All posts by scottmet99

The Texas Chainsaw Massacre-1974

The Texas Chainsaw Massacre-1974

Director Tobe Hooper

Starring Marilyn Burns

Top 100 Films #35 

Top 20 Horror Films #10

Top 10 Disturbing Films #5    

Scott’s Review #209                                                      

15815343

Reviewed December 31, 2014

Grade: A

The Texas Chainsaw Massacre (1974) is one of the grittiest, raw, frightening horror films that I have ever seen and still holds up incredibly well in present times.

Containing a documentary-like look it is incredibly scary in its grainy, visual, real-life feel. It is not psychological horror- it is in-your-face, brutal horror.

The perception of an incredibly hot, sticky, backwoods Texas summer is incredibly well done and only adds to the terror.

A group of five teenagers travels to the vast fields of Texas- aka- the middle of nowhere, presumably on a road trip. On their drive, they pick up a strange hitchhiker who ends up stabbing one of the teens and cutting his arm.

Spooked by this odd occurrence, they stop for gas and directions, but veer off course and accidentally wind up at a slaughterhouse owned by cannibals.

The group of teens is led by Sally Hardesty, played by Marilyn Burns.

As the teens are chopped off grotesquely, similar to a slew of similar fashioned, but less interesting horror films to follow, Sally winds up the lone survivor of the group.

Burns plays the first “final girl”, a title made famous in horror films as the last female remaining alive- it was almost always a female- to take on the maniacal killer.

The Texas Chainsaw Massacre features one of the horror genre’s best villains- Leatherface.

The viewer knows little about him since he does not speak- is he mentally disabled? Is he an intelligent man? He is disguised behind a mask made of strewn-together human skin and wields a scary chainsaw.

We know nothing about him- only that he loves to kill.

The ambiguity is immeasurable.

Besides the way that the film is shot, another shocking element is the reality of the story. Could this happen to the viewer? The answer is yes of course it could. How many times have we been driving and gotten lost in surroundings unfamiliar to us?

There are no supernatural beings or CGI effects in this film- only a group of youngsters crossing paths with maniacs and this could happen in real life. This realization adds to the fright.

The famous- or infamous- dinner scene is revolutionary in disgust and distaste. The family attempts to serve Sally as dessert to the elderly patriarch and as he begins to suck blood from Sally’s finger, it will force the squeamish to turn away.

The Texas Chainsaw Massacre is a short film, running at only 84 minutes, but the breathtaking finale- Sally running through the endless woods followed by Leatherface, seems interminable. Will he catch her? How can she possibly escape?

The Texas Chainsaw Massacre (1974) is dirty, ugly, and intense. It is no-holds-barred brutality. It is one of the best horror films ever made.

Harold and Maude-1971

Harold and Maude-1971

Director Hal Ashby

Starring Bud Cort, Ruth Gordon

Top 100 Films #59

Scott’s Review #208

60000591

Reviewed December 30, 2014

Grade: A

Harold and Maude (1971) is the bravest and most left-of-center film that I have ever had the pleasure of viewing. A subject matter so taboo that it had never before been explored in cinema and, to my knowledge, has not since.

The film challenges so many mainstream views of aging, sex, and relationships.

Ruth Gordon and Bud Cort give performances of a lifetime.

The film tells the story of an unhappy, wealthy teenager named Harold (Cort) whose mother- hilariously played by Vivian Pickles- is a cold socialite attempting to reform Harold of his rebellious adolescent behavior.

Harold frequently plays suicide pranks on her and the numerous females she tries to set him up with, reducing them to tearful exits from the family mansion in frightened hysterics.

Obsessed with attending funerals for fun, one day Harold meets Maude (Gordon), an elderly woman, at a funeral, and it turns out that both share the same fascination, but for vastly different reasons as the story shows.

They embark on a tender romance despite their age difference of over sixty years.

In many ways, Maude is the real adolescent of the film, which I love. It is a role reversal of sorts. On the cusp of age eighty, she has a pure zest for life, living each minute as if it was her last, unconcerned with the consequences of her actions- she is a true free spirit.

She gleefully steals cars that happen to be parked on the street and her erratic driving is comically brilliant.

Harold becomes the more responsible one despite being the tender age of only nineteen. He cares for Maude and her shocking revelation towards the end of the film floors Harold.

It will also shock the audience.

Harold and Maude deal with death but the film is not a downer. It is hilarious at times, brilliantly written, and Maude, a Nazi prison camp survivor, does not fear death- she has seen her share of it and almost embraces it.

Harold is just beginning his life and the contrast of the characters and their growing bond is what works best in this film.

The aforementioned Vivian Pickles knocks it out of the park with her portrayal of Harold’s mother- her comic wit and timing are excellent- she callously hosts a dinner party and boasts of her travels to France to the guests while Harold sits ignored, bored, and depressed, staring at his mother in disbelief.

He wants nothing to do with her or her trivial lifestyle. She makes an unimportant phone call while Harold dangles from the ceiling in a faux suicide attempt- clearly a cry for attention from his mother.

This is a total black comedy.

The implied intimacy between Harold and Maude was too much for many viewers in 1971. I find it sweet and quite tastefully done. They simply fall in love and it feels wonderful for both of them.

I would be remiss for not mentioning the wonderful, lively soundtrack by Cat Stevens.

Edgy, laugh out loud, unusual, and witty are words to describe Harold and Maude (1971)- one of the most intelligent comedies in film history.

Heathers-1989

Heathers-1989

Director Michael Lehman

Starring Winona Ryder, Christian Slater

Scott’s Review #207

580335

Reviewed December 25, 2014

Grade: B

My gut tells me that Heathers was quite controversial and influential upon release in 1989 and has sustained a cult following that continues to this day- 2014.

Having seen the film for only the first time, in 2014, the film is good, but now suffers from a slightly dated look and feel. Still, it is a brave and unique expression of creativity.

It is a film that sends the message that the popular kids are bad and that the meek shall inherit the earth. The uncool kids will rise.

To summarize the plot, Heathers is told from the perspective of high school student Veronica Sawyer, played by a young Winona Ryder. She is a second-tier popular girl- she is lieutenant to the generals if you will.

The school is run by three popular girls named Heather. As popular as they are, they are also despised and feared by the other students but carry great influence. They enjoy playing cruel jokes on other students and ridiculing anyone beneath them.

A rebellious male student, J.D., played by Christian Slater, befriends Veronica and they hatch a plan to destroy the popular clique, including another pair of popular jocks.

Shannon Doherty plays second in command Heather.

The tone of Heather’s is surreal and dream-like. For example, in the opening scene all three Heathers- along with Veronica- are on a perfectly manicured lawn in the suburbs playing croquet.

The hierarchy is established as Veronica seems to be buried up to her neck and is the target of the croquet balls making her, without question, the lowest of the four girls. Whether or not this is a dream or real is unclear.

The film is well-written and edgy. It reminds me at times of The Ice Storm and American Beauty, which Heathers preceded, and are superior in my opinion.

Heathers is a teen angst film and quite dark at times- the various deaths are committed viciously (drain cleaner poisoning, concocting a setup for the jocks to appear to be having a love affair with each other and then passionately shooting each other), but with sly wit and humor.

Veronica is, at heart, a good girl, albeit misguided and heavily influenced by J.D., but her intentions of having a fair, just school society are noble. The character is likable.

All the parents are hilariously portrayed as buffoons and have no idea of the darkness that exists in their kid’s lives- Veronica’s parents in particular.

Fearing that Veronica has committed or soon will attempt suicide, they fret that it is their fault stemming from childhood negligence, however, their concern has more to do with themselves than with Veronica’s well-being.

Small gripes about the film are the 1980s style outfits and hairstyles, which, since made in the 1980s is not a particular fault of the films- though it does contain a slightly dated feel to it while watching in present times.

Also, Christian Slater mimicking Jack Nicholson’s voice is odd- was this a decision by the film or by the actor himself? Either way, the imitation is both distracting and confusing. What is the point?

The ending of the film is a happy and satisfying conclusion- however, different from the dark tone of the rest of the movie- rumor has it the studio had some influence in toning down the original ending.

1989 was not a stellar year for film so Heathers deserves major props for thinking outside the box and doing something dark and creative.

Brave, inventive, and unique, Heathers is a cult classic worth a look.

Independent Spirit Award Nominees: 1 win-Best Female Lead-Winona Ryder, Best Screenplay, Best First Feature (won)

Willy Wonka and the Chocolate Factory-1971

Willy Wonka and the Chocolate Factory-1971

Director Mel Stuart

Starring Gene Wilder, Jack Albertson

Top 100 Films #17

Scott’s Review #206

60020949

Reviewed December 18, 2014

Grade: A

More than just a children’s movie, Willy Wonka and the Chocolate Factory (1971) is a terrific, imaginative, fantasy film that is timeless and meant for all ages to enjoy.

The mastery and creativity of the sets and art direction are astounding and the story is sweet, whimsical, and capturing. Often with children’s movies, we are treated to dumb or contrived stories that will entertain five-year-olds, but make adults bored or cringe.

Willy Wonka and the Chocolate Factory is none of the above. It is intelligent and filled with magic and heart.

Charlie Bucket is a poor child whose mother washes clothes for a living. Along with his four bedridden grandparents, they live a meager existence in a small cottage somewhere in Europe.

Particularly close with his Grandpa Joe, the two of them become obsessed with a contest held by mysterious Willy Wonka, the owner of an enormous chocolate factory nearby.

The contest consists of five “Golden tickets” being hidden in Wonka bars. The five lucky winners will receive a lifetime supply of candy and a tour inside the long-since-closed chocolate factory.

After a series of circumstances, Charlie obtains one of the tickets and the adventure begins.

The build-up to the trip into Willy Wonka’s factory is gripping- mainly because the viewer knows that a magical treat is in store and is filled with curiosity- what will the chocolate factory look like? What is Mr. Wonka like?

The four other winners- Augustus Gloop, Veruca Salt, Violet Beauregarde, and Mike Teevee are all unique and creatively written characters- all spoiled brats in their way, so Charlie is the “normal” child and has a true rooting value to him.

As the five children, along with a designated parent- or in Charlie’s case, Grandparent, begin their journey throughout the chocolate factory the audience is treated to a psychedelic experience with fantastic sets- a river made of chocolate, an entirely edible garden, lickable wallpaper, a bubble room, and a frightening riverboat.

The film is bright and colorful within the walls of the factory which perfectly contrasts Charlie’s dreary existence in the outside world.

