All posts by scottmet99

Creed-2015

Creed-2015

Director Ryan Coogler

Starring 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 as the main attraction, he is now a senior citizen, long retired, and owns 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. Before being rescued from a group home (he has a temper and fights a lot, naturally) by Apollo’s wife (Phylicia Rashad), he doesn’t know that 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 historical nods and a few sentimental moments throughout the film.

How wonderful to see Rocky Balboa again. It’s like catching up with an old friend you haven’t seen in 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, leaving Rocky a lonely man, and Apollo’s son revives a father-figure element within Rocky.

The film also includes flashback scenes to earlier Rocky films, and we see portions of Rocky’s and Apollo’s fights.

The plethora of external Philadelphia scenes brings authenticity and familiarity to the film, and it 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, making Creed an ode to fans and a film that is easy to watch.  We get the usual “inspirational” training scenes as Adonis trains for the big match, with an arrogant, loud Londoner and 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 a reason to root for him.

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 so he appeals to testosterone-driven fans who expect it.

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!”

Interestingly, the film makes the clever choice to have Bianca shave progressive hearing loss. Her handicap gives her humanity, though once the fight scenes begin, the film never mentions it 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 capitalizes on the Rocky franchise and offers a nice 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 an understated film experience, but despite its slow pace, I found it very interesting.

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

Forest Whitaker produces the film.

Undoubtedly, the funding made it possible to make it at all.

Living on an Indian reservation in remote South Dakota, the story focuses on Lakota Sioux brothers and sisters 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, showing the trials and tribulations of the people who live there.

Johnny’s mother is a kindhearted but boozy young woman, and her other son is in prison.

Jashaun’s mentor is 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 entry point into a culture most know 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 feature Johnny and Jashaun simply gazing into the crisp air in deep thought.

We see the conflict that weighs on both youngsters. Johnny, quite handsome and the object of affection for 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, surrounded by some unsavory types her family knows?

Not an offering for those who want more action than thought, 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 little worth, and more often than not, quickly forgotten and 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 1978 film and is just as disturbing.

Having seen the original and been shocked by the content, I didn’t expect the same from the retelling.

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.

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 willing to tackle challenging work rather than stick 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 follows 1950s poet Allen Ginsberg and his trial to determine whether his poems were art or should be banned as indecent.

Much of the action takes place in the courtroom, and the film wisely mixes animation (in scenes of Ginsberg reading his poetry) with traditional scenes.

The film lets the viewer get to know Ginsberg’s character. 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.

Trash-1970

Trash-1970

Director Paul Morrissey

Starring Joe Dallesandro, Holly Woodlawn

Scott’s Review #490

70003097

Reviewed October 7, 2016

Grade: B+

Trash (1970) is a very unique movie. It needs to be experienced firsthand to be believed.

Produced by icon Andy Warhol, it is both creative and raw, and certainly not for those seeking a basic film that can easily be digested and contained in a box.

Rather, the gritty and controversial aspects percolate into something edgy and creative. In essence, it is a day in the life of a junkie.

An indie drama with documentary aspects, made in 1970 and set in the Lower East Side of Manhattan, Trash tells the story of a young heroin junkie named Joe (Joe Dallesandro) along with his sidekick Holly, who wander throughout the city picking through trash in desperate need of their next heroin fix.

The film is hardcore, and that is what I admired most about it. Not always compelling and certainly not always story-like, it is an experience.

Trash would likely not be made today, but, alas, in the 1960s and 1970s, films like this could be made.

Sigh.

Its rawness, explicit nudity (and I mean full-frontal folks), and blatant IV drug injections are not for the perky or conformists.

It reminds me quite a bit of a John Waters cult exploitation film, but interestingly, it preceded John Waters.

Trash (1970) is very well made, and I’d like to see it again sometime.

Catfish-2010

Catfish-2010

Director Henry Joost, Ariel Schulman

Starring Nev Schulman, Ariel Schulman

Scott’s Review #489

70129454

Reviewed October 2, 2016

Grade: A-

I loved Catfish (2010), which is a hybrid movie/documentary.

I know some people were disappointed with the twist towards the end, but I thought it was interesting and made the film quite compelling- a surprise ending, if you will.

The shaky documentary-style filming adds to the intensity.

The plot revolves around a young photographer, Nev (Nev Schulman), who strikes up an online Facebook friendship with an eight-year-old artist.

It’s risky, but they discuss art and paintings and chat regularly.

Nev lives in New York City, while Abby lives in Michigan.

Nev’s brother Ariel is shooting a documentary and thinks it would be perfect for the pair to drive to Michigan and meet Abby.

Once they do, they are in for a surprise as the web of circumstances that follows makes the film creepy, eerie, and mysterious.

I do not want to give any more away, but Catfish (2010) is an interesting, well-thought-out story, which is a true case.

The film’s presentation is wonderful.

