Category Archives: Action

Ford v Ferrari-2019

Ford v Ferrari-2019

Director James Mangold

Starring Matt Damon, Christian Bale

Scott’s Review #1,041

Reviewed July 18, 2020

Grade: B-

Ford v Ferrari (2019) is a film based on a real-life situation in the world of race car driving featuring two of Hollywood’s most recognizable leading men, Matt Damon and Christian Bale.

Co-leads share equal screen time and independent storylines that merge nicely. Bale gives the best performance and is the best part of an otherwise mediocre film.

The rest is quite formulaic and traditional in plot and filmmaking sensibilities.

Receiving several Academy Award nominations, I expected more from the experience. Granted, car racing isn’t the subject I’m most intrigued by.

Carroll Shelby (Damon) is an American car designer and entrepreneur, who the Ford Motor Company hires to build a car that will beat the Italian-owned Ferrari after a feud erupts between the two owners.

Shelby is tasked with building the car to debut at the upcoming 1966 24 Hours of Le Mans car race in France.

The rebellious race car driver, Ken Miles (Bale), who has no fear, is chosen to drive the new car. He and his wife have money troubles and need the payday.

Director James Mangold certainly adds his share of pomp and circumstance, making this a testosterone-fueled guy’s film. Traditional styles ensue as the climactic race fills the last act of the way-too-long production.

There is a story of loyalty and brotherhood between Carroll and Ken that feels forced and dated.

Ford v Ferrari is formulaic to a tee, with a clear modus operandi of providing entertainment and action.

The pieces are all in play. The Ford corporation is pissed at being tricked into a deal by a foreign country (Italy). They vow revenge with a big, American car that can defeat the foreign vehicle. There is a climactic finish, with the American car emerging as the clear victor.

However, first, there are hurdles to overcome to increase the tension and drama. Ken’s driver door malfunctions, causing him to have to gain laps to catch up to Ferrari.

Ford is written as the underdog, which is a tough sell.

Since the real-life events took place during the Cold War, Mangold spins a definitive Americana, good old boys’ creation that feels too patriotic to be genuine.

Many other films share a similar vibe, such as Apollo 13 (1995), The Martian (2015), and especially Rush (2013), which is similarly themed.

The Ford guys, though cagey and gruff, are meant to be the characters the audience roots for, and the Italian characters are not.

And is there a need to still show the cliched scene of a dedicated wife obediently watching television at home and cheering on her husband as he races?

The gripes are not to say the film is a bad experience- it’s not. It’s just that it’s on par with good Mexican takeout from your favorite restaurant.

You know precisely what you are going to get, and there is some comfort and satisfaction in that. Ford v Ferrari is an easy watch, and one can sink into their sofa and enjoy the revving engines, squealing tires, and smoking mufflers.

The film is machismo at its finest. Think of a better version of The Fast and the Furious (2001-present) franchise.

Let’s talk Oscar nominations.

There is no way Ford v Ferrari should have received a Best Picture nomination. Either Us (2019), Hustlers (2019), or A Beautiful Day in the Neighborhood (2019) could have deservedly taken its spot.

Warranted are nominations for Film Editing, Sound Editing, and Sound Mixing, for which it won the first two. More realistic is for Christian Bale to have been awarded a Best Supporting Actor nomination, which he did not receive.

Sometimes the Academy gets it right, sometimes they don’t.

Being a non-race car enthusiast might have hindered my enjoyment of the film compared to a more passionate viewer.

For those seeking a standard, rev ’em up, male-driven race car film, kick up your heels and enjoy the ride —you’ll love it. Ford v Ferrari (2019) will only marginally please those seeking a deeper meaning in film or film as an art form.

The film will undoubtedly be remembered as one of the most mainstream and Hollywood-produced films possible.

Oscar Nominations: 2 wins- Best Picture, Best Sound Editing (won), Best Sound Mixing, