All posts by scottmet99

Carrie-1952

Carrie-1952

Director William Wyler

Starring Jennifer Jones, Laurence Olivier

Scott’s Review #240

60011689

Reviewed May 3, 2015

Grade: B

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

A Most Violent Year-2014

A Most Violent Year-2014

Director J.C. Chandor

Starring Oscar Isaac, Jessica Chastain

Scott’s Review #239

_A_Most_Violent_Year__Theatrical_Poster

Reviewed May 1, 2015

Grade: B

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

There is an authenticity to it.

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

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

Ida-2014

Ida-2014

Director Pawel Pawlikowsi

Starring Agata Kulesza, Agata Trzebuchowska

Scott’s Review #238

70293721

Reviewed April 24, 2015

Grade: A

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Only Lovers Left Alive-2014

Only Lovers Left Alive-2014

Director Jim Jarmusch

Starring Tilda Swinton, Tom Hiddleston

Scott’s Review #237

Only_Lovers_Left_Alive_English_film_poster

Reviewed April 24, 2015

Grade: B

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Jezebel-1938

Jezebel-1938

Director William Wyler

Starring Bette Davis

Scott’s Review #236

220px-Jesebel_movieposter

Reviewed April 18, 2015

Grade: B+

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Captive-2014

The Captive-2014

Director Atom Egoyan

Starring Ryan Reynolds

Scott’s Review #235

80013547

Reviewed April 18, 2015

Grade: C-

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

This is not explained.

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

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

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

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

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

Teorema-1968

Teorema-1968

Director Pier Paolo Pasolini

Starring Terence Stamp, Silvana Mangano

Scott’s Review #234

70039263

Reviewed April 10, 2015

Grade: A-

Teorema is a 1968 Italian art film directed by Pier Paolo Pasolini, who later went on to direct the dark and disturbing 1975 masterpiece, Salò- 120 Days of Sodom.

If one is looking for a concise, mainstream plot with a fixed, to-the-point beginning and ending, one will be disappointed. Rather, Teorema is an exhibition in artistic style and interpretation, and it succeeds in mesmerizing this viewer with thought and contemplation.

A mysterious stranger, known as “the visitor”, suddenly arrives to stay with an affluent Italian family in their sprawling estate. The family consists of a father, mother, son, daughter, and maid, all of whom experience loneliness, boredom, fear, rage, or repression.

The handsome stranger successfully beds all the family members, and just as suddenly as he arrives, he disappears from the household, leaving the family members with different thoughts, feelings, and actions upon his departure.

The film is highly interpretive, and every character can be analyzed.

The stranger seduces all the characters, and the family’s wealth is examined. Is Teorema (which translates to the theorem in Italian) a commentary on the bourgeois society? The father, Paolo, owns a factory and appears to be in turmoil- is he a repressed homosexual?

The father’s story concludes with him turning his factory over to the workers, stripping naked, and roaring with anger and frustration.

Is the mother simply a wealthy, bored housewife or much more than that? This character might have been explored more thoroughly.

The maid, devoutly religious, becomes suicidal after her tryst with the stranger. The others confide in the stranger about how they feel about themselves, and at times, the film feels like a therapy session as each character delves deeper into their personal feelings.

Only the maid is a bit different from the others, but could this be because she is working-class, while the others are affluent?

The daughter, Odessa, approximately sixteen years old, becomes depressed after her liaison. The frightened, weak son appears to have a crisis and is consoled by the stranger in a loving, tender fashion.

Interestingly, the film at the time was resoundingly denounced by the Vatican, which took offense at the controversial tone of the film and its focus on “obscenity”.

Could this be because of some people’s interpretation of “the visitor” as being a Christ-like figure? One must argue for the distinction between “obscenity” and “art” after viewing this groundbreaking, visionary film. I found Teorema to be a thought-provoking film and did not feel the movie was going for shock value.

The film is lightweight in this regard compared to the hauntingly brutal Salo (1975), which followed years later.

Teorema (1968) delves into the psychological abyss and portrays an Italian family as more than wealthy- they are people with emotions, fears, desires, and complexities.

Not for mainstream audiences, but meant for lovers of interpretive film, it can be debated and discussed for ages to come.

Madhouse-1974

Madhouse-1974

Director Jim Clark

Starring Vincent Price, Peter Cushing

Scott’s Review #233

220px-Madhouseposter[1]

Reviewed April 3, 2015

Grade: B-

Madhouse, a 1974 British horror film, stars horror icon Vincent Price who portrays a sympathetic Hollywood actor who is unsure of his sanity after the grisly murder of his trophy fiancé whom he may or may not have been responsible for murdering.

Mainly set in London, Madhouse also stars famed British actors in the latter stages of their careers, such as Peter Cushing, and is a treat for classic British horror fans.

The look of the film is stylistic and effective in the mood- the story, while silly, is also fun.

Paul Toombes (Price) is a famed actor notorious for his character of Dr. Death in a successful film franchise. He seemingly has it all and is the envy of his contemporaries- wealth, notoriety, and a glamorous blonde fiancé named Ellen.

After Ellen is murdered by someone dressed as Dr. Death, Paul is unable to remember the circumstances or his whereabouts during the murder.

After spending years in a mental institution in a confused state he is summoned to London to mount an acting comeback of sorts, reprising his Dr. Death alter-ego.

As the bodies begin to pile up, a whodunit commences- is Paul Toombes the killer, or is someone impersonating him?

The film itself is quite pleasing to a horror fan like me. The deaths, while silly, are fun and campy.

Mostly all female victims, a comical aspect is how the victims, when cornered by the killer, simply scream and stand there waiting to be sliced.

Wouldn’t they fight back in real life?

This film is certainly not realism at its finest but is a fun horror film. It is a bit exaggerated and over-the-top in a campy way but is also true to the 1970s style with the point of view scenes from the killer’s perspective.

A wonderful aspect of this film is real clips of old Vincent Price films (The Raven, The Pit and the Pendulum, and House of Usher) to name a few, featuring deceased horror god Boris Karloff and Basil Rathbone.

Since the plot involves Price’s character being a former horror actor this is a wonderful opportunity to showcase long-ago classic horror films and it works perfectly.

I enjoyed the television scenes within the film plot as Paul revives his career and shoots a series for the BBC- the film chooses interesting, haunting sets and Cushing’s character of Herbert Flay and his zany wife reside in a spooky, vast mansion with eerie spiders that the wife is obsessed with.

The set pieces are great and very Halloween-like. And the spider-eating-flesh scene is excellent!

The tag team of Price and Cushing is fun to watch- both horror stalwarts connect well and both actors play off of each other successfully.

They had a ball while making this film.

Towards the end of the film, the plot becomes confusing and the big reveal as to the killer’s identity and the motivations surrounding is a disappointment.

The conclusion to the film is silly and makes little sense, although that is secondary to a film of this genre that borders on camp.