45 Years-2015

45 Years-2015

Director Andre Haigh

Starring Charlotte Rampling, Tom Courtenay

Scott’s Review #488

80040147

Reviewed October 1, 2016

Grade: B+

In 45 Years (2015), acting is the film’s clear highlight and the main reason to watch it.

Seasoned veterans take center stage and give tremendous performances and lessons in acting.

Tom Courtenay and Charlotte Rampling carry the film.

45 Years follows an enduring marriage tested by an outside revelation that escalates into conflict and mixed emotions.

The film moves at a slow pace and can challenge even the most patient viewers, but that pace is warranted, as the longevity of the characters’ marriage is key to the film.

Geoff and Kate Mercer, a happy couple living in rural England, excitedly plan their 45th wedding anniversary (the 40th was canceled because of Geoff’s heart condition).

They are a popular couple in their town, both kind and decent, and many will attend the event.

One day Geoff receives a letter from authorities in Switzerland- a young woman (Katya) he was once involved with, and presumed dead in 1962, has been found.

After falling into an icy glacier, her body is preserved and looks the same as it did then.

Unsure of the extent of their relationship, Kate is riddled with jealousy, curiosity, and guilt.

Geoff and Kate’s marriage is tested.

45 Years is a mature film involving mature characters. Geoff and Kate are still in love decades into their relationship, but the introduction of Katya becomes an unwelcome conflict.

The film plays out gradually, but realistically, as marriage moves along slowly.

The film shows many scenes of Geoff and Kate’s day-to-day activities: they walk their dog together, travel into town to shop, relax, and read the newspaper.

Like real people do.

This is an asset to the film. Real life is sometimes mundane and dull, but these little tasks are pleasurable and soothing.

Geoff and Kate’s marriage contrasts with the relationship Geoff and Katya briefly had years ago (excitement, risk, youth), and Kate’s point of view is understandable.

As details reveal themselves, Kate feels inferior.

She is no longer young and thinks of Geoff and Katya, and the life they might have had together if the accident had not occurred. Despite being dead, Katya becomes an obstacle in Kate’s mind.

The film wisely doesn’t write Kate as a jealous shrew or a one-dimensional character. She fights her jealousy at every turn and tries to stay strong and realistic.

Charlotte Rampling gives such a good, subtle, understated performance that it is easy to overlook how good she is.

She does not have hysterical moments or a scene where she loses control. Instead, Rampling conveys a range of complex emotions through her facial expressions.

Let’s not forget to mention Tom Courtenay. Imagine being in the golden years of your life and a long-lost lover (in spirit anyway) returns to the fold. Geoff cannot help but imagine a life with Katya if she remained alive.

Kate asks Geoff if he would have married Katya, and he cannot deny it.

Several scenes show the couple dealing with “old people” issues, awkward lovemaking, for example, which highlights how different things are from when Geoff and Katya were in their prime.

Geoff cannot help but be whisked back in time with thoughts and what-ifs.

A standout scene is when Kate and Geoff dance at their anniversary party. Having professed his love during a speech, they casually dance. Kate is both touched and pained, and as the scene goes along, it unravels. She explodes internally.

Sometimes, perhaps a tad too slow-paced, I get the point of pacing 45 Years this way. After all, nearly 50 years of marriage is a long time, and similar days will pass with few important moments.

Thanks to great acting, I overlooked this and was astounded at the complexities both Rampling and Courtenay bring to the table.

Oscar Nominations: Best Actress-Charlotte Rampling

Jimi: All Is By My Side-2014

Jimi: All Is By My Side-2014

Director John Ridley

Starring André 3000

Scott’s Review #487

70292988

Reviewed September 30, 2016

Grade: A-

Jimi: All Is By My Side (2014) wasn’t quite the film I expected. It was better!

I wasn’t expecting poor work, since the film received a Best Male Lead Independent Spirit Award nomination for André 3000 (rapper) in the title role.

I expected an overview of the rise and fall of famed rocker Jimi Hendrix. Instead, I got a more introspective piece than I expected.

The film is a British production.

Interestingly, the film avoided any Jimi Hendrix songs familiar to audiences, using only songs written in 1966 and 1967.

This surprisingly turns out to be positive for the film.

The film’s awesome achievement is its non-conformity and independence; it undoubtedly had a lot of freedom.

This is a good thing.

If this film had been targeted for a showing at local theaters, it might have been a run-of-the-mill affair, focusing on the star and the star only.

It is also shot in a less-than-glossy way, giving it an almost grainy, gritty look that I found added something.

Impressively, the supporting characters, specifically three females with whom Hendrix has relationships throughout his initial rise to fame, are prominently featured, and the story shifts at times to their perspectives and feelings, not just Hendrix’s.

The film does not focus on Hendrix’s untimely death.

We meet Hendrix (compellingly played by André 3000) performing guitar in a sparsely attended bar in New York City.

Linda, the girlfriend of Rolling Stones guitarist Keith Richards, discovers him, becomes smitten, and recognizes his immense talent.

Slowly, he is discovered (mainly in London) and rises to fame.