As the four bratty children meet their fates in joyfully imaginative ways- gum chewer Violet blows up like a blueberry after chewing experimental Wonka gum that she is warned not to, Veruca is deemed rotten after throwing a fit and topples down a garbage chute.

The film is breathtaking and imaginative, filled with wonderment.

Gene Wilder plays the role of Wonka as over-the-top and it works tremendously.

All of the child actors play their roles competently as each character is distinguished from the others.

I love the scary riverboat tunnel scene as it is frightening, psychedelic, and magnificent. I also love the contrast between the enchanting colorful second half to the bleakness of the first. The sets are some of my favorites in their lavishness.

Specifically, the relationship between Charlie and Grandpa Joe is wonderful. Grandpa Joe is a father figure to Charlie, but so is Willy Wonka in a completely different way.

The greed of the children is also interesting and one hurrahs as each one gets his or her comeuppance.

The songs from the film are remarkable and quite cutting edge- each time one of the lucky five golden ticket winners meets their doom, the Oompa Loompas sing a tune that visually has weird shapes and colors-psychedelic and very hippy, of the late 1960’s-early 1970s era.

Other numbers such as “I’ve Got a Golden Ticket”, “Cheer up Charlie”, and “The Candy Man” are memorable.

A film for the ages, Willy Wonka and the Chocolate Factory (1971) is a celebration of creative film and quite cerebral at times and is far superior to most children’s fantasy/musical films.

Skip the 2005 remake starring Johnny Depp and enjoy the original.

Oscar Nominations: Best Scoring: Adaptation and Original Song Score

Eastern Promises-2007

Eastern Promises-2007

Director David Cronenberg

Starring Viggo Mortensen, Naomi Watts

Scott’s Review #205

70059994

Reviewed December 15, 2014

Grade: B+

Eastern Promises is a 2007 Russian mafia thriller directed by David Cronenberg (The Fly, A History of Violence) that stars Viggo Mortensen, Naomi Watts, and Vincent Cassel.

The film is an uneven experience, seemingly meshing two stories together- one fascinating, one unnecessary.

Watts plays a British-Russian midwife named Anna, who works at a London hospital. She attempts to find the family of Tatiana, a fourteen-year-old girl who dies during childbirth leaving a diary written in Russian along with her newborn.

Anna struggles to unravel the mystery surrounding the girl which ends up involving the mafia.

Mortensen plays Nikolai, the mysterious chauffeur to crime lord Semyon, and Cassel plays Kirill, the disturbed, alcoholic son of Semyon.

The plot segues into a story of a somewhat relationship between Nikolai and Anna that is not quite romantic and also a much more intriguing relationship between Nikolai and Kirill as a brotherhood of sorts develops between them.

This relationship is complex- Kirill wants Nikolai to prove he is a straight male by having sex with one of several female prisoners he and his father keep as part of a sex trafficking group.

During this scene, and a few others, the two men seem close, almost too close, given the sexual nature of what is happening during the scene, so this relationship is left vague, but intriguing nonetheless.

The latter story holds more interest to me, whereas the former seems contrived and rather uninteresting. Was the intention of the film to imply a romantic interest between Anna and Nikolai?

I found zero chemistry between the two and wondered if the audience was supposed to root for them as a couple or not.

The four principal characters in Eastern Promises are interesting to unravel. I found the characters of Nikolai and Kirill complex and interesting.

Not so much with the character of Anna. Why did I not find her so compelling? Besides a skimmed over the mention of how she lost a baby what vested interest did she have in mixing with the Russian mafia and putting her mother and uncle in harm’s way?

Sure, anyone would want to find an orphaned baby’s family, but why not just call the police? This seems like a large plot hole. Conversely, Nikolai is a fascinating, layered character played wonderfully by Mortensen.

What are his true motivations? Is he a good guy or a bad guy? His attempts at being accepted by Semyon and the family to join the mob family make him seem dangerous- but his kindness towards one of the Ukrainian prostitutes is sweet.

Kirill is a despicable character, but what is his sexuality? Does that make him get so drunk and angry? How does one explain his conflict over the baby shifting his character too sympathetic?

Ultimately, Nikolai and Kirill are complicated- Anna and Semyon are more one-note.

I would have preferred the story solely revolve around the mafia family and the Godfather-type scenes, specifically the two throat-slashing scenes violently done, and perhaps leave out Watts’s character and story altogether.

A gritty scene that takes place in a steam room pits Nikolai against two rival mafia men. The scene is long and intense. Mortensen performs the scene completely naked, which adds to the rawness and the brutality of the fight.

It is one of the most masculine scenes I can remember watching.

At times compelling, but riddled with plot holes and requiring some suspension of disbelief, Eastern Promises (2007) is an entertaining Russian mafia film that remains a decent watch.

Oscar Nominations: Best Actor-Viggo Mortensen

The Greatest Show on Earth-1952

The Greatest Show on Earth-1952

Director Cecil B. DeMille

Starring Charlton Heston, Betty Hutton, James Stewart

Scott’s Review #204

60034703

Reviewed December 14, 2014

Grade: B+

Considered by some critics to be one of the worst Best Picture winners of all time, The Greatest Show on Earth (1952) is quite an impressive Hollywood spectacle and tells the story of the world’s largest railroad circus as they launch a tour and travel throughout the United States, with plenty of drama to experience throughout the film.

The film stars Charlton Heston, Betty Hutton, and James Stewart as the general manager, acrobat, and clown of the show, respectively.

The film used over 1,400 real Ringling Bros. and Barnum & Bailey employees and hundreds of animals in its production, giving it an authentic circus feel.

Unfortunately, the film also has a schmaltzy quality and lacks the best acting, which surprisingly does not bother me and, strangely enough, works in a way.

Various characters have affairs with each other or fall in and out of love rather quickly- it makes for good drama, anyway.

Of course, the main appeal is the extravagant show. While the drama sometimes takes center stage, the lavish production and actual circus events shine through.

My favorite character, and arguably the only interesting character with any depth, in The Greatest Show on Earth is Buttons the Clown, played by James Stewart.

Buttons wears his clown costume, complete with full makeup, at all times. He is kind and mysterious. We learn that he “mercy killed” his dying wife and has joined the circus for protection from the police.

A wonderful human being, he was once a Doctor and tends to anyone in the circus troupe who needs assistance. Later in the film, he plays a vital role after a tragic accident.

His heartbreaking, tender conversation with his elderly mother, whom he only sees secretly once a year for seconds as she tearfully and discreetly visits him in the audience, is painfully sad to watch and is such a sweet scene.

The Greatest Show on Earth’s best scene by far still impresses today is the massive train wreck close to the conclusion.

Made in 1952, the special effects and direction of Cecil B. DeMille are brilliant. The train derails one night in a perfect way—it crashes into an approaching train and derails, highly effective in its enormity.

The scene does not look silly.

The way that all of the drama comes together in this scene—Harry, the crooked midway concessionaire and vicious elephant trainer, Klaus, who is responsible for the accident, Button’s true identity being revealed, and a significant character in peril—makes this scene top-notch and a satisfying conclusion to the film.

The stories involving Brad, Holly, Sebastian, and Angel are soapy and melodramatic and are the film’s weakest point. As a viewer, I couldn’t care less which character lusted after which or who wound up in bed together, but the movie itself is a spectacle, which is my main enjoyment.

The brightness, the revelry, and the circus performances are all wonderful.

Oscar Nominations: 2 wins-Best Motion Picture (won), Best Director-Cecil B. DeMille, Best Story (won), Best Costume Design, Color, Best Film Editing

Oliver!-1968

Oliver! -1968

Director Carol Reed

Starring Mark Lester, Oliver Reed

Top 100 Films #55

Scott’s Review #203

822391

Reviewed December 10, 2014

Grade: A

Oliver! is a 1968 film based on the Charles Dickens novel Oliver Twist, which was then adapted into a successful stage musical. The film surprisingly won the Academy Award for Best Picture that year.

Surprising, not because Oliver! is poor, it is magnificent, but it was not predicted to take home the honor.

Telling the tale of the woeful orphan Oliver, the film wonderfully comes across as a dark musical with a wholesome happy ending feel, largely due to the musical compositions which inevitably make for a cheerier tone.

When the film begins, Oliver lives in a despicable orphanage outside of London. A drawing of straws forces meek Oliver to ask for more gruel.

After being deemed a problem child he is sold for cheap to an undertaker where he is bullied. Defeated, Oliver makes his way towards the big city in hopes of finding his fortunes.

He then meets sinister characters such as Fagin, the Artful Dodger, and Bill Sykes, as well as the sympathetic Nancy and Mr. Brownlow.

I love the musical numbers of the film and for me, it is the strongest aspect of Oliver. The film would have been much darker had it not been for the musical that it was.

Numbers such as “Consider Yourself”, “Food, Glorious Food”, and “As Long As He Needs Me” stick with audiences for days.

The entertaining songs lighten the somber moments- as noted earlier when meek Oliver dares to ask for more gruel, the enchanting “Food Glorious Food” cannot help but be hummed along to, which lightens the mood of the scene.

I also enjoy how the film contains the long-ago popular trend of containing two acts with an intermission in between- very grand and classy and an aspect of the film I wish would return in today’s movies.

The London art direction is magnificent, revealing a cold, industrial feel, mixed in with a warm, sunny atmosphere when Oliver stays at the palatial estate of Mr. Brownlow.

The bright and enchanting musical number “Who Will Buy?” is the perfect backdrop for this setting and my favorite number.

Nancy (Wallis) is one of the most complex characters- a prostitute, she happily sings, in denial about her life, in “It’s a Fine Life”, secretly wishing her life was better than it is.

Later, conflicted over helping Oliver or standing by her man she sings a melancholy number, “As Long As He Needs Me”, which cements her role as a tragic, sad character.

However, as she leads a drunken barroom in a dance of “Oom-Pah-Pah”, the drama is thick when she attempts to help Oliver at the risk of putting her own life in severe jeopardy.

Shani Wallis fills the character with heart and feeling.

Oliver! is a much darker film than one might imagine.

Curiously rated G, the film should have at least been rated PG. The film’s heart is that of a children’s movie- to me personally a turn-off, but the film is much stronger than that.

Some subject matters (like pedophilia) are toned down from Dicken’s novel, but not completely toned down.

Examples- the novel made clear overtones of child abuse by the thieves by Fagin, yet there is none of that in the film. Contrasting this, the film blatantly shows the beating death of Nancy- albeit out of camera range, but the audience gets enough of a glimpse to ascertain what is happening.