Madhouse (1974) is an enjoyable midnight flick starring two of the top classic horror icons.

Dawn of the Planet of the Apes-2014

Dawn of the Planet of the Apes-2014

Director Matt Reeves

Starring Andy Serkis, Jason Clarke, Gary Oldman

Scott’s Review #232

70300076

Reviewed March 29, 2015

Grade: C+

Dawn of the Planet of the Apes (2014) is a summer blockbuster hit that knocks it out of the park from a visual perspective- it is magnificent to look at with creative sets and realistic images, but the story is mediocre and predictable.

I think the filmmaker’s true intent was to focus on the look of this film, which is a splendid feature. The film is a slightly better-than-average big-screen adventure with more style than substance.

Set in San Francisco, or what was once San Francisco, the film is set in futuristic times. Apes have forged a new civilization after a deadly virus has eliminated 90% of the human population.

The apes are highly intelligent and manage a happy, unified existence. Then, one day, a human is encountered and, scared, shoots one of the apes. This leads to a peaceful resolution between Caesar, leader of the apes, and the humans, to each stay in their respective territories.

However, humans need access to a dam in the Apes area to provide electricity for themselves. Mutual distrust leads to tension, but the civilized apes and humans reach a truce.

Naturally, there is further conflict as sinister humans and apes vow revenge on each other. This leads to a waging war while the peaceful apes and humans strive to work things out.

A further angle of the story is the hunger for power within the ranks of the Apes, reminiscent of Lord of the Flies. The human protagonists, Malcolm and Ellie, played by Jason Clarke and Keri Russell- are a wholesome, decent couple.

Dawn of the Planet of the Apes pales to the original 1968 masterpiece, Planet of the Apes, starring Charlton Heston. To compare the two is unfair since, sadly, this one has nothing to do with the original.

It is simply the same franchise tag.

However, Dawn of the Planet of the Apes is weaker than its predecessor, 2010’s Rise of the Planet of the Apes. We had a charismatic star, James Franco, and an interesting story. The apes are experimented on and their intelligence is a strong angle.

With the sequel, the story is rather one-note and has a machismo, us against them angle, that is not unique.

The main drawback to this film is its limitations. The characters are portrayed as a) the good and sympathetic humans, b) the evil and destructive humans, c) the good and heroic apes, or, d) the evil, bad apes.

Everyone is defined for the audience and there is no ambiguity or complexities within the characters. This is a bit limiting. The evil ape Koba is purely bad and the drunken, gun-happy, humans are bad.

This is not to say that Dawn of the Planet of the Apes is not enjoyable, it is. It’s a fun, entertaining flick. For what it is, there is a somewhat message in the film, that there is a way to find peace and love between different species and types of people.

Hopefully, the audience gets that message.

Dawn of the Planet of the Apes (2014) is a summer blockbuster action/sci-fi flick that many will enjoy, however, it is a plot-driven extravaganza that could have been superior had it contained more layers to the story and more shape to some of the characters.

It is worth seeing as a visual cinema treat, but scarcely more than that.

Oscar Nominations: Best Visual Effects

Annie-2014

Annie-2014

Director Will Gluck

Starring Quvenzhane Wallis, Jamie Foxx

Scott’s Review #231

220px-Annie2014Poster

Reviewed March 25, 2015

Grade: D-

The latest remake of the film version of Annie, the last film production in 1982, though at least one variation in television exists, and all based on the Broadway hit of the same name, is a saccharin-laden mess of a film.

Annie stars Quvenzhane Wallis, Jamie Foxx, and Cameron Diaz as Annie, William Sparks (changed from Daddy Warbucks), and Miss Hannigan, respectively, and features Rose Byrne and Bobby Cannavale in supporting roles.

Let me begin with the one redeeming quality of the film, though admittedly a bit of a stretch. I found the musical numbers okay, not great, but far from the worst parts of the film.

The numbers are remixed into hip-hop-type songs with a trendy approach, presumably to add a modern element. While not great, some songs are catchy and not dreadful, especially “It’s A Hard Knock Life” over the closing credits.

Whether the actors sing their songs is another question, which I might not want to know the answer to.

The rest of Annie is terrible.

The casting is poor. Wallis, very believable in Beasts of the Southern Wild (2012), portrays Annie as an intelligent, social-climbing child and I sensed awkwardness to the part. Regardless it did not work.

I did not buy her in the role and how she was awarded a Golden Globe nomination for Best Actress in a Musical Comedy speaks volumes for the limited choices in 2014.

Jamie Foxx completely phones in his performance as Cell-phone technical mogul, running for mayor, William Sparks. Why the film changed the character from Daddy Warbucks is a mystery. He is unbelievable as a germaphobe, an aggressive yet sensitive, powerful man who amazingly develops a soft spot for Annie.

Cameron Diaz completely overacts and turns Miss Hannigan into an obnoxious, hysterical shrew, who towards the end of the movie somehow “turns good”, with no real motivation for doing so.

Rose Byrne and Bobby Cannavale give uninteresting, very one-note performances in their respective roles of Sparks’s assistant, love interest, and right-hand man.

The film chooses to change so many aspects of the original stage version of Annie, that it is barely recognizable.

It takes place in present times rather than the Depression-era 1930s, Annie is no longer an orphan but is in foster care. Miss Hannigan’s first name is changed to Colleen instead of Agatha and now a former pop performer whose career subsequently died.

Hannigan’s brother Rooster and his girlfriend Lily are not featured at all.

The story has zero interest and zero believability.

But the worst part of the film is the corniness of it. It is so overwrought with contrived scenes that it is tough to take seriously.

At a Mayoral function, Annie (an untrained singer) suddenly leaps onstage and belts out a perfectly sung, choreographed number melting the hearts of the wealthy powerhouses in attendance.

The film is pure fantasy with no realism to speak of.

Miss Hannigan fosters an apartment full of children that she hates, to collect $150 a week, but her apartment is pretty spacious and beautiful by Manhattan standards.

The film contains one inconsistency after another and is a horrendous modern take of a long-loved treasure, the 2014 version of Annie should be seen once, snarled at, and put back on the shelf, and forgotten for good.

Theatre of Blood-1973

Theatre of Blood-1973

Director Douglas Hickox

Starring Vincent Price, Diana Rigg

Scott’s Review #230

220px-Theatreofbloodposter

Reviewed March 23, 2015

Grade: B

Theatre of Blood (1973) stars Vincent Price, a long-time fixture in the classic/campy horror scene, as a demented Shakespearean theatre actor who enacts revenge on the critics who fail to recognize him with a coveted award that he cherishes.

Price, as always frighteningly good, delivers a campy, but not ridiculous, turn as the crazed actor.

Price’s appearance alone- tall, wiry, with sinister facial expressions, poises him perfectly to believability in any dastardly role he portrayed in his heyday and the performance he gives as Edward Lionheart is no exception.