However, the film is not only focused on his success but also on his personal life.

Besides Linda, Hendrix becomes involved with a volatile groupie and fixture in the 1960s London music scene, Kathy, and cultured American Ida.

Instead of the female characters being written as one-dimensional and dizzy, all three are quite intelligent and layered.

While each has feelings for the star, they are forced to be reckoned with in their own right, and we grow to care about their characters as individuals.

A scene involving Jimi violently beating girlfriend Kathy with a telephone during an argument has been refuted by friends as being fictitious- Hendrix was known as a gentle, peaceful man.

A controversy has emerged about the film’s overall accuracy, but I found it introspective and fascinating.

Independent Spirit Award Nominations: Best Male Lead-André 3000

Belle De Jour-1967

Belle De Jour-1967

Director Luis Buñuel

Starring Catherine Deneuve, Jean Sorel

Scott’s Review #486

60000631

Reviewed September 29, 2016

Grade: A

Belle De Jour, the title translates to “lady of the day”, a French pun for “lady of the night”, a kind phrase for prostitution, is a fantastic art film.

Stylish, sophisticated, and open to interpretation (at least in my opinion), Belle De Jour is a late 1960s journey into eroticism, social norms, and sexual freedom.

Gorgeous star Catherine Deneuve has never looked better and calmly does mental conflict.

Luis Buñuel directs the film.

Severine is a wealthy, young, newlywed who seemingly has it all. She is showered with love and affection, not to mention material items, by her handsome hubby, Pierre, played by dashing Jean Sorel.

She wants for nothing as her husband is a doctor of great wealth. Yet she is unhappy and refuses to have physical relations with Pierre.

She begins a secret life as a prostitute in a posh home, only working in the afternoons, to avoid being found out. She has no regrets but is apprehensive about the clients she meets.

Throughout the film, Severine has secret fantasies about being kept in bondage and enduring various other sexual humiliations. All the while, the question is, “Is this all Severine’s fantasy or reality?”  Or perhaps merely a portion is.

The audience wonders.

Do we feel sorry for the character of Severine? Not. One could argue that she is spoiled and selfish, but she is not evil; she is somewhat confused. She is quite polite, and Deneuve fills her with kindness and even an angelic spirit.

One cannot despise her, even though on the surface one might be tempted to. What right does this woman have to rebuff her husband in place of sleazy clients? One particularly volatile client becomes obsessed with Severine and stalks her, going so far as to exact violence against her husband.

But wait, is this Severine’s fantasy or reality? Is she imagining everything and merely obediently waiting at home for her husband to return each day, or is she living this life?

Buñuel uses many shots of gorgeous Paris, including the famed Arc de Triomphe and other interesting streets and sights, which is a treat for culture fans. The use of these exteriors goes a long way to ensure that the film is clearly “French” from a visual perspective.

Indeed, in 1967, the sexual revolution was in full swing, and Belle De Jour epitomized the revolution of the times. Yet, it does not feel dated or reduced to a film “of its time”.

I find it more of a character study than a genre film, as Severine is an interesting study.

Belle De Jour challenges the viewer with an intense yet subtle story of a woman conflicted with sexual desire and repression- a film open to much interpretation and discussion.

It does what an art film is supposed to do- makes us think and ponder.

Joy-2015

Joy-2015

Director David O. Russell

Starring Jennifer Lawrence

Scott’s Review #485

80064513

Reviewed September 24, 2016

Grade: B-

Joy is a safe, mainstream, female-centered 2015 film, a biopic written for current star Jennifer Lawrence.

She was nominated for a Best Actress at the Academy Awards for her role, and she carries the film.

Still, despite her performance, the film is nothing special and is written in a ho-hum manner.

It is simply not very compelling, and the supporting characters aren’t used as well as they could be. Despite being based on a true story, the writing is lazy and the plot far-fetched.

I expected more.

The film is another collaboration between director David O. Russell and big stars of the time, Lawrence, Bradley Cooper, and Robert De Niro, all used in previous Russell films.

Lawrence plays Joy, a struggling Long Island mother of two, divorced from her husband (who still lives in the basement of her house), with multiple family members living with her to form a support unit.

Joy is the family’s breadwinner.

Joy’s grandmother narrates the story, whom she calls Mimi (Diane Ladd). Mimi always knew Joy would be a success, and we see a few scenes of Joy as a child, surviving her dysfunctional family and her parents’ disputes.

DeNiro plays her womanizing father, divorced from her mother (Virginia Madsen), who lies in bed all day watching soap operas.

Cooper plays opportunist QVC executive Neil Walker, who takes a liking to Joy and helps her achieve her dream as a successful businesswoman after she patents an idea for a new, high-powered mop.

The authenticity of the time, 1989, and through the 1990s is apparent, as we see Joy working for Eastern Airlines, a company that would fold several years later.

The automobiles, dresses, and hairstyles also feel authentic to the time.

