world of despair.

The highlight of this film is Laurence Olivier’s excellent performance as George Hurstwood, who goes from being a successful restaurant manager with an affluent existence to a poverty-stricken, lonely, and broken older man.

Olivier is so effortless and believable in his performance, as he always was.

However, I felt that Jennifer Jones was miscast. While attractive, yes, I did not think that every man would lust after her on sight alone, as was needed for the character of Carrie. Her acting, while okay, is not on the level of either Albert or especially Olivier, with whom she shares much screen time.

Perhaps Vivian Leigh, Teresa Wright, or Kim Novak might have been wiser choices.

The story itself is compelling and engaging. Here we have a woman- at the turn of the twentieth century- forging ahead to make it on her own- almost unthinkable for a woman, taking menial jobs as a sewing worker in a factory to scrape by.

Carrie resists the urge to become a rich husband-seeking gal and believes in marriage and true love. That is why she is devastated when she learns that George is married.

Will true love win out for them? This seems to be the central aspect of the film.

Behind-the-scenes issues may have contributed to the problems that appear onscreen. Wyler reportedly did not want to cast Jones, Olivier did not like Jones, Olivier was injured during much of the filming, and the film’s ending was changed to provide a “happier” ending.

Initially, George was to commit suicide, which might have successfully made the film more shocking and heartbreaking.

Containing beautiful costumes and interesting cinematography, Carrie has positives but might have been much better than the final product ended up being, but for poor casting and real-life dramas that hurt the film.

Oscar Nominations: Best Art Direction, Black-and-White, Best Costume Design, Black-and-White

A Most Violent Year-2014

A Most Violent Year-2014

Director J.C. Chandor

Starring Oscar Isaac, Jessica Chastain

Scott’s Review #239

_A_Most_Violent_Year__Theatrical_Poster

Reviewed May 1, 2015

Grade: B

Set in New York City, throughout the notoriously violent year of 1981 and influenced, at least in part, by The Godfather (1972) A Most Violent Year (2014) is similar in texture to the elite HBO series The Sopranos (1999-2007).

A Most Violent Year is an attempt at weaving a tale of a “good guy” mixed up with the mafia and attempting to remain upstanding throughout the adversity and corruption he encounters.

Oscar Isaac and Jessica Chastain portray Abel and Anna Morales, who owned Standard Oil, an upstart business they are attempting to launch.

Due to the violent nature of the times, several trucks are hijacked, resulting in robberies and severe beatings. In desperate need of funds to expand their business and stay ahead of competitors, Abel and Anna are forced to take out loans, leading them into a world where crime and violence run rampant.

They are under investigation for apparent price fixing and tax evasion activity by the Assistant District Attorney.

The main theme is the conflict and guilt that Abel feels towards violence and the constant temptation to join the ranks of the crime world to protect his business ventures.

Abel faces pressure from Anna, who has mob ties (her father is an influential mafia boss known around town) and is all for fighting fire with fire. Abel refuses and is determined to lead a straight and narrow life.

When circumstances spin out of control, his morals are questioned.

A Most Violent Year is an interesting film yet I think I was expecting a bit more than I was given.

For starters, it is not in the same league as the mafia works of art. It is tough to put my finger on what the issue is but something is missing from the film making it lack a compelling edge.

The plot moves slowly, for sure, but the film is successful as the character study that it is, however, I was left wanting more depth to the characters and a broader vision of the film itself.

I did not find myself truly vested in either the character of Abel or Anna.

Chastain received praise for her performance, which I found adequate, but hardly a marvel. Nominated for several awards, but deemed “snubbed” for not receiving an Oscar nomination, I find this untrue.

Her performance is not brilliant and Oscar Isaac’s is superior.

This is not to say that I did not enjoy the film overall. It takes some risks, has a rich character complexity, is shot very well, and looks great. It has a smooth look and I completely bought the 1981 time period, rather than it appearing to be dressed up for the era.