Not solely a campy, melodramatic horror film, Theatre of Blood rises above that categorization with humorous tributes to Shakespeare and a unique chronicle of the Shakespearean works used to systematically off the critics one by one about the Shakespearean story- quite frankly in a comical and witty way.

Price eerily dresses in many different elaborate costumes to commit the murders- a wine-tasting expert, and a television host, among other interesting characters, and oftentimes, taunts his victims before permanently dispensing them.

The film is quite British in tone and humor and done in a tongue-in-cheek manner so that the murders are not to be taken at all too seriously.

The critics themselves- seven or eight of them- are deliciously fun. One is a loud boisterous fat man who always has his beloved poodles at his side.

What happens to him and the dogs is better left unsaid.

Another is an uptight, sophisticated woman (played by Price’s real-life wife Coral Browne). Several of the critics are created as comic villains so their demises are not all too devastating for the audience as they are rather unlikeable characters, to begin with.

I found myself rooting for Lionheart and looking forward to the next murder!

One criticism involves Diana Rigg, who plays Price’s daughter Edwina, accomplice to his dirty deeds. Well known for her starring role in On Her Majesty’s Secret Service and the 1960s Avengers series, Rigg has little substance to do in Theatre of Blood.

Perhaps by 1973, her film career was on the downturn and she was not winning the coveted roles any longer. I would have loved to see her sink her teeth into a meatier role.

A side-kick, Edwina could have done much more.

The film belongs to Price and the unique storytelling of Shakespearean works made only possible by this great actor.

Not overly serious and played for some laughs, Theatre of Blood (1973) is successful in its telling of an interesting British horror story.

It’s a nice late-night treat for fans of the British horror genre especially.

Neighbors-2014

Neighbors-2014

Director Nicholas Stoller

Starring Zac Efron, Seth Rogan

Scott’s Review #229

70297085

Reviewed March 15, 2015

Grade: F

By far one of the worst movies I have seen, Neighbors (2014) is a silly, redundant, nonsensical, and plain old bad film. Whoever thought this film was a good idea and green-lit it should be examined.

Successful comedies- even raunchy, slapstick comedy, contain perfect comic timing and likable characters that the audience roots for, and at least a shred of creativity and originality.

Neighbors has none of these qualities.

Bridesmaids (2011) is an example of a modern raunchy comedy that works and is hysterical, sadly, Neighbors is a far cry from Bridesmaids.

Neighbors stars Seth Rogan, a familiar face in the slapstick comedy genre, and Rose Byrne as Mac and Kelly Radner, a married couple in their thirties with a newborn baby named Stella.

Former party animals in their college days, the two live in a college town and attempt to raise their daughter.

One day, Delta Psi Beta, a fraternity known as one of the rowdiest of frats, moves into the house next door to the Radners and begins causing chaos with their never-ending parties.

The frat is led by Teddy (Zac Efron).

Initially striking up mutual respect, the Radner’s relationship with Teddy is ruined due to a misunderstanding involving the police being called one night.

The remainder of the film focuses on Mac and Kelly’s attempts at getting the fraternity out of their house by sabotaging parties and pitting various frat brothers against each other, causing hijinks and war between parents and college kids.

If Neighbors is an attempt to harken back to the days of delicious college comedies such as Animal House (1978) or American Pie (1999), the film fails on every level.

It is simply not funny.

It contains a plot that is so unoriginal and the jokes featured to death in similar films (bathroom humor, frat jokes, drug jokes, male and female anatomy jokes) by this point, if you have seen one Seth Rogan film you have seen them all.

He is a one-trick pony and has become what Adam Sandler became- tired and dull.

Rose Byrne’s annoying character had me believing the actress was using a poor Australian accent only to realize that the actress is Australian. This is not a testament to Ms. Byrne’s acting ability.

The protagonists are quite irritating and not likable at all. What is the rooting value? Mac and Kelly are irresponsible parents.

They presumably leave Stella at home to visit the frat house and wind up getting drunk and high, stay out late, and wake up early the next day when Kelly attempts to feed Stella using tainted breast milk, which leads us to an unfunny scene between Mac and Kelly focusing on Kelly’s vein-popping breasts, which makes no sense anyway.

Other suspensions of disbelief and logic pop up left and right. Why would the police reveal to the fraternity the names of those who had called to complain about them and after catching the Radner’s in a lie, tell them never to call the police again?

How unrealistic.

Mac and Kelly live in a college town, and the risk of a fraternity or sorority being close never occurred to them. They acted surprised that college students existed at all.

The wonderful Lisa Kudrow is cast in a ridiculous role as the college Dean but is completely wasted in a hysterical, bubble-headed, dumb role.

If I had to give a positive to Neighbors (2014), it would be that Zac Efron does a halfway decent job portraying his character Teddy and Efron does possess a good deal of acting talent (think The Paperboy from 2012).

I am being quite generous and looking for a bright side to a train wreck.

The film is poor.

Peau d’Ane (Donkey Skin)-1970

Peau d’Ane (Donkey Skin)-1970

Director Jacques Demy

Starring Catherine Deneuve

Scott’s Review #227

70032096

Reviewed March 11, 2015

Grade: B

Peau d’Ane (English-Donkey Skin) is a 1970 French musical film that is a fairy tale for adults- seemingly happy, but very dark beneath the surface.

To say this film is bizarre would be an understatement. The film is a strange retelling of the classic story of Cinderella.

The film is set in a peculiar medieval world and centers on a dying Queen, her husband The King, and the heroine of the story, the beautiful Princess.

The Queen is dying. Her last wish is for The King to marry the most beautiful woman in the land. Coincidentally, that is their daughter The Princess! Eager to produce an heir to the throne, he is determined to marry and reproduce with his daughter.

The Princess, wanting none of it, turns herself into an ugly creature, by way of wearing the skin of a donkey and moves to a neighboring kingdom to exist in a life of exclusion and revulsion, farming pigs and being berated by those around her.

A handsome Prince decides to pursue the woman who has baked him a delicious cake, but knows not who she is. Ironically enough it is the Princess.

I found the film to be quite interesting, albeit in a warped way. Unusual and tough to analyze, one must watch with an open mind.

Certainly, Donkey Skin delves headfirst into the icky world of incest and makes no apologies for its controversial nature all the while interspersing the film with cheery tunes with singing roses and hatching chicks.

The donkey skin that the Princess wears is fake and unbelievably laughable and how nobody is aware that there is a beautiful Princess underneath is silly.

And yet the film somehow works. I was transported into a magical world where nothing is normal and one surprise after another ensues.

A couple of oddities worth mentioning- some of the music from the film is a piece of contemporary, upbeat music. Also, strangely, the final scene involves a helicopter, which is completely implausible given the period.

I get the sense that this film is going for absurd and unique and succeeds on both counts.

Visually the film is gorgeous- bright and cheerful with loads of colors. The film has awe-inspiring art direction as the set pieces within the castle are odd, interesting, and colorful. I especially enjoyed the Prince’s bedroom set.

As eccentric and seemingly dark as the film is, often a character will burst into a cheerful song as evidenced by the Princess singing a happy tune while making a meal, all the while dressed in her donkey skin, almost like a scene out of Mary Poppins or My Fair Lady or any other wholesome musical.

To be sure a unique film, Donkey Skin is eccentric, lively, and interestingly perverse with a French flair. Fantasy for adults and a journey into the weird.

101 Dalmatians-1961

101 Dalmatians-1961

Directors Wolfgang Reitherman, Hamilton Luske, Clyde Geronimi

Voices Rod Taylor

Scott’s Review #226

205524

Reviewed March 8, 2015

Grade: A-

101 Dalmatians (1961) is a darling Walt Disney film that encompasses wholesomeness, love, and devotion.

Set in London, which adds a level of sophistication to the film, it tells the story of a lonely songwriter named Roger Radcliffe, who lives in a flat with his faithful and devoted Dalmatian, Pongo. Theirs is a happy existence, but something is missing.

Pongo, voiced by Rod Taylor (of The Birds-1963, fame), is determined to find a mate for himself and Roger and sets about to do just that by watching ladies and their dogs walk the streets in front of their homes.

He finds the perfect match for both (Anita for Roger and Perdita for him). The four of them look forward to years of happiness together until a sinister friend of Anita’s, Cruella De Vil, enters the story.

Cruella sees profit in the Dalmatians and attempts to steal and destroy them.

Cruella De Vil is a delicious villain and certainly one of the most entertaining in animated film history, but more than that, she is comically devious. Her maniacal laugh and witty language make her a perfect foil for a wholesome couple and wonderful, cute little pups.

The audience does not root for her, but there is something wicked and fun about her over-the-top character.

The 1961 film has an incredible artistic direction that animation today lacks —the scenes look like beautiful drawings.

There is a Mad Men quality to the design.

The “look” differs from current animation in that it is sleek and constructed skillfully, not loud, fast, and bombastic.

I love that the film is told from the perspective of the Dalmatian Pongo and Perdita, not from the perspective of human beings. The central characters, Pongo and Perdita, tell the story about their dogs, which adds to their empathy for the animals. We see their attempts to rescue all of the stolen dogs.

Also outstanding is how all of London’s dogs (and various other species of animals) band together in rescue. They work as a team to save and protect their own, who are being mistreated and sent to slaughter.

An enjoyable scene involves the climactic car chase between Cruella’s gaudy luxury car and a furniture van. As the pups use the van to escape, a cat-and-mouse game ensues, providing comedy and dramatic flair.

The scene is among the most suspenseful in the film, as the vehicles weave along dirt and back roads toward London.

In addition to this riveting scene are others involving the dogs tiptoeing past their captives as we cross our fingers they will not be heard and subsequently caught, and an adorable scene showcasing the dogs’ cleverness at covering their spots with soot to escape.

A heartwarming, inspirational film for the entire family to enjoy many times over, 101 Dalmatians (1961) will leave you smiling and humming.

It is a truthful, fantastic film about love for animals.

Nightcrawler-2014

Nightcrawler-2014

Director Dan Gilroy

Starring Jake Gyllenhaal, Rene Russo

Scott’s Review #225

70295182

Reviewed March 1, 2015

Grade: B+

Nightcrawler (2014) is best described as an intense crime-thriller set in Los Angeles featuring a wonderful performance by Jake Gyllenhaal as an unstable thief named Lou. He cons and manipulates his way to success videotaping accident scenes and selling them to news stations.

The film is the directorial debut of Dan Gilroy, who could become a household name in the future. Nightcrawler was deservedly awarded the Best Screenplay and the Best First Feature Independent Spirit award honors.

The film is set mainly at night as Lou courses the city in search of accidents, crimes, and violence- the bloodier the better. Later, he is told by Nina Romina, successfully played by Rene Russo that violent crimes in affluent neighborhoods are the best, as they garner the highest ratings.

Lou sells video footage of the crimes to the highest bidder and Nina becomes his main customer. Lou is eventually assisted by Rick Carey, a desperate accomplice in need of money, played by Riz Ahmed.

The interesting thing about Nightcrawler is its moody setting and dim lighting. It reminds me of the 2004 film Collateral, starring Jamie Foxx and Tom Cruise, also set in Los Angeles.

Mostly set at night time and heavily set on the streets of L.A., I found this mood excellent and a compelling aspect of the film.

It makes Nightcrawler look great.

Gyllenhaal deserves praise for his role as Lou and is largely responsible for the success. He was a co-producer.

From an acting standpoint, he is excellent and reminiscent of the frightening performance that Robert DeNiro gave in Taxi Driver (1976). With an angular face and eyes that seemingly never blink, he is intense and driven on every level.

He is a sociopath.

When he quietly threatens Nina and Rick on separate occasions one can tell he means business. Why Lou has become a thief desperate for money is never explained- does he have a family? Is he a convict? He seems highly educated, but is he? How did he land in this predicament and resort to the life that he does?

As Lou becomes more manipulative and adjusts crime scenes to make them shocking, he seems to teeter over the edge of sanity. In one scene he sneaks into a victim’s home and videotapes photos of the victims from their refrigerator to promote an empathetic angle and therefore make more money from them.

This is a brilliant performance by Gyllenhaal.

Another fascinating performance I admired is that of Rene Russo- absent from films for what seems like years, Nightcrawler is a nice return for her. Her character also has a little backstory.

We know she is a driven newswoman who has trouble maintaining success at individual news stations and moves around a lot. Nina is a cut-throat news director eager for violent stories and determined to keep her existing job. She also becomes begrudgingly fascinated and enamored with Lou.

Does she like bad boys or does she admire his talent?

The third major character is Riz Ahmed’s Rick. Rick comes across as a sweet, yet gullible guy strapped for cash. Like Lou, we do not know why he is broke, but it is hinted that he may do or have done some male prostitution- he is desperate.

As the film goes along the character develops tough skin and realizes he is attracted to this new lifestyle and excitement, but will not be bullied by Lou.

On a social level, the film presents an interesting, albeit disturbing take on the relationship between the media and the viewers. What will news channels do for a good story? How bloodthirsty are news audiences? How often is a positive news story presented? It makes the audience reflect and ponder.

Nightcrawler is a dark thriller, which deservedly garnered an Oscar nomination for Best Screenplay and a slew of Independent Spirit Awards.

Intense, rich, and visually appealing, it is one of the success stories of 2014 cinema.

Oscar Nominations: Best Original Screenplay

Independent Spirit Award Nominations: 2 wins-Best Male Lead-Jake Gyllenhaal, Best Supporting Male-Riz Ahmed, Best Screenplay (won), Best First Feature (won), Best Editing

Still Alice-2014

Still Alice-2014

Director Richard Glatzer, Wash Westmoreland

Starring Julianne Moore, Alec Baldwin

Scott’s Review #224

untitled

Reviewed February 26, 2015

Grade: B+

Still Alice (2014) tells the story of a highly educated college professor who, at the young age of fifty, is afflicted with early-onset Alzheimer’s disease.

She wrestles with, not only the gloomy diagnosis but also the emotional effects of the disease and what effects they will have on her husband and three grown children.

Also explored are the hereditary aspects of the illness and the effects on the offspring of the inflicted person.

The film has a calm demeanor but is heartbreaking and a downer.

Alice Howland has always achieved success, she is a linguistics professor at the esteemed Columbia University in Manhattan and has a seemingly idyllic life. She lives an affluent lifestyle and has three grown, well-adjusted children.

Alec Baldwin plays John Howland and Kristen Stewart plays the most predominantly featured daughter, Lydia.

These points of perfection make the story and her gradual decline all the more tragic to watch. We root for Alice because she is an ideal character- kind, loving, and the perfect mother and wife.

How could a thing like this happen to her? When she goes for a jog near her campus and suddenly does not recognize her surroundings or where she is, the audience shares Alice’s confusion.

The primary reason to watch the film is for the astounding performance that Julianne Moore gives, as Alice. The film borders on a good Lifetime television movie, albeit, much better than that and arguably in the same vein.

The acting sets this one above the mediocre largely due to Moore- with a lesser actress, I ponder how the film would have succeeded.

The tender scenes are wonderful. When Alice wets her pants, the audience also feels her humiliation. When she breaks down in fear and anxiety we do the same with her.

The supporting cast also deserves praise, specifically Baldwin and Stewart. While not entirely fleshed out characters, their lending of support to their wife and mother respectively makes the characters themselves sympathetic and likable.

An important scene in an ice-cream parlor late in the film when John asks Alice if she “really wants to be here” is misunderstood by Alice making the importance of what he is asking even more profound.

A scene where a coherent Alice, early in her diagnosis, leaves instructions for herself via video, to be seen when she is further along in her illness, is suspenseful and left me rooting for the result to be one way, which could be interpreted as drastic, and left me conflicted.

Masterfully done.

My only criticism is that despite the subject matter of Alzheimer’s disease which is devastating and life-altering not only for the victim but for the family, the film has a safe feel to it.

I would have liked darker, grittier moments throughout the film to make it even more effective.

Not a happily ever after story, bleaker moments might have prevailed. And, centered on Moore, it also might have been interesting to explore more of the effects the family has and will go through, especially Baldwin’s John.

His character and Lydia could have been explored more deeply instead of merely supporting and comforting Alice.

Still Alice (2014) is worth seeing if only for the performance of Julianne Moore, a talented actress doing a brilliant job in the title role.

Oscar Nominations: 1 win-Best Actress-Julianne Moore (won)

Independent Spirit Award Nominations: 1 win-Best Female Lead-Julianne Moore (won)

American Sniper-2014

American Sniper-2014

Director Clint Eastwood

Starring Bradley Cooper, Sienna Miller

Scott’s Review #223

American_Sniper_poster

Reviewed February 22, 2015

Grade: A-

American Sniper (2014), directed by Clint Eastwood, is a war film told from the viewpoint of a soldier- or a sniper.

A character study if you will.

Starring Bradley Cooper as Chris Kyle, deemed the deadliest marksman in U.S. military history, he has 255 kills. The film begins pre-9/11 as Kyle views coverage of the 1998 U.S. Embassy attacks and enlists in a grueling training program to become a Navy Seal sniper.

Flashbacks reveal Kyle as a child being taught to hunt deer and shoot a rifle by his demanding father. He is eventually sent to Iraq following the 9/11 terror attacks and the film continues to showcase Kyle’s military career and multiple tours of duty ending years later.

His wife Taya is played by Sienna Miller.

I am not sure the bevy of controversy that American Sniper has stirred is warranted. I see the film simply as a very good mainstream, action movie. Yes, it does have the overdone Americana machismo and Texas swagger, but it is an Eastwood film! This masculinity is at the heart of many of his films.

I do not view the film as politically charged.

The film leans neither Republican nor Democratic and seems to take a middle-of-the-road viewpoint.

It is a tale of a war hero, but it questions the wars fought and the casualties involved both American and otherwise. Sure, Kyle is a good ole, red-blooded American, but as he and Taya watch the 9/11 attacks on television, they are watching CNN, not Fox News.

His close military buddy asks “Why are we here?” referring to Afghanistan- there is inference by Eastwood to question what this is all about.

I hope audiences keep this in mind.

One concern I do face as I ponder the film is whether American Sniper will send some audience members back to a time when the world was fearful of Muslims and at risk of the recent ISIS terror situations, I hope that people are smart enough to realize that NOT all Muslims are terrorists.

It is only a minuscule portion that is evilly inspired.

The major terrorist in American Sniper, known simply as The Butcher, is despicable, but plenty of other Muslims are innocent and victims of The Butcher’s brutality.

I love how the film has depth. Cooper is as resilient as the troubled sniper. He is portrayed as human, a nice, all-American guy. He wrestles with the choice of shooting a woman and a young boy who died at the risk of them carrying a bomb and killing members of his squad- he does not want to kill them, but rather is excellent at his job.

He is a perfect shot.

In the heat of the moment, under extreme pressure, he must ask himself, “Should I pull the trigger and end their lives”? “what if they are innocent pedestrians?”.

He becomes, in a sense, addicted to his duty of going overseas to Iraq and Afghanistan and justifies his service as “protecting Americans”.

This leads to a troubled personal life as Taya becomes frustrated with his frequent tours of duty, which he readily chooses to do. He suffers from Post-Traumatic Stress disorder but refuses to acknowledge this. He almost kills the family dog in a fit of uncontrolled rage; he temporarily confuses sounds from an auto shop as military warfare.

My admiration for the acting ability of Bradley Cooper increases with each role I see him in. He is a marvel. From recent dynamic performances in American Hustle (2013) and The Place Beyond the Pines (2012) to this role, I am convinced he can play any part successfully and convincingly.

He has sure come a long way from The Hangover (2009).

American Sniper (2014) is an enormously creative and commercial success and deserves to be. Layered, and character-driven, it is worlds above the typical male-driven action film.

Oscar Nominations: 1 win-Best Picture, Best Actor-Bradley Cooper, Best Adapted Screenplay, Best Sound Editing (won), Best Sound Mixing, Best Film Editing

Bring Me the Head of Alfredo Garcia-1974

Bring Me the Head of Alfredo Garcia-1974

Director Sam Peckinpah

Starring Warren Oates

Scott’s Review #222

70020328

Reviewed February 20, 2015

Grade: B+

Bring Me the Head of Alfredo Garcia is a Mexican, cult-action film from 1974, directed by Sam Peckinpah, that influenced famed modern movie director Quentin Tarantino in multiple ways.

The film itself is violent, bloody, and traditionally Peckinpah in tone and look, similar to his other films (Straw Dogs from 1971 and The Wild Bunch from 1967).

The premise of the film is intriguing- a powerful man known simply as “The Boss”, turns furious and places a bounty on the head of the man who impregnated his daughter, whom he, by the way, tortures to garner this information out of.

He offers the enormous sum of 1 million dollars to the person who can “bring him the head of Alfredo Garcia”.

From this point, the action centers mostly on Bennie, a retired military officer who is intrigued by the bounty up for grabs.

Bennie, along with his prostitute girlfriend, Elita, traverses the lands of Mexico in search of Alfredo Garcia, whether he already be dead or still alive, which is a mysterious and fun element of the film.

I have a tough time taking the film too seriously as much as I enjoyed it- it seems an action farce and, without giving too much away, the scenes involving the carrying of a severed head, arguably the lead character, are as much comical as ghastly.

The illustrious lighting is a major focal point, especially during the outdoor scenes and specifically the nighttime desert scenes when Elita is almost raped by two bikers. The moonlight radiates onscreen.

The character of Elita is a fascinating one for me. On the one hand, she is an aging prostitute madly in love with Bennie and intrigued by a life with him living off their spoils. However, she almost enjoys the sexual experience with one of the bikers, played wonderfully by Kris Kristofferson, despite being roughed up by him.

The scene, while certainly violent, is in a way, almost tender as the biker and Elita realize their attraction for one another. It’s a surreal scene and has almost a sense of clarity for both characters. Are they in lust?

Peckinpah women are traditionally not treated well, but Elita borders on the exception.

The Tarantino influence is undeniable- the mixture of humor amid violence- a severed head being treated as a comical prop, is immeasurable in its comparison to later Tarantino films such as the Kill Bill chapters.

Daring and pure genius, the film contains a dark tone but does not take itself too seriously by going for any sort of melodrama or being overwrought.

It is only a film and has fun with that fact. It tries to be nothing more and embraces being bizarre.

Tarantino films are like Peckinpah films just made 20-30 years apart.

Bring Me the Head of Alfredo Garcia has evolved into a cult classic after having flopped commercially and critically in 1974.

How wonderful when a gem is rediscovered and laden with influence, in this case as much stylistically as otherwise.

The One I Love-2014

The One I Love-2014

Director Charlie McDowell

Starring Mark Duplass, Elisabeth Moss

Scott’s Review #221

70299863

Reviewed February 18, 2015

Grade: C+

Reminiscent of a modern-day Twilight Zone episode, The One I Love (2014) tells the story of a young married couple (Ethan and Sophie), played by Mark Duplass and Elisabeth Moss, who seek the assistance of a therapist, played by Ted Danson.

The therapist realizes the couple is out of sync and recommends a weekend away. The therapist has an excellent reputation for rekindling faltering marriages and turning them into successful ones.

He sends them to a sunny, beachfront house with a guest house, pool, and various trails along the water. It is simply a paradise.

I admire the creativity of the screenplay.

The couple meets their ideal, perfect versions of each other while basking at the vacation house. Ethan’s alter-ego is suave, athletic, and sensitive to Sophie’s needs while Sophie’s is sexy, flirtatious, and invested in Ethan’s life.

The real versions are bored, lazy, and a bit disheveled.

The flaws they once saw in each other are replaced with the perfect spouses. It is fantasy-like. As one half of the couple slowly falls in love with the fantasy version, the other half begins to get jealous and the film dives into a tale of who winds up with whom.

But is it a fantasy? Are the perfect versions real people or something reminiscent of Invasion of the Body Snatchers?

It is tough to know the intentions of the film.

A weakness I felt the film has is it plods too much. At a brief ninety minutes, the film somehow has a sleepy, slow-moving undertone and could have easily been a short film or wrapped up within forty-five or fifty minutes.

I did not feel the chemistry between Duplass and Moss as strongly as I would have liked. Individually fine actors, the spark did not ignite for me.

I wish Ted Danson had a larger role. The focal point was the young couple, but the mysteriousness surrounding the paradise was never really explained and Danson’s character could have been the key to the story. Did he contrive the entire situation? Was it fantasy? His brief part left many plot holes unexplained.

The One I Love (2014) is a creative effort and an imaginative angle, but I wanted more clarity than I was served up.

The film is mysterious, yes, but also confusing and slightly dull and uneven.

Independent Spirit Award Nominations: Best First Screenplay

The Guest-2014

The Guest-2014

Director Adam Wingard

Starring Dan Stevens

Scott’s Review #220

70300664

Reviewed February 7, 2015

Grade: C-

The Guest is a thriller from 2014 that can, perhaps, be classified under the adage “it’s so bad that it’s good”, though as I pondered writing this review, that could be a bit of a stretch.

As poor as the film is, there is something that I slightly enjoyed about it.

The premise is simple. A Midwestern family, the Peterson’s, is suddenly visited by a veteran soldier, named David, who claims to be a friend of the parent’s deceased son Caleb. David easily insinuates himself into their lives and the Petersons extend an invitation for him to stay a few days to rehash details about Caleb.

The family is middle-class, yet struggling financially, and consists of a mother and father, a college-aged daughter named Anna, the actress eerily resembling a young Gwen Stefani, and a bullied, timid, high school-aged son named Luke.

From the get-go, something is off with David, but his motives are unclear to the audience.

The issues with the film are aplenty.

For starters, the acting is rather poor. The most notable actors in the film are Dan Stevens (Downton Abbey) and Sheila Kelley (L.A. Law) and a collection of unknowns.

Stevens and Kelley give better performances, and I particularly thought Stevens very believable in a role opposite of his Downton Abbey alter ego.

The rest of the cast is wooden and un-compelling.

The weakest parts of The Guest are the inane plot points and the 1980s-style soundtrack. Were the filmmakers going for a retro throwback? The film is set in present times so this aspect remains a mystery.

The story starts interestingly. Is it a Fatal Attraction (1987) type of film? What is David’s motive? What was his relationship with the deceased Caleb? Does he intend to help or harm the family?

The reveal towards the end of the film is implausible, ridiculous, and disappointing. Without giving too much away, the government plays a large role in the meat of the film and it does little to provoke sympathy for any of the characters, only eliciting further confusion.

The attempted (and botched) love story between David and Anna does not work. They have little chemistry and the rooting value is not there especially as he picks up her drunken best friend at a party.

Is the audience supposed to root for David and Anna or is it merely a weak sub-plot to the thrill aspect of the film? I suspect the latter.

Despite all of these negatives, I did not despise the film as it trucked along- rather, I found it to be more of a mess than anything else.

It is not a good film, but there is something slightly appealing about it. Some of the death scenes are well done and the budding friendship between David and the bullied son is rather sweet.

The son is enamored with the strong, masculine David, and David, in turn, serves as a protector, humiliating the bullies who gave the kid a black eye. The film does not delve into a sexual angle regarding this but is a bond that is cheerful to see. It has a nice, warm element.

Another impressive point of The Guest is that it ends with a surprise that leaves room for a sequel. However, due to the success that the film did not achieve, I doubt a sequel will ever see the light of day.

A poorly written, weak-acted film, The Guest (2014) has moments of interest but fails miserably at providing a strong viewing experience.

By the end, I still had no idea of the main character’s motivations which is a huge problem.

Confusing and convoluted are the adjectives best to describe this film.

Independent Spirit Award Nominations: Best Editing

Boyhood-2014

Boyhood-2014

Director Richard Linklater

Starring Ellar Coltrane, Ethan Hawke

Scott’s Review #217

70301281

Reviewed January 19, 2015

Grade: A

Boyhood (2014) is a family drama directed by Richard Linklater that tells the story of a family’s trials and tribulations over twelve years, ranging from approximately 2002-2013.

The film uses the same actors over the entire period, enabling the viewer to see the characters change. What a novel idea! In this day and age of special effects, superheroes, and animated animals, how refreshing to see a simple tale of a family told over a while.

The film’s main character is Mason Evans, Jr. played by Ellar Coltrane.

We are introduced to Mason when he is six years old and in the first grade. He lives with his older sister Samantha, played by the director’s daughter Lorelei Linklater, and his mother Olivia, played by Patricia Arquette, in Texas.

Ethan Hawke, divorced from Olivia plays Mason’s father (Mason Sr.).

As the years go by we see situations arise and the characters grow and develop like real life.

After the film, Mason Jr. is headed off to college following years of life experience including his first relationship. The other characters develop and we see Olivia and Mason Sr. delve into relationships with partners, some successful, others less successful.

Boyhood succeeds because it is a film about real life that feels like a slice of Americana.

It’s a wonderful film.

The audience invests in the characters because we grow to love and care about their lives. It is comparable to seeing cousins or friends once a year and seeing what becomes of their lives over time.

This film fascinates me because it is so basic and real that it does not need contrived dramatic situations to warrant attention. It is simply authentic and that is what makes a great film.

The film is left-leaning politically speaking and I love that current events are brought up throughout the years by the family members.

As the film progresses we are treated to Mason Sr. commenting on his distaste of the Iraq war, the children’s anticipation of the new Harry Potter film, Mason Sr. taking the kids to a Houston Astros game, and The Beatles and Star Wars are mentioned.

Another scene sadly focuses on a returning soldier from Iraq who suffers from Post-traumatic stress disorder. These nuances make the film seem so authentic and rich.

As wonderful a job as Patricia Arquette and Ethan Hawke did neither of them had a huge, bombastic, emotional scene which would have been splendid given the talents of each, but this is a small criticism.

Both are superb as struggling parents trying to do the right thing for their children and carve out a life for themselves.

Boyhood redefines realism in the film as we see a family unit hope, struggle, and dream as it’s played out before our eyes.

The film does not need overwrought dramatics as it is simply a slice of the life of a group of people we come to know and love.

Everyone can relate to Boyhood (2014).

Oscar Nominations: 1 win-Best Picture, Best Director-Richard Linklater, Best Supporting Actor-Ethan Hawke, Best Supporting Actress-Patricia Arquette (won), Best Original Screenplay, Best Film Editing

Independent Spirit Award Nominations: 2 wins-Best Feature, Best Director-Richard Linklater (won), Best Supporting Male-Ethan Hawke, Best Supporting Female-Patricia Arquette (won), Best Editing

Big Eyes-2014

Big Eyes-2014

Director Tim Burton

Starring Amy Adams, Christoph Waltz

Scott’s Review #216

70095129

Reviewed January 18, 2015

Grade: B

Big Eyes (2014) tells the true story of Margaret Keane, a talented artist, famous for the “big eyes” waif collection, whose husband manipulated her and took credit for her works during the 1950s and 1960s.

A con artist, he passed himself off as a talented artist, but in truth, he scammed other artists and had no artistic talent of his own.

He was also mentally unstable.

Due to his charisma and ability to wine and dine, with influential people, combined with his marketing talents, he made millions in profits from his wife’s art.

Amy Adams and Christoph Waltz portray Margaret and Walter Keane.

Tim Burton directs the film.

Adams and Waltz are the main appeals in this film. They share tremendous chemistry, when they are courting one another and subsequently when they despise each other and fight a bitter divorce battle in court over the rights to Margaret’s paintings.

I love Christoph Waltz in whatever he appears in as his charisma and acting ability astound me.

Adams is quite effective and believable as the passive, loyal, and talented Margaret Keane.

As compelling performance as Adams gives, one issue with the film is that I did not feel as sympathetic towards Margaret Keane as the film probably intended.

I like the character very much and was rooting for her in the courthouse scenes to be awarded rights to her paintings and cheered when she escaped to Hawaii with her daughter to begin a new life.

But, she willingly went along with her husband’s plot, as they both decided a female artist would not sell like a man could (it was the 1950s), and they made millions from her art. They lived in a gorgeous house, had wonderful dinners, and were able to maintain an extravagant lifestyle- not so bad.

It was not as if Walter stole all of her money and left her homeless. She enjoyed a nice lifestyle.

So, my sympathy for her was affected.

A positive of Big Eyes is how Margaret continues to uncover Walter’s deceptions. She first learns he has taken credit for her work then finds out that he is not even an artist and has conned another painter into giving Walter credit for their work.

The buildup to these reveals is excellent.

The film is a change of pace for Tim Burton. Big Eyes is not a dark film and is quite bright and colorful. Some interesting sets and art direction are similar to his other works- Edward Scissorhands and Beetlejuice.

Big Eyes (2014) is an enjoyable film largely made successful by the talents and appeal of its two stars.

Independent Spirit Award Nominations: Best Screenplay

Pride-2014

Pride-2014

Director Matthew Warchus

Starring Bill Nighy, Imelda Staunton

Scott’s Review #215

80013480

Reviewed January 17, 2015

Grade: B-

Pride (2014), based on a true story, deserves props for delivering a nice message about inclusion and groups of vastly different people coming together as human beings.

While it’s a nice film, the filmmakers play it a bit too safe and it has a definite formulaic feel to it.

Surely, the real story of Pride was not as simplistic as this film felt at times.

The setting is 1984 England. A group of British miners goes on strike over wages. A group named Lesbians and Gays Support the Miners made up of gay men and women developed an interest in the strike and decided to help the miners and families.

Why they decided to take on this cause is not fully explained. The National Union of Mineworkers is hesitant to accept funds as they worry about the publicity caused by a group thought to be perverts.

The film is riddled with clichés- the macho miners resist the help from the gays, many of whom are portrayed as effeminate. The characters who are lesbians look as though the filmmakers wanted to “butch them up”, thereby overdoing the stereotype.

There is a subplot of one gay young man who has not come out to his parents, a well-to-do, pretentious couple. When inevitably the truth is revealed, the parents are angry and turn their backs on the teen.

He leaves home to join the gays and lesbians who accept him into their lives with open arms.

The female head of the committee is homophobic and vows to do everything in her power to make sure the gay and lesbian group does not succeed in aligning with the miners.

These clichés seemed way too overdone to make the film more dramatic. Some of the characters, therefore, come across as one-dimensional.

Even the story revolving around a character with AIDS seems watered down and soft.

On the plus side, casting the brilliant Imelda Staunton as the sympathetic, maternal, Hefina is a plus.

A huge supporter of gays and lesbians she comically befriends all of them and is curious about their lifestyles. Bill Nighy is also excellent as Cliff, the older miner who turns out to be gay.

Margaret Thatcher, Prime Minister at the time, is presented as greedy and selfish with little regard or use for the miners or labor unions.

Pride (2014) is an earnest, sentimental, feel-good film that deserves adoration for the coming together of different communities.

I would have liked to see more risks taken by the film.

The Imitation Game-2014

The Imitation Game-2014

Director Morten Tyldum

Starring Benedict Cumberbatch, Keira Knightley

Scott’s Review #213

70295172

Reviewed January 15, 2015

Grade: A

The Imitation Game (2014) tells the story of Alan Turing, a confident and brilliant British mathematician who was responsible for cracking Nazi Germany’s Enigma code, which led to the Allied forces winning World War II.

The film also delves into Turing’s complex and sad personal life and the audience grows to know his upbringing largely told via flashbacks as a small boy at boarding school.

The film is tragic yet wonderfully made and is a powerful viewing experience in human storytelling.

The film has two aspects going on. The first is the hiring of Turing by the Government Code and Cypher School at Bletchley Park to crack the code and the numerous struggles faced in accomplishing this feat.

Turing is not easy-going. He is arrogant, quick-witted, and even smug. However, through his friendship with Joan (Keira Knightley), an intelligent woman on the team of scholars, we see a human side to him as they forge a lifelong bond.

The other is of his personal life which is a bit more mysterious and comes into play during the second half. Keeping a secret about his personal life, he is homosexual, which in the time the film is set (1940’s England), is illegal.

Alan and Joan agree to marry, in large part to appease her parents, but circumstances change these plans.

Benedict Cumberbatch, who portrays Turning, deserves praise for his impressive portrayal. He successfully gives depth and a wide range of emotions to the character.

He begins as a self-centered man but becomes layered, guarded, and protective due to his private life of which he is forced to hide a great deal.

Keira Knightley’s character supports Cumberbatch’s character of Alan as she becomes engaged to him and later in life becomes his biggest champion. Her character, besides being quite intelligent, is also kind and giving.

The ending will give the viewer many tears and cause to think of the enormity of World War II in terms of the vast amount of casualties. The facts listed just before the credits roll are awe-inspiring and gut-wrenching.

The Imitation Game is not a war movie per se since it does not deal with battle scenes. It is more of a drama dealing with the effects of war. Many figures are presented and some characters are affected.

For instance, in one scene, the group (led by Turing) must make a heartbreaking decision not to stop an impending attack, which will cause many deaths- including a character’s brother- instead of choosing to keep mum to save thousands more.

It is a powerful scene.

The Imitation Game (2014) successfully and heartbreakingly tells the story of a heroic figure who received no accolades while living, instead of being ostracized, and not until posthumously, did he receive his due.

Sadly, this was too little too late.

Oscar Nominations: 1 win-Best Picture, Best Director-Morten Tyldum, Best Actor-Benedict Cumberbatch, Best Supporting Actress-Keira Knightley, Best Adapted Screenplay (won), Best Original Score, Best Production Design, Best Film Editing

Foxcatcher-2014

Foxcatcher-2014

Director Bennett Miller

Starring Steve Carell, Channing Tatum, Mark Ruffalo

Scott’s Review #210

220px-Foxcatcher_First_Teaser_Poster

Reviewed January 2, 2015

Grade: A

Foxcatcher (2014) is a dark, disturbing, psychological thriller that achieves greatness based on its bleak look and great acting.

It is a superb character-driven story, based on true events, led by the talents of actors Steve Carrell, Channing Tatum, and Mark Ruffalo, each of whom is excellent.

It is a sports film, but hardly predictable as many in this genre typically are.

The film is set in 1987. Brothers Mark and Dave Schultz (Tatum and Ruffalo respectively) are former Olympic gold medal-winning wrestlers attempting to compete in the upcoming 1988 Olympic competitions.

Despite winning a gold medal, Mark (Tatum) lives in squalor and is reduced to giving pep rallies at elementary schools, meant to be done by Dave (Ruffalo), for very little money. Dave is the more successful brother, a family man living a happy existence.

He is more talented than Mark and very driven.

One day Mark is contacted by wealthy philanthropist John du Pont (Carrell) and invited to live with him at his expansive estate in Pennsylvania and train with other aspiring Olympic wrestlers.

John’s attempts at wooing Dave as well initially fail.

From this point in the story, the film delves into psychologically dark territory, mainly the controlling, disturbing behavior of John, as he attempts to control Mark and woo Dave.

John has a damaged relationship with his mother, Jean, wonderfully played by Vanessa Redgrave. Jean feels that John’s obsession with the wrestling world is far beneath him and their relationship is tense and unloving.

The three principal actors involved in the film are worthy of discussion as the film would not be as complex or compelling.

Let’s begin with Channing Tatum- known primarily as a hunky movie star with questionable acting ability, he proves the naysayers wrong.

I cannot help but compare him to a younger Brad Pitt. It took years and many films for him to be recognized as more than a pretty face and abs to die for.

His performance is understated and calm, but nuanced in his laid-back demeanor. Sometimes anger bubbles under the surface.

Carrell is downright creepy as the affluent yet insecure Du Pont.

Throughout the film, the character seems off. Known mostly for silly comedies he is a breakout performance that, I hope, leads to similar meaty roles. Carrell shows he has what it takes to appear in quality films.

Lastly, Mark Ruffalo, who always plays interesting, everyman-type characters, again emits much emotion from his character of Dave Schultz, a successful, driven, athlete who is also a dedicated husband and father.

With lesser casting, Foxcatcher would not have been as interesting.

Questions at the end of the film will arise. What were John du Pont’s motivations? What effect did his mother have on his actions? How could a man with all his power and wealth end up this sad? Were there inappropriate sexual overtures made towards the wrestlers by John?

Foxcatcher (2014) excels at portraying a dark, layered, moody, true story and teaches that wealth does not equate to happiness and in many instances, quite the contrary occurs.

The film is an immense success.

Oscar Nominations: Best Director-Bennett Miller, Best Actor-Steve Carell, Best Supporting Actor-Mark Ruffalo, Best Original Screenplay, Best Makeup and Hairstyling

Independent Spirit Award Nominations: 1 win-Special Distinction Award (won)