The shooting and swinging death of Bill Sykes border on brutality.

A glaring flaw of the film is that the voice of Oliver is dubbed by a female singer and not voiced by actor Mark Lester. To me, this seems quite obvious that the voice is not male.

The character of Bill Sykes is convincingly played by Oliver Reed, nephew of director Carol Reed.

Perfect around holiday time, Oliver! (1968) is a terrific musical drama, to be enjoyed for eons to come.

Oscar Nominations: 5 wins-Best Picture (won), Best Director-Carol Reed (won), Best Actor-Ron Moody, Best Supporting Actor-Jack Wild, Best Screenplay Based on Material from Another Medium, Best Score of a Musical Picture-Original or Adaptation (won), Best Sound (won), Best Costume Design, Best Art Direction (won), Best Cinematography, Best Film Editing

Last Tango in Paris-1972

Last Tango in Paris-1972

Director Bernardo Bertolucci

Starring Marlon Brando, Maria Schneider

Top 10 Disturbing Films #8

Scott’s Review #202

687496

Reviewed December 5, 2014

Grade: A-

Last Tango in Paris is a very dark 1972 erotica art film directed by Bernardo Bertolucci (The Conformist-1970), starring Marlon Brando as a disturbed, angry American man named Paul, whose wife has committed suicide.

He is left to survive on his own in Paris lost and without her where he runs a decrepit apartment complex.

Lonely and bitter, he meets a much younger Parisian woman (Maria Schneider), equally disturbed for different reasons, and they forge a relationship that is sometimes brutal, and degrading, but also contains mutual affection and need.

They are addicted to each other.

This film may very well be my favorite performance by Marlon Brando. He plays a hateful, unpleasant character, yet something is appealing about him and the viewer sympathizes with his grief.

That is to Brando’s credit, of course. A lesser actor would not be as effective.

He is damaged, treats everyone like shit, but there is also a vulnerability to him that is mesmerizing to watch. Brando was such a great, method actor that he simply morphs into the characters he plays. Paul is certainly the most raw and emotional performance of his career.

Actress Maria Schneider is also tremendous in the film. Equally disturbed, her character Jeanne experienced a vastly different upbringing- that of wealth and pampering.

She has a fiancé who loves her dearly, yet she is drawn to the power and abuse of Paul- the fact that he is an older man is sexy to her.

I kept thinking, “What is wrong with this woman?” She seemingly has everything, yet she yearns for excitement. Is Paul a fling for her? Does she care about him or is she using him? Is he using her? Could they be using each other?

The film raises many psychological questions. Jeanne is clearly in emotional turmoil. Both Jeanne and Paul are.

Last Tango in Paris is a difficult film to watch- several scenes are unpleasant, even brutal, but it is a character study of two damaged individuals.

When Paul anally penetrates Jeanne on the floor of his apartment, forcing her to recite gibberish, it is almost too much to bear. Paul wants to know nothing about Jeanne. He does not want to know her name, her past, nothing- complete anonymity. He lives for the present and their sex is animalistic, filled with lust and need.

But these examples are a testament to the power of Last Tango in Paris. It is not boring.

The finale leaves you wondering what will happen to Jeanne. Will she commit suicide? Will she return to her fiancé and life of luxury, her affair with Paul over? Was the affair only a fling for her or does she love Paul?

The film is a dark, tragic, romantic story. It is brutal, raw, and honest and is not to be missed.

Oscar Nominations: Best Director-Bernardo Bertolucci, Best Actor-Marlon Brando

Gone With The Wind-1939

Gone With The Wind-1939

Director Victor Fleming/George Cukor

Starring Clark Gable, Vivien Leigh, Olivia de Havilland

Top 100 Films #15

Scott’s Review #201

70020694

Reviewed December 4, 2014

Grade: A

Gone with the Wind (1939) is the grand masterpiece of the sweeping epic drama.

The film is based on Margaret Mitchell’s best-selling novel. Set in the South (Georgia) during the Civil War era, it centers on the life of Scarlett O’Hara, a southern belle who works on the cotton plantation Tara. After the South loses the war, she struggles to keep her plantation alive.

Initially, Scarlett cares little about the war but enjoys her spoiled, narcissistic lifestyle and romances with many men in the town, all vying for her attention. With all eyes on her, she revels in one sunny picnic and ball after another.

As war decimates the South, Scarlett must take over the plantation and survive the ravages of war.

Mixed in with the war theme is a romance between Scarlett and Rhett, one of cinema’s most recognized and enduring couples. Having gone through three directors (Victor Fleming, George Cukor, and Sam Wood), the film is as extravagant and precise in its style, attention to detail, and set design as films come.

At close to four hours, Gone with the Wind is a lavish production that can take an entire afternoon or evening to watch. It is divided into two halves—interestingly, Cukor directs the first half, and Fleming primarily directs the second.

It is a film that can be viewed and analyzed repeatedly, and the set pieces and flawless perfection alone are marveled at. The first half is superior to the second, but that is like comparing prime rib to filet mignon—it’s a preference for goodies.

The first half is brighter, cheery, and fantastic. The excellent Tara and neighboring plantation Twin Oaks host southern balls and parties filled with romance, gossip, and beautiful costumes. War is coming, but it is a delightful time of merriment.

The Southerners embrace going to war, which they assume will last for two weeks and that they will be victorious. They party and celebrate.

The second half has a much darker tone.

By the beginning of the second half, Atlanta has burned, thousands of men have died, Tara is decimated, Scarlett’s mother died, and her father went batty.

The rebuilding of the South is explored, the troubled Rhett and Scarlett marriage commences, their daughter dies, and the world-famous line uttered by Rhett to Scarlett, “Frankly my dear…. I don’t give a damn”.

Having been now directed by a different person (Fleming), the first and second halves almost seem like two separate films.

Vivien Leigh plays a beautiful role. In 1939, women were rarely strong characters in films, so Gone with the Wind is groundbreaking for female characters.

Scarlett is selfish but rises above, is strong, saves her plantation, and succeeds as a successful businesswoman—almost unheard of in cinema in 1939. Her undying love for Ashley Wilkes but her inability to obtain him (he is married to his cousin Melanie) gives her a sympathetic vulnerability.

Clark Gable, already a massive star and the people’s choice to play Rhett, is charismatic and handsome. The fact that he and Leigh did not get along makes their fights and sexual tension electric. They love but hate each other, which is transmitted on screen.

Rhett is his own man—he defines himself as not a Northerner but not a Southerner. He is a vagabond and spends many nights at the local brothel in the company of Belle Watling. Rhett’s character is independent and strong.

The supporting characters are colorful, lively, and humorous. Aunt Pittypat’s dramatic worrying and smelling salts and Prissy’s insistence on expert childbirth when, in reality, she knows nothing is moments meant to lighten the mood.

Mammie, Scarlett’s mother figure, is a moral, kind, yet tough character. Melanie (Olivia de Havilland) is an even sweeter character in her caring and selflessness.

Lesser characters like Dr. Meade, Suellen, Carreen, India, and Frank Kennedy serve their purpose and are no throwaway.

It is bothersome that, over the years, Gone with the Wind has been unfairly “feminized” once it began airing as an alternative to the annual Super Bowl. The assumption was that only women would enjoy it, which is silly.

I do not find this film to be a female film, and frankly, some of the battle scenes are pretty masculine, with epic fires and guns galore. Is Gone with the Wind now considered a racist film?

Perhaps so, and time has made the political incorrectness much more glaring- this point can be debated endlessly. Ashley participates in a hooded Klan organization and is a hero of the film!

Indeed, throughout the film, the enslaved people are portrayed as happy, kindly, and comfortable with their place in life, vastly different from what transpired. However, Hattie McDaniel (Mammie) won the first-ever Oscar for a black actress, which was monumental progress and influence.

Using seemingly thousands of extras, the war-torn Atlanta scene where the camera rises up and up and up, panning down on hundreds of wounded and dead Union soldiers as Scarlett defeatedly walks among them, is still heartbreaking to watch and is a reminder of the power and destruction that war is.

Gone with the Wind is an epic masterpiece from long ago that still holds up amazingly well. The sets, the rich characters, and the costumes can be admired and still inspire today.

Oscar Nominations: 8 wins-Outstanding Production (won), Best Director-Victor Fleming (won), Best Actor-Clark Cable, Best Actress-Vivien Leigh (won), Best Supporting Actress-Hattie McDaniel (won), Olivia de Havilland, Best Screenplay (won), Best Original Score, Best Sound Recording, Best Art Direction (won), Best Cinematography, Color (won), Best Film Editing (won), Best Special Effects

Who’s Afraid of Virginia Woolf?-1966

Who’s Afraid of Virginia Woolf? -1966

Director Mike Nichols

Starring Elizabeth Taylor, Richard Burton

Top 100 Films #41

Scott’s Review #200

1120753

Reviewed December 3, 2014

Grade: A

Who’s Afraid of Virginia Woolf? This dark film is directed by Mike Nichols (The Graduate), based on the play from the early 1960s.

Thankfully, the Production Code had been lifted by 1966, allowing edgier, darker films to be made—think The Wild Bunch or Bonnie and Clyde from the same period.

Who’s Afraid of Virginia Woolf? is dreary, bleak, and with damn good acting by all four principles.

George and Martha (Richard Burton and Elizabeth Taylor) are associate history professors and the college president’s daughter, respectively. They live in a small town in New England.

They have a bitter love/hate relationship.

One night, they invite young newlyweds Nick (George Segal) and Honey (Sandy Dennis), a new professor and his wife, over for drinks at 2:00 a.m.

From this point, a destructive night of verbal assaults and psychological games ensues with damaging and sad results for all parties involved, as their personal lives are exposed and dissected.

At the forefront are George and Martha, who have a relationship based on insults, neediness, secrets, and booze. After an evening out, they return home and have a vicious fight.

When their young friends arrive, the tension is thick.

Eventually, the young couple becomes sucked into the older couple’s web of dysfunction, aided by endless drinks throughout the night.

The film is shot in black and white, like a play, which I found highly effective. Most scenes occur in George and Martha’s house.

While all four actors are great (and were all Oscar-nominated), my standouts are Taylor and Dennis.

In my opinion, this role is Taylor’s finest acting performance. She is overweight, bitter, angry, frustrated, drunk, and, at times, vicious to her husband. This performance is different from many of her other film roles and just dynamite.