The film does these points very well. And how cute was it to see famous daytime television stars such as Susan Lucci, portraying soap opera stars, as Joy’s mother lives her life vicariously through their tangled and bizarre soap lives?

Several scenes on the television set give us glimpses of the soap stories.

The film as a whole, though, feels too neat.

Predictably, Joy faces obstacles on her way to success.  Already struggling financially, she takes out a second mortgage on her house. At first, she cannot give away mops, let alone sell them.

On the brink of giving up, she finishes a meeting with execs who laugh at her product, but Walker gives her a break because she has a pretty face.

Predictably, things don’t go well, and a rather dull subplot follows a company in Texas trying to steal Joy’s idea. When she goes and threatens them, they immediately back down and obediently give in to her every whim.

This is both unrealistic and uninteresting.

I would have liked to have seen a messy back-and-forth or some court scenes, but the Texas company is portrayed as nothing but the villain.

The writing has plot holes or missed opportunities, and many questions abound. Despite many scenes of Joy’s past, we still learn little.

Her entire family lives with her in a suburban Long Island house; why does Joy own the house instead of her mother or grandmother?

Why does Joy have a rivalry with her half-sister, Peggy? Why does Joy’s father own an auto garage and still need to stay with Joy? Why is Joy’s mother mostly in bed?

Madsen as the mother is rather cartoonish and unnecessary to the plot, and Ladd is a dynamic actress given little substance.

I didn’t buy De Niro as a cad or as someone in love with his wealthy new girlfriend, Trudy (though seeing Isabella Rossellini in the part is a win), who conveniently shows up to finance Joy.

Despite an enormously talented cast, which is fantastic to see, most of the supporting parts could have been played by anyone, as the roles aren’t that challenging, and the film is certainly a vehicle to showcase Jennifer Lawrence, David O. Russell’s current “it” girl.

This isn’t a slight against Jennifer Lawrence, since she is the best part.  She portrays Joy as a sympathetic, strong-willed, fair, decent human being with enormous struggles and a blue-collar sensibility.

Great performance, but I wish the writing and the other talents involved in the film were given better material.

Oscar Nominations: Best Actress-Jennifer Lawrence

The Witches-1990

The Witches-1990

Director Nicolas Roeg

Starring Angelica Huston, Mai Zetterling 

Scott’s Review #483

20282991

Reviewed September 20, 2016

Grade: B-

The Witches (1990) is a G-rated family film with a slightly dark tone, handled softly, as it is targeted at children. However, it is a film that adults may love too.

I found the film entertaining, with impressive special effects and a dazzling comedic performance by Angelica Huston. Still, ultimately, The Witches has a silly quality, though admittedly not trite, that does not quite make it a success in my book.

The film is based on a Roald Dahl children’s book, with a child as the central character, similar to other Dahl novels that were adapted into films such as James and the Giant Peach and Charlie and the Chocolate Factory.

I cannot help but wonder whether my mediocre rating of The Witches is due to not having read the novel, even though I have read the other aforementioned novels in his collection.

Our hero in the story is Luke- a kindly, innocent young boy living in Norway with his parents and grandmother, Helga. When his folks are tragically killed, his grandmother takes him to London to begin a new life for themselves.

When Helga falls ill, they stay at a seaside resort where they stumble upon a convention of witches disguised as the Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children.

Luke and his plump friend Bruno fall victim to the witch’s plot to turn children into mice. The witch group is led by the Grand High Witch (Huston), whom the other witches fawn over with grandiose praise.

Huston is fantastic as she overacts the part she plays- this is not a bad thing, but it makes the role quite fun and energetic.

When she transforms from a glamorous woman to a shriveled monster, the transformation is interesting to watch and an impressive part of the film.

Furthermore, the way Luke and Bruno interact as mice is also cute and a positive aspect of the film.

I enjoyed the aspect that, if watched closely, reveals that numerous witches are men wearing female wigs. This successfully gives the witches a grotesque, obviously mannish quality and emits a chuckle of pleasure at the same time.

Still, there is something slightly childish or juvenile about the offering, while the film appears dark on the surface. The subject is played for laughs rather than going full steam ahead as a dark film.

Undoubtedly, this is due to the target audience that the film is going for. For instance, the hotel manager’s affair with a hotel maid seems slightly unnecessary.

The Witches (1990) is a decent offering due to respect for the creative aspects that it elicits- I just felt the story might have been done a bit more seriously.

Additionally, the ending feels slightly forced and abrupt- a Hollywood-intended ending perhaps?

Vampire Academy-2014

Vampire Academy-2014

Director Mark Waters

Starring Zoey Deutch

Scott’s Review #482

70291088

Reviewed September 18, 2016

Grade: C

Vampire Academy (2014) is a teenage-intended mixture of Harry Potter meets Heathers meets Twilight. It is escapist fare and is quite light, but rather fun in an amateurish way.

I am certain the target audience is teenage girls, but when traveling, you can be limited in your film options.

Hence, on a chilly night in Norway, this film kept us occupied.