There is an authenticity to it.

A mob film not on the level of The Godfather or Goodfellas (1990), A Most Violent Year is a decent contribution to the crime-thriller era. It just does not live up to the critical acclaim heaped upon it.

Independent Spirit Award Nominations: Best Supporting Female-Jessica Chastain, Best Screenplay, Best Editing

Ida-2014

Ida-2014

Director Pawel Pawlikowsi

Starring Agata Kulesza, Agata Trzebuchowska

Scott’s Review #238

70293721

Reviewed April 24, 2015

Grade: A

Ida (2014), the winner of several Best Foreign Language statuettes, including the first-ever Best Foreign Language Oscar for Poland, is a black and white film, containing beautiful cinematography. It offers a fascinating story that is both moving, sad, and very character-driven and centers around not one, but two compelling characters.

The ravages and after-effects of war have been explored in film before, but Ida brings a fresh spin to the subject matter.

The film takes place sometime in the 1960s, years after the cruelties of World War II and the brutality of the holocaust occurred, and explores the long-lasting pain and sadness that the incredible time in history left on the survivors, both mentally and physically.

The focus is on Anna (Agata Kulesza), a young nun about to take her coveted vows and begin a life serving the Lord. Quite beautiful, she was left as a toddler at a convent. Before she takes her vows she is instructed to spend time with her only known relative, Aunt Wanda (Agata Trzebuchowska).

Wanda is a former judge who battles depression and alcoholism. Her brother, Anna’s father, was murdered along with Wanda’s young son, so she is a tortured soul. As Anna (real name Ida and Jewish) and Wanda begin a road trip to find the whereabouts of their deceased family’s bodies, they both face personal demons.

What struck me most about Ida is the cinematography- the black and white is lovely, especially when Ida and Wanda travel across the Polish countryside, exquisite to look at.

The farms, land, and roads are so crisp and perfectly lit that it is easy to fall in love with them.

Many scenes resemble paintings giving the film an artistic quality. Ida is simply elegant and peaceful in style.

The story itself of Ida is wonderful. Ida- the title character nun is torn. She knows no other life than the church that saved her life. But she is a gorgeous young woman filled with desires. She sees her promiscuous aunt flaunt men and dress to the nines in flashy outfits and makeup.

Ida, almost always dressed in her nun’s garb, secretly dresses in Wanda’s dresses and makeup and is transformed. When she meets a handsome saxophone player, her desires begin to brim over and her conflict increases especially as the truth about her heritage unfolds.

As interesting a character study as Ida is, the character of Wanda is equally, if not more so, interesting. Damaged, hurt, and depressed she needs men to feel good about herself.

An alcoholic she has not gotten over the death of her young son and has become a bitter woman. Ida is about loss.

Visually and creatively enticing, Ida is as good as they get. It deserves the many awards that were bestowed upon it.

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

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

Only Lovers Left Alive-2014

Only Lovers Left Alive-2014

Director Jim Jarmusch

Starring Tilda Swinton, Tom Hiddleston

Scott’s Review #237

Only_Lovers_Left_Alive_English_film_poster

Reviewed April 24, 2015

Grade: B

Only Lovers Left Alive (2014) is a bizarre trip into the strange and unusual world of vampires.

The film, moving slowly, becomes hypnotic, grabbing me into the plot, though the plot itself seems almost secondary to the gothic mood and dark ambiance of the film.

Thanks to the wonderful Tilda Swinton, who I find mesmerizing in every film role she appears in, the methodical film never completely bored me and, at times, even fascinated me.

Set in present times, Swinton and Tom Hiddleston play vampires named Adam and Eve, who are lovers separated geographically. Adam is a musician living in a vast Victorian house in Detroit and Eve resides in Tangier.