As her anger flares up, the heat and intensity oozing from the screen can be felt. She goes from vulnerable and soft one moment to a grizzled, bitter woman the next.

Conversely, Dennis is pure, innocent—kind, vulnerable, impressionable, and somewhat of a ninny. Having had too much brandy and spent more than one occasion in the bathroom, Dennis successfully plays giddiness and innocence to the hilt.

Both Martha and Honey harbor dark secrets, which eventually are revealed.

The ambiance is just amazing. The black-and-white cinematography gives the film a hot, suffocating feel. It feels like a quiet little college hamlet, and the setting of the eerily quiet wee hours of the morning is conveyed successfully.

Each story told- mainly by George and Martha- is captivating in its viciousness (both usually belittling the other) that the film becomes mesmerizing in its shock value at the insults hurled.

What will they say or do next?

I loved the scene where Honey awkwardly dances at a late-night bar the four go to. Also, the shotgun scene where George obtains the gun from the garage during one of Martha’s insulting tales is disturbing- what will he do with the gun?

The stories involving George and Martha’s son are sad and mysterious- the viewer wonders what is happening.

The final reveal still gives me chills.

Who’s Afraid of Virginia Woolf? (1966) is one of the greatest film adaptations of a play I have ever seen.

Oscar Nominations: 5 wins-Best Picture, Best Director-Mike Nichols, Best Actor-Richard Burton, Best Actress-Elizabeth Taylor (won), Best Supporting Actor-George Segal, Best Supporting Actress-Sandy Dennis (won), Best Screenplay Based on Material from Another Medium, Best Original Music Score, Best Sound, Best Art Direction, Black-and-White (won), Best Cinematography, Black-and-White (won), Best Costume Design, Black-and-White (won), Best Film Editing

The Theory of Everything-2014

The Theory of Everything-2014

Director James Marsh

Starring Eddie Redmayne, Felicity Jones

Scott’s Review #199

80000644

Reviewed December 2, 2014

Grade: A-

The Theory of Everything (2014) tells the uplifting true story of renowned theoretical physicist Stephen Hawking (played by Eddie Redmayne) and his lifelong battle with a debilitating illness- motor neuron disease, which he was diagnosed with in college.

He and his future wife, literature student Jane Wilde (played by Felicity Jones), meet in 1963 at the prestigious Cambridge University in England and fall madly in love.

From this point, the film focuses on their life-long love affair and Stephen’s subsequent health battles.

Redmayne is wonderful in the lead role.

Portraying a character with both speech and mobility deterioration is not an easy task, especially as the problems become worse and worse over time forcing the actor to express varying levels of disability.

Redmayne rises to the occasion with both believability and conviction making his portrayal as real as possible.

The performance fondly reminded me of another great physical performance, Daniel Day-Lewis in My Left Foot from 1989.

Redmayne is a rising star in Hollywood.

Felicity Jones is also good, though I feel many actresses could have handled the role and there is not as much meat in her part as Redmayne’s.

The remainder of the cast is British actors making the film an authentic feeling. Emily Watson, who plays Jane’s mother, shamefully receives only one scene. Was this talented actress’s role cut?

I get the sense that the filmmakers had Oscar on their minds as the film is geared towards mainstream audiences with a wholesome slant.

The film skims past the complex theories and mathematical aspects and focuses more on the inspirational tale of a person overcoming an immense challenge.

Furthermore, the subsequent quadrangle between Hawking, Jane, Jane’s choir leader (Jonathan), and Hawking’s nurse (Elaine) are toned down and safe from what transpired. Hawking’s family accused his nurse of abusing him which is never mentioned in the film.

The film presents their relationship as wonderful, so clearly, some facts have been softened or omitted altogether, an example of how the film goes for a moral feel.

The situation involving the four real-life characters is messy, but the film makes it seem sweet. Presumably, this is because all the characters are still alive.

This is an interesting aspect of the film and is not necessarily a criticism as much as a perception. Many films embellish reality for entertainment value.

The pairing of Jane and Jonathan seemed inevitable from the moment they met. They had much in common (religion), whereas Stephen and Jane were complete opposites- she was catholic, he was atheist.

The sexual chemistry between Stephen and Elaine was evident when they met. Elaine’s energetic sexiness perfectly contrasts with Jane’s at that point in the film- haggardness and weariness.

The film is not designed to be a downer as it could have been. The focus might have been more sadder than it was. Rather, it is sentimental and empowering.

The Theory of Everything (2014) is a heartwarming, conventional, human story about a man rising above adversity, and at the center of the film is one dynamic performance by Eddie Redmayne.

Oscar Nominations: 1 win-Best Picture, Best Actor-Eddie Redmayne (won), Best Actress-Felicity Jones, Best Adapted Screenplay, Best Original Score

The Normal Heart-2014

The Normal Heart-2014

Director Ryan Murphy

Starring Mark Ruffalo, Matt Bomer

Scott’s Review #198

70302186

Reviewed December 1, 2014

Grade: B+

The Normal Heart is a 2014 HBO television movie based on the true story of Ned Weeks, an openly gay AIDS activist/writer, played by Mark Ruffalo.

The film is set during the period when the epidemic first surfaced, from 1981-1984, and the challenges and frustrations faced, mostly within the gay community, to bring exposure and assistance to the disease.

Weeks was famous for establishing a group of passionate members who banded together to attempt to hurdle these struggles.

The film was produced by Brad Pitt.

This is wonderful to know as films with this content (AIDS) are often tough to produce. It’s wonderful that Pitt’s wealth and influence were used effectively.

At a vastly different time in the country to be gay, the government did very little to assist with financing funding for treatment or researching a cure for it, which is the main point of the story.

The talented cast makes this film what it is.

Matt Bomer plays Ned’s closeted gay lover, Felix Turner, one of the many casualties of the deadly disease. Bomer lost forty pounds in preparation for the role.

Julia Roberts plays polio-stricken doctor, Emma Brookner, who was instrumental in helping the sick when few others within the medical community wanted to.

Other actors providing support are Alfred Molina, who plays Ned’s supportive, powerful, attorney and brother, and Joe Mantello, who has a terrific meltdown scene as his anger and anguish over the disease not being taken seriously by the government finally bubble to the surface.

Finally, Mark Ruffalo plays Ned competently, but why the slight feminization of the character? The real Ned Weeks was masculine. A needless stereotype the film (or Ruffalo) chose to pursue.

The film shows the discrimination faced by AIDS victims, from an airline pilot refusing to fly a plane carrying a sick patient, to an electrician refusing to enter a patient’s hospital room to fix a television set.

This is sad when one realizes how ridiculous these unfounded fears proved to be.

According to the film’s statistics, a major point of the film is how the United States Government, specifically President Reagan, did very little in the way of funding or even wanting to discuss the issue for years following the initial outbreak, resulting in thousands of lost lives.

And why exactly is Reagan considered a great President?

It makes one ponder. It was only due to beloved Hollywood star Rock Hudson acquiring and dying from the disease and Elizabeth Taylor using her star power to get people involved that finally led to the topic being discussed and action taken on a federal level.

My slight criticism of the film is that it looks and feels like a television movie similar in texture to Behind the Candelabra (2013), another HBO film.

The colors are bright and vivid and look television-like. could have used darker lighting and perhaps a gloomier more dower feel, especially given the subject matter involved in the story.

Otherwise, thumbs up and respect for bringing this story to millions of viewers and hopefully educating those who were not there.

The Godfather: Part II-1974

The Godfather: Part II-1974

Director Frances Ford Coppola

Starring Al Pacino, Robert DeNiro

Top 100 Films #3

Scott’s Review #197

60011663

Reviewed: November 25, 2014

Grade: A

Frances Ford Coppola’s sequel (and technically also a prequel) to the highly regarded and successful The Godfather (1972) is one of the rare sequels to equal and even surpass the original in its greatness, creativity, and structure.

The Godfather Part II (1974) feels deeper, more complex, and ultimately richer than The Godfather- and that film itself is a masterpiece. Part II is much darker in tone. Ford Coppola had complete freedom to write and direct as he saw fit with no studio interference.

The results are immeasurable in creating a film masterpiece.

The film is sectioned into two parts, which is a highly interesting and effective decision.

The story alternates between the early twentieth century following Don Corleone’s life, now played by Robert DeNiro, as his story is explained- left without a family and on the run from a crime lord, Don escapes to the United States as a young boy and struggles to survive in the Little Italy neighborhood of New York City.

He obtains a modest job as a grocery stockboy and finally celebrates his eventual rise to power in the mafia.

The other part of the film is set in 1958 as Michael Corleone is faced with a crumbling empire, through both rivals and the FBI- investigating him and holding Senate committee hearings in Washington D.C., and a failing marriage to Kay (Diane Keaton).

Betrayal is a common theme of the film from Michael’s wife, brother, and mobster allies revealed to be cagey enemies. Michael grows uncertain and mistrustful of almost everyone surrounding him. Is Kay a friend or foe? Is Fredo plotting against him? He even begins lashing out at Tom Hagen on occasion.

What makes The Godfather Part II so brilliant, and in my opinion richer than The Godfather, is that it is tougher to watch- and that is to its credit. Now, instead of being a warm, respected member of a powerful family, Michael is questioned, analyzed, and betrayed.

New, interesting characters are introduced- Hyman Roth, played by Lee Strasburg, a former ally of Don’s, and Frankie Pentangeli, played by Michael V. Gazzo are intriguing characters and their allegiances are unknown throughout most of the film- are they loyal to the Corleone’s or deadly enemies?

The character of Michael goes from conflicted to all-out revenge-minded, including revenge sought on members of his own family. Michael is now a dark, angry character- gone is the nice, decorated war hero with his whole life ahead of him. He is much older and a changed man.

Similar to the original Godfather, the opening scene is a large celebration- this time Anthony Corleone’s first communion celebration. Also in comparison, the finale of the film involves major character deaths one after the other.

Unique to this film are the multiple location scenes- New York, Nevada, Italy, Florida, and Cuba are all featured making for an enjoyable segue throughout and a bigger budget.

The blow-up confrontation between Michael and Kay is devastating and shocking in its climax. When Michael punches Kay in a sudden rage, the audience also feels punched.

The wonderful scene at the end of the film with the entire family gathered around for Don’s fiftieth birthday in 1942 is a special treat for viewers; familiar faces make cameo appearances.

I love these aspects of the film.

The rich history of Don is the greatest aspect of The Godfather Part II simply known as “Godfather” and patriarch of the family, his life as a boy and young father are explained so we see how he became one of the most powerful men in the crime world.

I love how he remains a decent man and helps the poor and the victims of ruthless Don Fanucci, his predecessor. He loves his wife and children, but also loves his neighbors, and helps them, believing in fairness.

Ultimately, the characters of Don and Michael are worlds apart.

The Godfather Part II (1974) is one of the most complex and well-written films in movie history- studied in film school, discussed, imitated, and championed. It remains vital and should be viewed and analyzed again and again and again.

Oscar Nominations: 5 wins-Best Picture (won), Best Director-Francis Ford Coppola, Best Actor-Al Pacino, Best Supporting Actor-Robert De Niro (won), Michael V. Gazzo, Lee Strasberg, Best Supporting Actress-Talia Shire, Best Screenplay Adapted from Other Material (won), Best Original Dramatic Score (won), Best Costume Design, Best Art Direction (won)

The Godfather-1972

The Godfather-1972

Director Frances Ford Coppola

Starring Marlon Brando, Al Pacino, James Caan

Top 100 Films #10

Scott’s Review #196

60011152

Reviewed November 24, 2014

Grade: A

The Godfather (1972) is one of the most identifiable and brilliant film masterpieces of all time. It is so ingrained in pop culture and film history and was such a blueprint of 1970s cinema that its legend deservedly lives on.

The film has not aged poorly nor been soured by over-exposure. It is as much a marvel today as it must have been when originally released in theaters.

The film revolves around the Corleone family- a mob family living in New York. They are high-powered, wealthy, and influential with politicians and law enforcement alike. They are the cream of the crop of organized crime families.

The patriarch of the family is known as “The Godfather”, the real name is Don Corleone, played by Marlon Brando.

The eldest son is hot-headed Sonny, played by James Caan. Middle son Fredo, played by John Cazale, is dim-witted and immature and the weak link in the family.

Finally, the youngest son is the central character in the film. Michael, played by a very youthful Al Pacino, has just returned home from World War II, a decorated and Ivy League-educated hero.

Throughout the film, Michael wrestles with either steering the Corleone family business toward the straight and narrow or continuing the death, blood, and corruption that currently encompasses the family.

Rounding out the Corleone family is Tom Hagen, an Irish surrogate son of sorts, who serves as the family attorney. Connie- the temperamental and emotional sister, and Mama Corleone, the passive wife of Don complete the main family.

The various supporting characters are immense, from family friends, relatives, corrupt mob figures, and characters introduced when Michael lives in Italy.

The brilliance of The Godfather is the richness of the enormous amount of characters on the canvas and the structure and pacing of the film.

Even small characters are vital to the film and every scene is important and effortlessly paced so that they neither seem rushed nor dragged, and the film is immeasurably character-driven.

My favorite character is Michael Corleone as he is the most troubled and complex. Pacino plays him to the hilt as, initially, a nice guy trying to do the right thing, going against the grain, and non-traditional- he proposes to a waspy woman who has no Italian heritage.

When events develop in a particular way, Michael suddenly becomes the leader of the family, despite being the youngest son, and the complexities of the character deepen from this point.

Specifically, the revenge killing sequence is brilliant as the viewer is kept on the edge of their seat through a car ride, a meal in a restaurant, and a men’s room scene, until finally, all hell breaks loose, all the while Michael is conflicted, unsure, and intense.

Has he veered too far from being a nice guy? Can he salvage the family business without being ruthless? Michael faces a battle of good vs. evil.

The scenes are brilliantly structured- the grand opening scene alone is beautiful as the audience is introduced to the entire family- cheerfully dancing and frolicking during a bright and sunny outdoor wedding (Connie’s) at the Corleone estate, while inside a dark interior study, a man begs Don Corleone to help avenge his raped and beaten daughter by having her attackers killed.

Several scenes in The Godfather are my personal favorites- the aforementioned restaurant scene, where Michael is faced with a dilemma involving a corrupt policeman and a high-powered figure, one can feel the tension in this extended scene.

The scene in a Hollywood mansion where poor, innocent, horse Khartoum meets his fate in the most gruesome way imaginable.

Later, Michael’s beautiful Italian wife, Apollonia, has an explosive send-off.

Towards the end of the film, the improvised tomato garden scene with an elderly Don Corleone playing with his young grandson.

Finally, the brutal scene involving Corleone’s son Sonny at the toll booth is mesmerizing, brutal, and flawlessly executed.

The lack of any strong female characters and how women are treated (either beaten or passively following their husbands) is bothersome, but unfortunately, circa 1940s mafia, this is the way things were.

One could make the argument that Kay Adams, played by Diane Keaton, is the strongest female character as she questions the Corleone family’s motives and attempts to keep Michael honest and trustworthy. She has little in common with the other female characters.

Lines such as “I’m gonna make him an offer he can’t refuse” and “Don’t forget the cannolis” are unforgettable and quote-worthy.

The finale of the film is breathtaking- a combination of bloody kills mixed in with a peaceful scene of Michael accepting the honor of becoming his nephew’s godfather. As he pledges his devotion to God and denounces Satan, the murders he orchestrated are simultaneously being executed.

The character, while complex, suddenly becomes a hypocrite.

Some view Michael as strictly a hero whose choices should not be questioned or analyzed- others view Michael as not a hero, but rather a complex, tortured, bad guy.

One simply must watch The Godfather and The Godfather Part II (1974) as companion pieces, as Part I is slightly more straightforward and easier to follow than the more complex and layered sequel.

The Godfather (1972) is storytelling and filmmaking at its absolute best and continues to influence films to this day.

Oscar Nominations: 3 wins-Best Picture (won), Best Director-Francis Ford Coppola, Best Actor-Marlon Brando (won), Best Supporting Actor-James Caan, Robert Duvall, Al Pacino, Best Screenplay Based on Material from Another Medium (won), Best Costume Design, Best Sound, Best Film Editing

Mommie Dearest-1981

Mommie Dearest-1981

Director Frank Perry

Starring Faye Dunaway

Top 100 Films #44

Scott’s Review #195

60020629

Reviewed November 20, 2014

Grade: A

Camp, camp, camp!

By this point in film history, Mommie Dearest and this description go hand in hand, but when made in 1981, it was meant to be a much more serious film than it turned out to be.

Sadly, due to a few very over-the-top lines, it is forever inducted into the halls of cult classic memory.

Based on the scandalous tell-all book written by Christina Crawford (Joan’s adopted daughter), Mommie Dearest tells the story of Joan Crawford, a Hollywood screen legend, from her heyday in the 1930s, until she died in 1977, and mostly focuses on the tumultuous relationship with Christina- played as an adult by Diana Scarwid.

Convinced a baby was missing from her life and unable to conceive after several miscarriages with a former flame, Crawford’s beau at the time, an attorney, wrangles a way for her to adopt both Christina and later, Christopher Crawford.

Dealing with her mother’s demands and abuse, Christina goes from a happy little girl to a rebellious teen sent to live in a convent and later struggling to find her way as an actress in New York City with no financial support from Mom.

The film also wonderfully describes the career of Crawford- from highs (winning the Academy Award for Mildred Pierce) to lows (being cut from MGM and reduced to screen tests). The film also recounts Joan Crawford’s continuing battles with booze and neuroses.

From start to finish the film belongs to Dunaway as she simply becomes Crawford- the eyelashes, the mannerisms, every detail is spot on.

Unfortunately for Dunaway, due to the unintentional comedic view of this film, she was robbed of an Oscar nomination, shamefully so. The film was awarded several Razzies- a derogatory honor given to the year’s worst films. Dunaway must have put her heart and soul into this performance.

During the infamous wire hanger scene, Dunaway looks frightening as her face, caked with cold cream, reveals a grotesque mask- reminiscent of Batman character The Joker- as she shrieks at her daughter in the middle of the night, during a drunken tirade, after finding beautiful clothes on wire hangers.

She then trashes her daughter’s bathroom insisting it is already filthy.

One will shriek with gales of laughter as Crawford berates her maid Helga for not scrubbing beneath a potted plant, only to insist, “I’m not mad at you Helga, I’m mad at the dirt”.

In another haunting scene, Joan throws a birthday party for Christina complete with a merry-go-round, balloons, presents, and the paparazzi. Joan’s attire is a little girl dress matching young Christina’s- a morbid foreshadowing of the competition that is to exist between them as the years go by.

The secondary characters are merely an extension of Dunaway’s character and do their best to support her- her harried live-in assistant, Carol Ann, played by Rutanya Alda, both of her love interests, lawyer, Greg Savitt, played by Steve Forrest, and later, Pepsi-Cola mogul Alfred Steele, played by Harry Goz.

The actors do their best with the material given and are neither exceptional nor flawed. None of these supporting characters have any backstory other than to react to Crawford’s drama and, if written better, may have given the film a bit more depth.

The look of the film is pleasing- Crawford’s house is beautifully decorated with lavish furniture and the colors throughout the film are both bright and vivid. The now-legendary lines of “No wire hangers ever!”, “Christina! Bring me the ax!”, and “Don’t fuck with me fellas, this ain’t my first time at the rodeo” are hysterical in their melodrama and effect.

Crawford is portrayed as an obsessive-compulsive, demanding, control freak. One may debate the authenticity of the claims Christina made against Joan Crawford until the end of time.

Not the masterpiece it was intended to be, Mommie Dearest (1981) can be enjoyed viewing after viewing for some campy silliness, with one hell of a great performance by Dunaway mixed in.

The Towering Inferno-1974

The Towering Inferno-1974

Director John Guillermin

Starring Paul Newman, Steve McQueen

Top 100 Films #43

Scott’s Review #194

1059232

Reviewed November 15, 2014

Grade: A

The Towering Inferno (1974) epitomizes the disaster film craze heaped on audiences throughout the 1970s (Airport, Airport ‘75 and ‘77, The Poseidon Adventure (1972), and Earthquake (1974) to name a few).

I am (guilt-free) a huge fan of this 1970s movie genre, though some certainly look down on it, I am not one of them and feel The Towering Inferno is one of the greatest.

The film is enormous and has such a sense of adventure and danger.

The grand film tells of the trials and tribulations of an enormous cast of characters trapped inside an inferno-flamed skyscraper – led by Paul Newman and Steve McQueen (fun fact- the two actors reportedly despised each other).

An incredible skyscraper is erected in San Francisco, at one hundred and thirty-eight floors it is professed to be the tallest building in the world and incredibly state-of-the-art. At the ribbon-cutting ceremony, an elaborate party is held atop the building overlooking the gorgeous Pacific Ocean.

Due to faulty electrical wiring, the building catches fire and the cast of characters faces one challenge after another to escape the grips of death.

The stellar cast features stars like William Holden, Faye Dunaway, Fred Astaire, Robert Wagner, Jennifer Jones, and O.J. Simpson in addition to Newman and McQueen.

The film is quite a soap opera style- numerous characters are introduced, many having affairs with each other or suffering some sort of conflict.

Wagner having a torrid office romance with his secretary played by then up-and-coming star Susan Flannery is deliciously sexy and I yearned to know more about both characters.

Holden’s son-in-law is responsible for the faulty electrical system yet blames his father-in-law for cutting budgets.

Another subplot involves Astaire’s character attempting to swindle Jones’s character but then falling in love with her. The plots are so melodramatic that, given the period of the film, it has a definite primetime television soap opera style to it- think Dallas or Dynasty in a state of peril.

I enjoyed the enormous cast and trying to guess who will be killed off next and in what elaborate way the film will burn them to death is a joy to watch- several victims fall or jump to their deaths, which eerily (and sadly) bring back morbid images of jumpers from the World Trade towers on 9/11.

The beginning of the film shows a dedication to firemen everywhere and the film has a definite moral and heroical quality to the firemen sent to rescue the people in the building. They are portrayed as heroes and intended not to be forgotten amid all the drama encompassing the story. This is admirable.

The special effects are elaborate and quite impressive- the glass elevator rescue scene is amazing! The beautiful set designs are a treat to watch as each lobby, apartment, or lounge in the skyscraper is exquisitely designed at the height of the 1970s style.

Every sofa or carpet featured is plush, colorful, and sophisticated. The skyscraper, made of glass, is an amazing element of the film, and the aerial views of the building, especially while ablaze are impressive, to say the least- remember- 1974 was long before CGI. I am assuming small replicas of the building were used, but what an achievement from a visual perspective.

The effects certainly champion the syrupy story elements.

My only small gripe with The Towering Inferno is, assumed to be 138 stories high, the action taking place at the top of the tower- the rooftop as well as the party scenes on the top floor- do not feel that high- The scenic outlook overlooking the water and some land feel about twenty-five stories high, not one hundred and thirty-eight.

Some find The Towering Inferno (1974) to be nothing more than schmaltzy drama- I say schmaltz was never done better.

Enjoy this feast of a big film.

Oscar Nominations: 3 wins-Best Picture, Best Supporting Actor-Fred Astaire, Best Original Dramatic Score, Best Song-“We May Never Love Like This Again” (won), Best Sound, Best Art Direction, Best Cinematography (won), Best Film Editing (won)

What Ever Happened to Baby Jane?-1962

What Ever Happened to Baby Jane? -1962

Director Robert Aldrich

Starring Bette Davis, Joan Crawford

Top 100 Films #71     Top 20 Horror Films #18

Scott’s Review #193

70048556

Reviewed November 14, 2014

Grade: A

Baby Jane kicked off a trend, prominent throughout the 1960s, of aging Hollywood actresses starring in horror films (interestingly, Bette Davis and Joan Crawford each did two—the others being Dead Ringer and Strait-Jacket), with varying degrees of success.

What Ever Happened to Baby Jane (1962), directed by Robert Aldrich, stars Davis and Crawford as, ironically enough, two aging Hollywood actresses, Jane and Blanche Hudson.

Jane (Davis), a child star in the 1920s nicknamed Baby Jane, with an adorable signature song, “I’ve Written a Letter to Daddy,” has long since faded from the spotlight but continues to dress in her Baby Jane costume, consisting of a little girl dress with hair in curls and ribbons.

Blanche, however, garnered her success as an adult in the 1930s until a tragic accident, which left her wheelchair-bound and subsequently ruined her career, became a popular film star, much more popular than Jane.

Blanche and Jane now while away the years away in a crumbling mansion in Los Angeles. Blanche is entirely dependent on her unbalanced sister for care. Jane is resentful of Blanche’s success and popularity and plans to re-launch her career in her once-famous alter ego.

The film has macabre comedic elements but never veers too far over the edge into camp or foolishness. It is also a very psychological film, as Jane mentally abuses Blanche and plays mind games with her to gain the upper hand.

Davis had a ball with this role as her appearance alone is frightful- a grown woman of a certain age in blonde curls, pancake makeup, and a baby doll dress- she looks hideous!

What Ever Happened to Baby Jane reminds me quite a bit of Billy Wilder’s masterpiece Sunset Boulevard in several ways- both feature successful stars of years past with delusions of returning to their former fame, both feature older women more than a tinge unbalanced, both films are set in sunny Los Angeles.

Two of the film’s supporting actors are well cast, adding much to this film and must be given recognition- Victor Buono, later made famous for his role of King Tut in the popular late 1960’s television series Batman, is highly effective as the opportunist sloth, Edwin Flagg, who aids Jane in her comeback attempt.

Maidie Norman as the Hudson sisters’ black housekeeper, Elvira, loyal to Blanche but never a fan of Jane’s, slowly becomes wise to Jane’s sinister plot and does a wonderful acting job when she stands up to the manipulative sister- for 1962, a black maid verbally assaulting a white woman employer was still somewhat taboo and kudos to the film for bravely going there is a highly effective scene.

The fact that Davis and Crawford famously despised each other in real life gives the audience an edge in scenes where the two women fight and claw at each other physically and verbally.

The film has wonderfully quotable dialogue- “We got rats in the cellar,” Jane utters matter-of-factly as she serves Blanche a cooked rat on a bed of lettuce for lunch one day and cackles fiendishly when she hears Blanche screams of disgust.

One aspect of the film that has taken me three viewings to become aware of and that I love is the musical score throughout the film- it features multiple and creepy versions of Jane’s signature song, “I’ve Written a Letter to Daddy,” with varying tempos.

This film must use suspension of disbelief. Why does Blanche not pound and scream at her bedroom window to alert the neighbor of trouble instead of casually tossing a note out the window?

Blanche struggles to descend steps by sliding down them and then cannot slide across the floor to escape the mansion, which is silly. The film is so gripping that I happily overlook these errors and instead enjoy the suspenseful film with two actresses, rivals onscreen and off-screen, that make this film a bit too realistic, a realism that makes for delightful film watching.

Oscar Nominations: 1 win-Best Actress-Bette Davis, Best Supporting Actor-Victor Buono, Best Sound, Best Cinematography, Black-and-White, Best Costume Design, Black-and-White (won)

Whiplash-2014

Whiplash-2014

Director Damien Chazelle

Starring Miles Teller, J.K. Simmons

Scott’s Review #192

70299275

Reviewed November 13, 2014

Grade: A

Whiplash (2014) is a film about an aspiring nineteen-year-old Jazz drummer, Andrew Neyman, played by rising star Miles Teller (known for 2013’s indie teen drama The Spectacular Now), who is attending one of the most revered musical schools in the country, the Schaffer Conservatory in New York.

He is mentored and terrorized by his intense and sometimes sadistic conductor, Terence Fletcher, portrayed by J.K. Simmons.

Andrew aspires to be the best drummer and worships Buddy Rich, a famous Jazz drummer from the 1930s and 1940s, who he constantly listens to and emulates.

While Andrew aspires to make the school orchestra that desperately needs a new drummer, he meets a cute girl, Nicole, at the concession stand of his favorite movie theater, and they bond.

Also in the mix is Andrew’s father, played by Paul Reiser. Once an aspiring writer, who never made it big, he struggles as a high school teacher. Andrew’s mother left the family when Andrew was just a toddler leaving just father and son.

The film mainly centers on the tumultuous relationship between Andrew and Terence and Andrew’s determination to be the best drummer in the world.

J.K. Simmons is mesmerizing in his role of Terence and is wonderful to see as Simmons has struggled as a character actor for years.

He gives a powerhouse performance and plows full steam ahead in his viciousness and extreme brutality towards the students, and on more than one occasion reduces a student to tears. If the tempo is not to his liking he shakes his clenched fist in disapproval.

The audience wonders if Terence is mean and sadistic or is tough on the students to make them work harder and achieve great things.

Throughout the film, I wondered if I should hate this character or sympathize with him for wanting the students to excel.

The sexuality of Fletcher is ambiguous.

He belittles and ridicules the students with fat jokes. He hatefully taunts an overweight student about Mars bars and happy meals, uses Irish digs, and inevitably gay slurs on other students, but is he hiding something in his personal life? Is he a closet case? His private life remains a mystery.

As brutal as Terence can be, there are moments of sensitivity that the character exhibits. He tearfully tells the orchestra a heartbreaking story of a former student, whom he admired, who recently died in a car accident.

In another scene, he warmly bonds with a friend’s young daughter.

As brilliant as Simmons is we must not forget to recognize the immense talent of Teller. The young actor does a fantastic job of portraying determination, drive, anger, and vengeance.

Andrew has a wonderful relationship with his dedicated father, a love/hate relationship with Terence, (are they bitter enemies or do they have the respect of a mentor/student?), and a sweet yet uneven relationship with Nicole.

He successfully portrays a myriad of different emotions throughout the film.

Paul Reiser is wonderful in an overlooked and thankless role as Andrew’s unsuccessful, yet forever faithful father.

Thankfully the film chose to center on the conductor/student dynamic. The romantic relationship with Nicole did not take center stage and usurp the main story, as I felt that the dynamic between the two was of lesser importance to the whole.

The finale, an intense concert performance scene focusing on the intensity between Terence and Andrew, is superbly done. The close-up camera shots of the two add much to the climax.

In fact, throughout Whiplash, extreme close-up shots of sweat and blood and intensity during performances and practices add to the overall rawness of the film.

Whiplash (2014) is an intense, sometimes brutal, assaulting experience, but an amazing film.

Oscar Nominations: 3 wins-Best Picture, Best Supporting Actor-J.K. Simmons (won), Best Adapted Screenplay, Best Sound Mixing (won), Best Film Editing (won)

Independent Spirit Award Nominations: 2 wins-Best Feature, Best Director-Damien Chazelle, Best Supporting Male-J.K. Simmons (won), Best Editing (won)

Scarface-1983

Scarface-1983

Director Brian De Palma

Starring Al Pacino

Scott’s Review #191

60029681

Reviewed November 13, 2014

Grade: B

Scarface is a 1983 mob film directed by Brian De Palma and is an atypical film for the acclaimed director of several stylistic thrillers such as Dressed to Kill (1980), Sisters (1973), and Carrie (1976).

The subject matter centers on the mob and the world of drug trafficking, in this case, cocaine, a very popular, powerful drug that ran rampant throughout the 1980s.

Jealousy, greed, and deceit are common characteristics of Scarface and the story focuses on a temperamental, cocky, and arrogant Cuban refuge sent to Miami by Fidel Castro, as a way of banishing criminals from Cuba and shipping them off to the United States to survive on their own.

Tony Montana, played by Al Pacino, goes from dishwasher to crime lord by selling drugs and creating an empire for himself.

He manipulates, tricks, and makes enemies left and right including stealing his boss’s girlfriend (Michelle Pfeiffer) and eventually falling into a troubled marriage with her.

He loves his financially struggling mother and sister, giving them money and opening a salon for his sister, but he also controls them, especially his sister, and is filled with rage whenever she attracts the affection of a potential suitor.

In his mind, nobody is good enough for her and he is filled with machismo and over-protectiveness. Tony eventually self-destructs due to jealousy, rage, and heavy drug use.

I found the film overall quite compelling but kept thinking to myself how much it resembles a light version of The Godfather (1972) or Part II (1974) and Goodfellas (1990).

I am fully aware that Scarface preceded Goodfellas, but seeing it for the first time in 2014 this was my initial reaction.

I was also kept aware of the fact that it must have been influential in the creation of the popular NBC television series Miami Vice, which debuted a year or two after Scarface was released.

Similarities such as crime lords, Miami Beach, and drugs mirrored the slick feel of the hit television drama as well as the look, style, and fashions.

The performance of Al Pacino is problematic- in my view, this is not at all his best work. For starters, his accent keeps going in and out and I found him slightly unbelievable in the role. A phenomenal actor, something with his performance did not sit well.

The musical score to the film is cheesy- almost shockingly so. Granted this was 1983, but the silly dance beats sporadic throughout now seem completely dated.

Parts of Scarface dragged a bit, however, a sudden dramatic scene (the dismembering of Tony’s friend by mobsters and Tony’s meltdown in a fancy restaurant) more than makeup for the occasional lags in drama.

Scarface (1983) is not on the level of other contemporary violent mob films, but for fans of the genre, it will be enjoyed.

Birdman-2014

Birdman-2014

Director Alejandro G. Iñárritu

Starring Michael Keaton, Edward Norton, Emma Stone

Scott’s Review #190

80000643

Reviewed November 6, 2014

Grade: A

Birdman (2014) is a unique art film that, happily, has garnered major exposure and publicity because a movie like this runs the risk of receiving praise and notice only from the art-house crowd itself.

The film’s star, Michael Keaton, portrays Riggan Thomson, a former action hero superstar from the 1990s, who was made famous for the “Birdman” character he created.

Having made sequels to the film, his career has since dried up and he hopes to establish credibility and prove himself a real actor by writing, directing, and starring in his play.

The film is set in and around the Broadway theater in New York City.

As opening night approaches, he struggles to pull everything together and emit a successful production while faced with an injured terrible actor, a difficult actor, his insecurities, and a miserable theatre critic destined to ruin his big chance.

To make matters worse, his daughter Sam, played by Emma Stone is a recovering drug addict who hangs around the theatre distracting actors with her charm and good looks.

Naomi Watts and Edward Norton play Leslie and Mike, other cast members in the production. Watts is sympathetic as the emotional actress with a heart of gold who finally has her dream of performing on Broadway realized.

Norton, outstanding as Mike, is blunt yet socially awkward and can only perform truthfully on stage.

Keaton is simply a marvel as he plays a dark and vulnerable man. He hates and wishes to shed his ridiculous movie persona of yesteryear and secretly cringes when recognized by fans. He uses it with a voice inside his head when he played “Birdman” years earlier.

The uniqueness of the film is the use of what seems like one long take as the action rarely stops and is ongoing. The film belongs to Keaton, who wonderfully relays vulnerability, pain, and fear within with an outward persona of bravery and masculinity.

Throughout the film I wondered, is Riggan suicidal? What is real and what is imagined? Are certain scenes foreshadowing later events?

The film has much depth.

One marvels at how art imitates life, is Keaton portraying himself? He was the original Batman in the successful superhero franchise beginning in 1989 and his career tanked shortly after.

Birdman is a comeback film for him and he is devastatingly good.

Norton’s character Mike impressed me. He is blunt flawed, scared, and addicted to the stage.

Stone has one particularly brilliant scene as she lambasts her father and with regret, later on, tells him that the world has moved on without him and that he is irrelevant just like everyone else. It is a powerful scene.

In another, Riggan is locked outside the theater during the performance, clad only in his underwear. How on earth will he return to the stage and complete the show? The quick slights at current Hollywood superstars playing superheroes, specifically Robert Downey Jr. are deliciously naughty.

It is impossible to predict what will come next and the film is very New York theater style. Keaton’s run-in with a theater critic in a cocktail bar is the best scene in the film as the critic’s vicious critique of “You’re a celebrity, not an actor” resonates with both pain and tremendous anger for Riggan.

Riggan is a sensitive, struggling man and Keaton so wonderfully shows his vulnerability in every scene.

Oscar Nominations: 4 wins-Best Picture (won), Best Director-Alejandro G. Iñárritu (won), Best Actor-Michael Keaton, Best Supporting Actor-Edward Norton, Best Supporting Actress-Emma Stone, Best Original Screenplay (won), Best Sound Editing, Best Sound Mixing, Best Cinematography (won)

Independent Spirit Award Nominations: 3 wins-Best Feature (won), Best Director-Alejandro G. Inarritu, Best Male Lead-Michael Keaton (won), Best Supporting Male-Edward Norton, Best Supporting Female-Emma Stone, Best Cinematography (won)

Diary of a Mad Housewife-1970

Diary of a Mad Housewife-1970

Director Frank Perry

Starring Carrie Snodgress, Frank Langella

Scott’s Review #189

MPW-36461

Reviewed November 5, 2014

Grade: A

The film version of Diary of a Mad Housewife, based on the best-selling novel by Sue Kaufman, is a tremendous, unique story of one woman’s frustration with her irritating life.

A superb Carrie Snodgrass stars as a haggard, insecure, yet affluent housewife named Tina Balser, who lives in New York City, surrounded by an unpleasant family.

The family is led by Tina’s verbally abusive and neurotic husband Jonathan- a successful attorney, played flawlessly and rather comedically by Richard Benjamin, and her two brattish daughters Sylvie and Liz.

Bored, Tina decides to embark on an affair with crude artist George Prager, wonderfully played by Frank Langella. She teeters on the edge of an emotional breakdown throughout the film and trudges through life depressed and disappointed with all aspects of her life except for her affair with George.

George, however, is a womanizer and openly has other conquests besides Tina.

The brilliant idea of the film is that the story is told strictly from Tina’s point of view. All of the action centers on her character, which makes the film so interesting.

On the surface, one might argue she has everything- she is intelligent, well-educated, and affluent. A stay-at-home mother, she is treated like a servant by her husband Jonathan, as he constantly berates her appearance and criticizes her activities- she is always doing something incorrectly.

The film though is not a downer. It is a dry, satirical comedy that reminds me very much of a Woody Allen film. Tina is depressed, yes, but she goes through life with a realistic, almost chin-up, outlook. Her marriage to Jonathan is loveless yet why doesn’t she leave him?

Her affair with George is sexually satisfying, but she has no intention of pursuing anything further with him, nor does he want to. Tina dotes over her husband- planning dinner parties, sending Christmas cards, and various other wife duties.

I’m not sure that the film’s true intent is to show Tina as either a strictly sympathetic character or as completely downtrodden- the film is not a moral tale nor is it a schmaltzy, woman victimized and will rise against the world’s generic drama- it is witty and filled with black humor.

Despite her unkind husband, I found myself envying Tina’s life, in a way, and I think the film expects that of the viewer. I never got the impression that Tina was suicidal in any way.

It’s not that type of film.

Instead, she has wealth, and she goes to fancy restaurants, but she also has a very needy husband- he does not abuse her in a physical sense, nor is she reduced to tears by his outbursts.

She gets annoyed and merely accepts that this is the way life is and gets by with the assistance of an occasional swig of alcohol while doing dishes or preparing dinner, or when the dog has “an accident” on the living room rug and Tina’s kids cannot wait to tattle on her.

She is a sophisticated woman, trapped in an unhappy yet financially secure relationship.

Diary of a Mad Housewife is an interesting character study for all women to view and perhaps even slyly wink at.  Many women would champion Tina. She is a likable, sarcastic, cool chick. Audiences will find themselves drawn to her and even falling in love with her before long- I know I did.

Without the talents of Carrie Snodgrass, who completely carries this film, it would not be the wonder that it is. A wonderful satire, the film is not as wry or satirical as the novel, but how many films are?

The novel delves more into detail and the role of the Balser’s maid is barely mentioned in the film, yet plays a larger role in the Kaufman novel.

I loved the portrayal of Jonathan by Richard Benjamin who must receive some honor for the most annoying character ever in the film when he repeatedly screams for his wife by bellowing “teeeenaaaaa!”, or initiating sex by asking “Would you like a little roll in dee hay?”, one wants to choke him.

The way Tina’s daughters whine “mudder” instead of “mother” is comically brilliant. And her simmering hatred of all of them is dark hysteria.

Diary of a Mad Housewife is a genius and should not be forgotten.

Oscar Nominations: Best Actress-Carrie Snodgress

West Side Story-1961

West Side Story-1961

Director Robert Wise, Jerome Robbins

Starring Richard Beymer, Natalie Wood

Top 100 Films #64

Scott’s Review #188

1111583

Reviewed November 3, 2014

Grade: A

West Side Story is a musical from 1961 (based on the Broadway stage production from the 1950s), during a period in Hollywood where every other film released seemed to be a version of an enchanting musical.

This particular film version is much darker than most of its contemporaries within this genre. The dreary ending, fantastic and compelling in its dramatic elements, does not detract from the rest of the musical and its hum-along tunes.

West Side Story was crowned the 1961 Best Picture Oscar winner.

West Side Story is undoubtedly based on the Shakespearean tragedy of Romeo and Juliet- the Capulets and Montagues becoming rival teen street gangs of the Puerto Rican “Sharks” and the Polish”Jets,” with the lovesick teens Tony and Maria serving as Romeo and Juliet.

And yes, spoiler alert, the story does not end happily ever after fashion.

Loads of suspension of disbelief must be taken- How many gangs sing and dance to each other, snapping their fingers in unison to perfectly choreographed beats?

Additionally, some gang characters do not look so authentic- in clearly dyed hair, bronzed with tan, or some other phony-looking get-up.

The film is a cherished friend, and these can be overlooked for my enjoyment of the film.

The story, set in 1950s New York City, pits the Sharks (a gang led by Bernardo) against the Jets (led by Riff), who have been bitter rivals for the turfs of the rough streets of Manhattan’s west side for many years.

The gang’s girlfriends and one female, “Anybodys,” are in tow. She longs for the day when she can join the Jets and fight alongside the boys.

The other supporting characters primarily include various policemen (Lieutenant Schrank and Officer Krupke) who attempt to keep the gangs apart. They also include a local shopkeeper, Doc, who is the story’s moral compass. Doc encourages the gangs to get along and questions the logic of gang fights.

After a scuffle, the gangs decide to fight after an upcoming dance, and the Jets elect Tony to face Bernardo.

The story is surprisingly dark, especially in the inevitable final act. Amid all this darkness, however, lies a musical with cheery, catchy numbers (I Feel Pretty, Jet Song) and love-struck tunes (Maria and Somewhere).

A musical about diversity and rivalry, the story centers on lovesick Maria and Tony, a la Romeo and Juliet, and their struggle to be together despite adversity from their friends and family due to their significantly different backgrounds.

Throughout the film, we get to know other characters well- Anita, the girlfriend of Bernardo, for example, played by Rita Moreno, is the stubborn yet likable best friend of Maria, who thinks that Maria and Tony are wrong for each other and that things just are not supposed to be that way when you mix cultural diversity.

The film moves along quickly with standoffs, fights, and plots to get the other gang, a failed attempt at a dance to co-mingle the two groups and girlfriends, and Tony and Maria sneaking off to meet.

The lack of chemistry between Natalie Wood (Maria) and Richard Beymer (Tony) is noticeable, primarily upon multiple viewings. Still, decades later, it is also challenging to imagine anyone else in either role—so ingrained is the duo in film culture.

The cultural diversity of much of the cast (Rita Moreno was the only Puerto Rican) is fascinating, as is the fact that most of the singing was dubbed by other singers.

Yet, the film still somehow works very well.

Oscar Nominations: 10 wins-Best Motion Picture (won), Best Director-Robert Wise and Jerome Robbins (won), Best Supporting Actor-George Chakiris (won), Best Supporting Actress-Rita Moreno (won), Best Screenplay Based on Material from Another Medium, Best Scoring of a Musical Picture (won), Best Sound (won), Best Art Direction, Color (won), Best Cinematography, Color (won), Best Costume Design, Color (won), Best Film Editing (won)

Kiss of the Spider Woman-1985

Kiss of the Spider Woman-1985

Director Hector Babenco

Starring William Hurt, Raul Julia

Scott’s Review #187

60010547

Reviewed October 24, 2014

Grade: B+

1985 was not the best year for film nor was much of the 1980s, as I think about it, but unique standouts do exist and Kiss of the Spider Woman is an unusual and artistic film.

Set in present-day South America (Brazil) two men are imprisoned for very different reasons and are cellmates in the prison where they are captives.

Complete opposites, they form an unlikely bond, centering on friendship, but also skirting toward romance, flirtation, and at times, love.

Luis Molina is outwardly homosexual and extremely flamboyant and perhaps out of touch with reality as he fantasizes and describes romantic Nazi films. He is imprisoned for not only being homosexual but for having sex with an underage male.

The other man, Valentin Arregui, is a liberal, political activist, who has been beaten, tortured, and interrogated due to his revolutionary-leaning politics. He has a rough, macho edge to him.

On the surface, the two men have nothing in common, but due to proximity, forge a close bond and mutual respect as their lives pre-imprisonment are explained to each other as well as to the audience.

The true strength of this film is the performance, very against type, of William Hurt- the best performance of his career by a mile. He completely embodies the character of Luis in his effeminacy, yearning, pain, and obsession with escaping reality through film.

Raul Julia has the same effect, though in a completely different way, as he portrays Valentin. Luis tenderly comforts Valentin, who is being poisoned by prison officials, by incorporating his stories of films into Valentin’s real life, as he yearns for his separated lover, Marta.

As Luis begins falling in love with Valentin, and one is seemingly double-crossed by the other, it leads to a test of courage and dedication to each other.

The ending of the film is a sad one, dark, yet thought-provoking, and shows love, tenderness, and bravery.

My only negative from Kiss of the Spider Woman (1985) is at moments, using the flashback series or through the film that Luis explains, it is tough to follow and surmise what is exactly going on in the story, but the performances of Hurt and Julia, and the chemistry between them, are the films major strengths.

Oscar Nominations: 1 win-Best Picture, Best Director-Hector Babenco, Best Actor-William Hurt (won), Best Screenplay Based on Material from Another Medium

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

Annabelle-2014

Annabelle-2014

Director John R. Leonetti

Starring Annabelle Wallis

Scott’s Review #186

80013775

Reviewed October 17, 2014 

Grade: B+

Annabelle (2014) is a classic, edge-of-your-seat, ghost story that is effective in its creepiness and element of surprise.

Set in California circa 1969, John (Ward Horton) and Mia Gordon (Annabelle Wallis) are an all-American happy young couple.

He is a Doctor and she is beautiful and pregnant with their first child. They attend church each Sunday, are friendly with the neighbors, and have a strong sense of community.

As a surprise, John bestows a life-sized doll on Mia as a present and addition to her existing collection of interesting dolls. Soon strange events begin to occur: a home invasion, a fire, a bizarre experience in an elevator, and creepy drawings by the neighbor’s children.

The film eventually dives into murkier territory when a strange, religious woman, played by Alfre Woodard, is introduced, and the film then shifts focus to spirits, taking one’s soul, and the occult.

What sets Annabelle apart from similar horror contemporaries is the power of suspense. We as the audience know something bad will happen, but we don’t know when.

Unlike many horror films that slice and dice for shock value, Annabelle does not. Rather, foreshadowing and anticipation are common within the film, making the eventual jumps scarier!

Mia’s constant use of an electric sewing machine and Mia’s attentive watching news coverage of the Manson murders are clues as to what will come next.

A scene set in the middle of the night as a home invasion takes place next door is shot exceptionally well, like Alfred Hitchcock’s Rear Window (1955), with no dialogue. What the audience sees inside the house from across the yard as violence occurs- is frightening.

Within the same scene we know the home invasion will gravitate to Gordon’s house, but when will it strike?

Another effective scene shows a seemingly innocent little girl running towards another character in a separate bedroom but turns into a maniacal fiend and the foot thudding makes this terrifying.

I found myself genuinely scared during a few scenes!

Wisely choosing to avoid the all too frequent CGI effects, Annabelle instead goes the traditional route with genuine scares harvested from the unknown and the feeling of anticipation and dread of events to come.

The fantastic musical score composed by Joseph Bishara adds to the anticipation. Annabelle is a prequel to the equally scary The Conjuring (2013). The very first scene is, in fact, the same scene from that film where two nurses explain how they obtained the doll, named Annabelle, and cannot get away from her.

The final act delves into the spiritual world of evil- a soul (presumably Mia’s or her babies) must be sacrificed to relinquish the curse put upon her by Annabelle’s original owner.

A surprising figure aids in the conclusion of this film. Annabelle (2014) is an old-school horror film done very well.

Dog Day Afternoon-1975

Dog Day Afternoon-1975

Director Sidney Lumet

Starring Al Pacino, Chris Sarandon

Scott’s Review #185

450423

Reviewed October 13, 2014

Grade: A-

Director Sidney Lumet successfully sets the smoldering hot summer afternoon in New York City for his 1975 film Dog Day Afternoon, as Al Pacino plays Sonny, an unemployed, desperate man who, while married with two kids, has a gay lover, Leon, (brilliantly played by Chris Sarandon) who he is attempting to help finance a sex change operation.

Based on a true story, Sonny, along with his dimwitted friend Sal- played by John Cazale, decides to rob First Brooklyn Savings Bank.

Predictably, their plans go awry when Sonny burns a ledger during the robbery attempt and a pedestrian sees the smoke and alerts the police.

As the police become aware of the attempted heist, a standoff ensues between Sonny and the cops, led by Detective Moretti, played by Charles Durning, and the robbery receives media coverage.

Most of the action is set inside the stifling hot bank and directly outside on the street and gradually the supporting characters come into play- the hostages, Sonny’s mother, wife, and lover all make contact with Sonny in some way or another and his motivations become clearer to the audience.

Dog Day Afternoon is a somewhat message movie that is anti-establishment, in this case, anti-police and questioning of the government and the financial establishment, (Lumet also directed Network, challenging establishment).

This is evidenced when after a standoff with police, the crowd sides with Sonny as he chants Attica! Attica!, which is a direct reference to a recent prison riot.

Sonny speaks for the working class- the poor, struggling, underpaid workers who cannot afford to feed or adequately take care of their families.

The heat and humidity compare perfectly to the pressure felt by most middle-class people that still resonates today and leaves the viewer contemplating his or her life.

Sonny relates to the bank tellers who do not make much money. Besides, Sonny is sympathetic to the audience in another way. Leon, recently hospitalized at Bellevue Hospital, is emotionally dependent on Sonny. He would be lost without him.

They share a lengthy and heartfelt phone conversation that is the heart of the film- gay romance had not been explored this way by 1975 in cinema, and the romance was neither shoved down the audience’s throat nor was it looked past entirely.

Their relationship is tender and deep, yet still somewhat ambiguous.

Would they stay together? What would become of Sonny’s wife and two children? Would he leave them for Leon in a world that was not ready to accept two homosexual men together? Is that the reason for Leon’s desire for a sex change operation?

Chris Sarandon, in too small a part, is wonderful as the gay lover, struggling with a sexual identity crisis. Al Pacino gives, per usual, a brilliant portrayal as he takes on a complex character who is far from one-dimensional.

Perhaps not a masterpiece, Dog Day Afternoon, is a very good film, but neither is it strictly a gay-themed movie nor an action/thriller- it’s more complex than that.

Ironically, Sonny is portrayed as the hero of the film as it is not a standard good police versus bad bank robber type of film- quite the contrary. It is much, much more than that.

Oscar Nominations: 1 win-Best Picture, Best Director-Sidney Lumet, Best Actor-Al Pacino, Best Supporting Actor-Chris Sarandon, Best Original Screenplay (won), Best Film Editing