The story features a half-human-half-vampire named Rose, a teenage girl, who aspires to be a guardian and is called back to a boarding school to uncover a hierarchical web of secrets, lies, and plots.

She is accompanied by her best friend Lissa.

Predictably, the story has a romantic angle, as Rose has feelings for Dimitri, a fellow guardian.

The film itself is fine- it knows the demographic it is going for, and young adults are sure to enjoy the compelling drama, likable leads, and attractive cast.

From a film critique standpoint, there is nothing wrong with the film. Still, it is a bit generic and slightly predictable- from the romantic perspective, though impressively, the ending is a bit of a surprise and a whodunit.

Also impressive is Sarah Hyland (Modern Family) as nerdy classmate Natalie, who seems to be the brains and the keeper of gossip throughout the academy.

The role is against type for the young actress, and she does very well.

It is tough not to compare this film to the Harry Potter series of films since many aspects of Vampire Academy mirror Harry Potter- only with a female in the driver’s seat. The mysterious teachers and characters also echo the fantastical elements of Harry Potter.

Unfortunately, a planned sequel was scrapped due to a lack of interest, which surprised me. I expected a film like this to be a hit and perhaps launch a franchise, but it wasn’t.

An adequate young adult film that borrows from other films and also harkens back to the days of teen-minded genres of the past, specifically the 1980’s.

Date Night-2010

Date Night-2010

Director Shawn Levy

Starring Steve Carell, Tina Fey

Scott’s Review #481

70121501

Reviewed September 17, 2016

Grade: D+

Date Night is a perfect example of mediocrity in modern filmmaking.

We have two current comedic actors here- Steve Carell and Tina Fey- circa 2010- at the top of their game.

The filmmaker’s idea is to pair these two and make an appealing romantic comedy for the masses.

The main issue with this film is that the result is generic and quite an average offering.

The entire film is incredibly plot-driven, with no character development to speak of.

If I am being too harsh, admittedly there is nice chemistry between the two leads, but it is wasted by sloppy writing.

A couple from the New Jersey burbs, Carrell and Fey portray husband and wife, Phil and Claire Foster. Saddled with two kids and their romance reaching dullsville, Phil decides to take Claire to a ritzy Manhattan restaurant.

When they arrive, they cannot get a table, so they pretend to be another couple a get one after the other couple no-shows. This leads to a tale of mistaken identity as the other couple possesses a flash drive that a mobster (Ray Liotta) wants.

This leads to a chase through Manhattan as they try to outrun and outwit their pursuers.

Wahlberg plays a hunky client of Claire’s, always shirtless, who threatens Phil and Claire’s marriage.

Several others of the current Hollywood elite- Kristen Wiig, James Franco, Mila Kunis, and Mark Ruffalo- make small and somewhat pointless appearances. Specifically, Franco and Kunis as a stoner-type bickering couple are silly and unnecessary to the story.

Carrell and Fey are quite funny as individuals and as a duo. Date Night, though, does not capitalize on or showcase their respective talents.

The film tries too hard to come up with scenario after scenario of the two on the run and encountering one problematic situation after another.

As the plot of Date Night wears on, I notice that each situation is a matter of convenience.

Conveniently, Claire has a client in town (Wahlberg), who is a security expert. They go to him for help and, predictably, his hunkiness bothers Phil and piques Claire’s interest- though, of course, we know full well Phil and Claire will end up together- that is how these mainstream films go.

In another scene. Phil and Claire can break into an office building unnoticed, trigger the alarms, conveniently find a needed file, and escape, miraculously all before the police arrive minutes later.

Very plot-driven.

The lead actors in Date Night are appealing and even charming together, but it falls flat. Still, the inane plot makes it unappealing to watch, and the slew of stars that somebody decided would be a great addition to a lukewarm film is odd.

The roles written have little bearing on the central plot, so it was apparent why they were added.

Date Night (2010) is a film we have seen time and time again with other actors in similar roles.

Mother-2009

Mother-2009

Director Bong Joon-ho

Starring Kim Hye-Ja 

Scott’s Review #480

70118372

Reviewed September 11, 2016

Grade: A

Mother (2009) is brilliant! I loved it and implored people to give the film a chance.

Years later, just desserts would be served. Director Bong Joon-ho would win the Oscar for Parasite (2019).

It is a South Korean film, made in 2009, that almost nobody has heard of, let alone seen, but it is fantastic.

It’s a shame that it did not get more notice, but sadly, some of the best films do not.

The plot revolves around a mysterious murder that occurs in a small South Korean village and a poor village woman’s mission to exonerate her mentally challenged son, who is convicted of the crime in a botched case.

The plot twists and turns and is compelling beyond belief. The real crux of the film is what lengths a mother will take to protect her son, a question many viewers can ask themselves.

Why Hye-Ja Kim, who plays the title character, was not nominated for an Oscar for this role is beyond me and quite a shame. She is a goldmine and gives a terrific, memorable performance.

The movie is stylistic and has moments that resemble Hitchcock and David Lynch combined. One does not know what will transpire from scene to scene, and that is the beauty of the film- besides the wonderful acting.

Once the film ends, viewers will feel compelled to discuss it, which is an accomplished feat.

I highly recommend it.

Independent Spirit Award Nominations: Best Foreign Film

Heat-1972

Heat-1972

Director Paul Morrissey

Starring Joe Dallesandro, Sylvia Miles

Scott’s Review #479

579887

Reviewed September 11, 2016

Grade: A-

Heat (1972) is a Paul Morrissey/Andy Warhol collaboration in the 1970s sexploitation film genre.

The film is a spoof of the 1950 classic Sunset Boulevard and stars 1970s cult star Joe Dallesandro.

He plays a hunky, struggling actor and former child star who begins a relationship with a has-been actress (Sylvia Miles) and her lesbian daughter as they cohabit in a seedy Los Angeles hotel run by a plump landlady (Pat Ast).

He pays the landlady a reduced rent in exchange for sex.

Heat (1972) stars two of my favorite cult film actresses (Miles and Ast).

It is a fun, over-the-top, independent-style sex romp and a pleasing experience for those in the mood for something left of center.

Easy A-2010

Easy A-2010

Director Will Gluck

Starring Emma Stone

Scott’s Review #478

70123920

Reviewed September 10, 2016

Grade: B-

Easy A (2010) is a film with some good parts and some dumb parts.

However, at the end of the day, it is forgettable, and who will remember a film like this in ten years?

The film is a teen comedy about a girl who makes up a rumor about herself to gain attention from her peers.

Emma Stone is great in this movie and shows the enormous potential of her budding film career. She reminds me a bit of Lindsay Lohan. She is likable, great at comedy, and has a fun persona.

Also deserving of credit is Lisa Kudrow, who appears in the movie.

At times, the dialogue is intelligent and witty; other times, it turns into a typical dumb comedy.

This is sad because, given the star power involved, Easy A (2010) might have been a better film than it turned out to be.

Red Riding Hood-2011

Red Riding Hood-2011

Director Catherine Hardwicke

Starring Amanda Seyfried

Scott’s Review #477

70167073

Reviewed September 10, 2016

Grade: B-

I was hesitant to see Red Riding Hood (2011) in the theater because it felt more like a rental.

While it is far from high art, it is an above-mediocre thriller riding the current popularity of the vampire-lite genre.

It tells the story of a teenage girl living in a medieval village being attacked by a mysterious wolf. The wolf, however, is sometimes human.

The fact that it stars young actors known in current American cinema makes it unsurprising that it’s a love story.

I thought the movie was decent, but not great. The whodunit is good as we wonder who the wolf in disguise is, and the cinematography is excellent.

I bought the period’s authenticity.

Seeing Julie Christie in a current film is always a treat, but at times the movie is quite sappy and Twilight-ish. The same director, Catherine Hardwicke, directed it, so that’s not surprising.

Overall, Red Riding Hood (2011) is not a bad watch.

Lincoln-2012

Lincoln-2012

Director Steven Spielberg

Starring Daniel Day-Lewis

Scott’s Review #476

70251896

Reviewed September 10, 2016

Grade: A

Lincoln is a 2012 film, which received a slew of Academy Award nominations. However, opinions about the film itself differ.

Lincoln has audiences divided over whether it’s a brilliant film or a snoozefest.

My opinion leans decisively toward the former.

I recognize that (especially the first half) the film is slow-moving, but I found it engrossing and well-made.

Even the subtle aspects (costumes, art direction, lighting) are masterfully done.

I found Daniel Day-Lewis’s (Abraham Lincoln) lengthy stories intriguing, not dull, and a wonderful history lesson.

Steven Spielberg does what he does best- he creates a Hollywood film done well. He’s also done controversial, shocking, or experimental films, but mainstream fare is his forte.

This film isn’t for everyone, but if you have the patience, it will be an enlightening experience. If nothing else, a thing or two may be learned.

Oscar Nominations: 2 wins-Best Picture, Best Director-Steven Spielberg, Best Actor-Daniel Day-Lewis (won), Best Supporting Actor-Tommy Lee Jones, Best Supporting Actress-Sally Field, Best Adapted Screenplay, Best Original Score, Best Sound Mixing, Best Production Design (won), Best Cinematography, Best Costume Design, Best Film Editing

Babe-1995

Babe 1995

Director Chris Noonan

Starring James Cromwell

Scott’s Review #475

268776-1

Reviewed September 9, 2016

Grade: B

Babe (1995) is a cute, charming family film about a pig who becomes a hero while living on a farm with a family of other animals, a farmer, and his wife.

It is not a risky film from a story perspective- any doubts about a happy ending?- though there are props for some visual creativity.

And let’s face it- the film is sweet and heartwarming with not a mean bone in its body.

The film is an inspirational one, nice for kids no doubt, and the visual effects, i.e., how they edited the animal movements with voices successfully, are well done and not tacky.

The film is predictable and harmless, and I’m not sure I agree with the Best Picture or Best Supporting Actor (for James Cromwell) nominations it garnered, but it was enjoyable all the same.

Oscar Nominations: 1 win-Best Picture, Best Director-Chris Noonan, Best Supporting Actor-James Cromwell, Best Screenplay Based on Material Previously Produced or Published, Best Art Direction, Best Film Editing, Best Visual Effects (won)

They Shoot Horses, Don’t They?-1969

They Shoot Horses, Don’t They? -1969

Director Sydney Pollack

Starring Jane Fonda

Scott’s Review #474

1038266

Reviewed September 6, 2016

Grade: A-

They Shoot Horses, Don’t They? (1969) is a tragic, riveting film, set in the Depression-era 1930s, centering on a group of contestants entering a Dance-athon for an enormous cash prize.

Most of the film is set on and around the dance floor.

Contestants push themselves to the brink of exhaustion to win the coveted money, and the characters’ desperation is horrific.

Jane Fonda leads the pack as a depressed, sarcastic, aspiring actress who desperately needs the cash prize.

The film’s dark nature is mesmerizing, though it is a difficult to watch. I found the film’s periodic parts dragged as the contestants grew wearier with each hour.

It also felt like a precursor to the reality television craze that has swept the nation since the 1990s.

A tragedy, yes, but a practical and worthwhile film about depression and the struggle to survive. And a sad reminder of brutality as a form of entertainment.

Oscar Nominations: 1 win-Best Director-Sydney Pollack, Best Actress-Jane Fonda, Best Supporting Actor-Gig Young (won), Best Supporting Actress-Susannah York, Best Screenplay Based on Material from Another Medium, Best Score of a Musical Picture-Original or Adaptation, Best Costume Design, Best Art Direction, Best Film Editing

Golden Globe Nominations: 1 win- Best Picture- Drama, Best Director-Sydney Pollack, Best Actress-Drama-Jane Fonda, Best Supporting Actor-Gig Young (won), Red Buttons, Best Supporting Actress-Susannah York

This Is 40-2012

This Is 40-2012

Director Judd Apatow

Starring Paul Rudd, Leslie Mann

Scott’s Review #473

70244168

Reviewed September 6, 2016

Grade: B

I must admit, I wasn’t looking forward to seeing this movie, and my initial thought was “typical dumb comedy” that’s been seen a million times before.

While This Is 40 (2012) contains those elements and is marketed toward a specific target audience, it’s surprisingly smart and intelligent overall.

I have not viewed Knocked Up (2007), but I understand it’s somewhat of a follow-up to that film, as the two central characters are now married and traversing through a different time in their lives.

Adulthood.

I enjoyed Paul Rudd’s, Melissa McCarthy’s, and whoever played the oldest daughter’s performances the most. However, Rudd has become the latest actor to play the same role over and over again.

I enjoyed the rock n roll elements and the confrontation scenes, as these were very cleverly written and nicely acted.

Sadly, at times the film relies on the standard bathroom humor done thousands of times before- a clear attempt at a laugh, and Jason Segel’s and Megan Fox’s characters are unnecessary to the main plot.

This Is 40 (2012) is a film that, at its heart, shows the trials and tribulations of generations of families, humorously, and done rather well.

Bernie-2011

Bernie-2011

Director Richard Linklater

Starring Jack Black, Shirley MacLaine, Matthew McConaughey

Scott’s Review #472

70189906

Reviewed August 30, 2016

Grade: C-

Bernie (2011) is a film that, surprisingly, received critical acclaim and Golden Globe and Independent Spirit Award nominations, but I was left quite disappointed.

Categorized as a dark comedy, it has a morbid premise, which isn’t the issue; I didn’t find it very good overall.

Despite being a true story of Bernie (Jack Black) marrying and murdering millionaire Marjorie Nugent (Shirley MacLaine) in Texas, the film is not compelling and is written too over-the-top.

Inexplicably, the townspeople refuse to believe Bernie’s obvious guilt.

The film has a few funny, interesting moments and is based on real events, but I didn’t feel as connected to it as I expected and, honestly, found it a bit dull.

Jack Black is impressive as the title character, but only because it is a departure from his usual slapstick film roles. I don’t get the accolades being heaped on him for his performance.

Shirley MacLaine and Matthew McConaughey are capable of the parts written for them, but they are one-note characters.

Meh.

Independent Spirit Award Nominations: Best Feature, Best Male Lead-Jack Black

Results-2015

Results-2015

Director Andrew Bujalski

Starring Guy Pearce

Scott’s Review #471

80038442

Reviewed August 29, 2016

Grade: C-

Aside from one fantastic supporting performance by Kevin Corrigan, who should have been the star, Results (2015) is an independent romantic comedy that lacks any real identity.

The film struggles to decide which couple the audience is meant to root for, leaving me rooting for none of them, and frankly, a bit bored with the overall script.

Still, Corrigan and, to some degree, Guy Pearce make it a tolerable watch.

Corrigan plays Danny, a newly wealthy average Joe type who joins a gym, presumably to build a supportive network of friends, as he is new in town, Austin, Texas.

He meets Trevor (Pearce), who owns a local gym and is trained by the moody Kat (Cobie Smulders).

The three individuals’ lives intersect as a triangle of sorts develops.

Kevin Corrigan, who has appeared in numerous independent films over his decades-long career and in blockbusters such as Goodfellas (1990), completely steals the show and is the main reason to tune in.

His acting is effortless as he plays a lonely, rich man looking for human connections. He is troubled but has a comic wit that shines and gives him the vulnerability he needs.

We want him to find happiness despite being unlikable.

Speaking of unlikeable, Smulders as Kat is a frigid iceberg with attitude for miles. Why anyone, let alone two men, would be interested in her is beyond me.

Pearce is appealing as the good-natured, aspiring-to-be successful businessman named Trevor, who is buff beyond belief- to enormous credit, since Pearce is no spring chicken.

Otherwise, we know little about his character. He is not in love with Kat, but suddenly seems to be.

Kat warms to Danny, but then falls for Trevor. The entire romantic entanglement is silly, and no chemistry exists among them.

Casting Giovanni Ribisi as a stoner lawyer and Anthony Michael Hall (The Breakfast Club from the 1980s) as a fitness guru is pointless.

The fitness/gym angle is cool if you’re a fan of physical fitness, as I am. It is a nice little lesson as Kat teaches Danny basic core exercises.

But after too many scenes of Kat drinking kale shakes and jogging incessantly, or Trevor eating egg-white omelets and doing bodyweight exercises, the message feels like overkill.

They are fitness buffs- we get it.

The biggest fail is how the film focuses on Danny and Kat as a potential romantic couple, then suddenly shifts gears and makes Kat and Trevor the main couple, with Danny on the outside looking in.

It really makes little sense, and by that point I was already bored, so the film just petered out for me.

Results (2015) has shreds of potential with better-structured storytelling, but it misses the mark in many areas; underdeveloped characters and a meandering plot are a couple of major problems.

Independent Spirit Award Nominations: Best Supporting Male-Kevin Corrigan

Glass Chin-2015

Glass Chin-2015

Director Noah Buschel

Starring Corey Stoll

Scott’s Review #470

70309677

Reviewed August 28, 2016

Grade: B-

Glass Chin, an independent drama film from 2015, has both strengths and weaknesses.

The film has two intriguing central characters, a working-class appeal, and some fun, Quentin Tarantino-style moments.

The villains are unappealing and downright annoying, which detracts from the main story.

Still, a solid effort.

The premise is straightforward and comfortable. Corey Stoll plays Bud Gordon, a former New York boxer with a level of one-time success.

He now lives in a small apartment in New Jersey with his girlfriend Ellen (Marin Ireland). Yearning to get back into the game, he aligns with crooked businessman JJ Cook, played by Billy Crudup.

Along for the ride is JJ’s odd henchman, Robert.

Framed for murder, he is now “owned” by JJ, and Bud must struggle to escape the mess he has gotten himself into.

The best parts of Glass Chin are Stoll and Ireland, who make Bud and Gordon likable and genuine. They are a great team, once successful and now struggling to pay the rent.

They encompass blue-collar appeal.

They are nice people, happy to dine at cheap diners and clip coupons, but want a comfortable life.

When Ellen tries caviar for the first time at a fancy hotel, she dislikes it. She is a happy working-class girl, comfortable in her skin. Bud misses the boxing lifestyle, not for the glamour, but for a purpose.

After running a failed restaurant, he’s forced to take a job with a shady character to make ends meet.

I would have preferred to focus only on Bud and Ellen and their life struggles, perhaps with more emphasis on their aspirations, his feelings of failure, and more story involving his training as a young boxer, Kid Sunshine.

But sadly, these aspects take a back seat to the emergence of the villains JJ and Robert.

I am not sure why the filmmakers made both JJ and Robert so weird, and I assume they were going for a Quentin Tarantino influence, but it didn’t work and made the film feel less cohesive.

Both characters, especially Robert, meander through monologues of nonsense dialogue and downright crazy, over-the-top talk.

It adds nothing to the story.

They are high-class thugs- the point comes across. The female characters, besides Ellen, are Tarantino-influenced in their left-of-center actions (the wedding dress outfit, the statuesque model who beds Bud), but we know almost nothing about them.

As a side note, I love the film’s constant outdoor New York City and New Jersey locales, which add authenticity.

When Bud drives around in his beat-up 1980s Country Squire station wagon in the snowy New York weather, it adds atmosphere.

More Bud and Ellen would have helped, and less JJ and Robert would have made Glass Chin a better film.

Still, there is some appeal, but overall Glass Chin (2015) is quite uneven.

Independent Spirit Award Nominations: Best Supporting Female-Marin Ireland