Realizing that Adam is lonely and suicidal, Eve makes the international trek to the United States to be with her love. While they begin enjoying a quiet existence immersed in music and thoughts, Eve’s rebellious sister Ava (Mia Wasikowska) from Los Angeles adds havoc to their lives.

Also cast in the film is John Hurt, who plays Marlowe, an ancient vampire assisting Adam and Eve, who succumbs to sickness due to tainted blood.

The film is a creative, atmospheric offering from edgy independent film director Jim Jarmusch, known for such left-of-center fare as Broken Flowers (2005) and Coffee and Cigarettes (2003), which are visual and visceral achievements.

While I did not completely love this film, feeling that the actual story is the weakest area, the magical and beautiful arrangements almost make up for any shortcomings.

Set entirely at night (when vampires are awake) and featuring several shots of Adam and Eve posed naked or almost naked in lovely, artistic angles, I think the film is going for a “look” as much as for storytelling and not completely centering on the plot.

It is also a lovely romantic film, though not in the typical sense of silly misunderstandings, and comical moments, but rather in romantic artistry, as Adam and Eve connect spiritually.

Married hundreds of years ago, Adam and Eve have been inexplicably separated by thousands of miles and coasts, though the reason is not explained.

Why are they the few remaining vampires alive? Does the human race know they are vampires or think they are odd-looking people? They both have money to burn and pay a high cost for being vampires as they either pay a contact to steal blood from hospitals to survive or obtain the blood elsewhere.

They are tempted to bite humans but resist those urges. The film does not explain why they are two of the few vampires left in the world or other questions. Adam, supposedly a famous musician, is wealthy beyond words and lives in a haunted-looking mansion surrounded by music and musical instruments.

The plot holes, of course, are secondary to me. None of them matter.

The film has beautiful moments- it is musically centered and Adam and Eve on more than one occasion engage in beautiful, tender dances the film is a pure love story, but a very left-of-center one.

I admire the film’s creativity and going where most filmmakers do not dare to go. Jarmusch dares to be different and deserves much praise.

The negative for me was the pacing of the film- the story almost does not matter as the film feels more like an experience in art than a “mainstream” film containing strong plot points and focus.

Only Lovers Left Alive (2014) is a different type of film and one worth admiring.

Independent Spirit Award Nominations: Best Female Lead-Tilda Swinton, Best Screenplay

Jezebel-1938

Jezebel-1938

Director William Wyler

Starring Bette Davis

Scott’s Review #236

220px-Jesebel_movieposter

Reviewed April 18, 2015

Grade: B+

An excellent showcase for the young and lovely Bette Davis, Jezebel (1938) is a very early film role for Davis. It is similar to Gone with the Wind, a film Davis reportedly lost to Vivian Leigh.

One wonders how she would have made the character of Scarlett O’Hara her own, and Jezebel is on a journey exploring that possibility.

Acclaimed director William Wyler directed Jezebel, set in New Orleans in 1852 (pre-Civil War). Davis plays spoiled southern belle Julie Marsden, who is engaged to wealthy banker Preston Dillard, played by Henry Fonda.

After a dispute in which Julie selfishly feels her needs are unmet, she shockingly wears a red dress to a sophisticated ball where unmarried women are expected to wear white. This causes a scandal that results in Preston dumping Julie and leaving town.

Cocky Julie expects Preston to return to town and grovel for her forgiveness, but when he does return with a life-changing twist, the drama unfolds. Circumstances include a savage duel, longing for love, and atonement.

Fans of Davis will love Jezebel for the sheer excellence that she brings to the screen. Mesmerizing with those soulful, big eyes and excellent mannerisms, she exudes confidence and sophistication. Admittedly, this is my earliest Davis experience, and she shimmers on-screen.

Bette Davis is perfectly cast. Interesting to note are the innocent qualities early Davis possessed. Later afflicted with a hoarse, deep voice and ravaged beauty after years of alcohol and cigarette abuse, Davis in Jezebel is virginal and debutante-looking.

I find Julie’s wardrobe choices interesting. Her horseback riding outfit, the vixen-like red dress, the virginal white dress, and the dark raven cape at the climax of the film, as well as the various lighting techniques Wyler used to showcase Davis’s face, almost look like candlelight.

The film is similar to Gone with the Wind (preceded by a year). Julie, like Scarlett, is a rich, selfish girl who likes to manipulate men. Both films feature a love triangle prevalent in the story and broken hearts. The enslaved people in both films resemble each other, though they are a bit more glamorous in Jezebel.

The introduction of the yellow fever storyline and the sick and weak lying around in droves is similar to the wounded and dying soldier scene in Gone with the Wind, where the ill and dying lie in pain. The periods, triangle, and southern charms all heavily play in both. It is impossible not to compare the two films.

Melodrama did very well; Jezebel (1938) is to be admired as it is a film featuring a strong female character, something lacking in the film then (1938) and shamefully still lacking in cinema today! Jezebel is an actual “ambitious woman’s movie.”

Oscar Nominations: 2 wins- Outstanding Production, Best Actress-Bette Davis (won), Best Supporting Actress-Fay Bainter (won), Best Scoring, Best Cinematography

The Captive-2014

The Captive-2014

Director Atom Egoyan

Starring Ryan Reynolds

Scott’s Review #235

80013547

Reviewed April 18, 2015

Grade: C-

The Captive is a 2014 thriller that reminds me quite a bit of a 2013 thriller, Prisoners, which must have been an influence.

A similar plot involving a blue-collar, working-class family attempting to track down a missing child as the father takes matters into his own hands and is also considered a prime suspect in the crime by detectives, is used.

Set in snowy upstate New York, the film tells the tale of Matthew (Ryan Reynolds) and Tina Lane (Mireille Enos), a struggling young couple whose nine-year-old daughter, Cassandra, is snatched out of Matthew’s truck while he runs into a store to buy her a pie.

Told using flashbacks, the story picks up several years later as the defeated couple is periodically taunted by Cassandra’s abductors, who leave clues to indicate she may still be alive.

Via video cameras, the abductors watch the parent’s emotional reactions to the clues and sell this “entertainment” to subscribers.

As the film moves along we learn of a major crime syndicate involved in the kidnapping of Cassandra and other similar-aged girls.

At times the plot of The Captive is compelling with a few nice twists and surprises- other times the plot moves quite slowly and plods too much.

The film sets the story in a cold, wintry season emitting a tone of darkness, loss, and harshness. The cinematography is beautiful and deserves major recognition for the mood.

The major problem with the film, though, is the extreme plot holes throughout and the ludicrous nature of the story- I still do not understand the pivotal childhood ice-skating message at the end.

As the film progresses the plot becomes tough to follow and many questions resonate. Who is paying to watch parents emotionally tortured? How can Cassandra seemingly come and go as she pleases and remain a prisoner? Why, years later, is Matthew still a suspect?

These points seem too plot-driven for my taste and seem to be created to further the plot. The main villain- Mika- is a weird guy but what is his motivation? Why is he part of the kidnapping syndicate? What is anyone’s motivation besides Matthew and Tina striving to get their daughter back?

This is not explained.

The casting of some of the actors is problematic- I had difficulty buying Enos working as a maid in a small town- she is way too glamorous a woman for that to be believed.

Similarly, casting Rosario Dawson and Scott Speedman as central detectives in the case seems unrealistic. The film is pure fantasy- these actors are too good-looking to be believable as upstate New York, small-town, detectives.

While very handsome, Ryan Reynolds is the only actor I bought as a grizzled, broken father with a glimmer of hope that his daughter is still alive.

Besides some interesting turns, The Captive (2014) is too unrealistic and convoluted to follow closely and is a bit of a mess.

For this type of film (kidnapping thriller?), I would recommend Prisoners (2013), though the plot holes are prevalent in that film too.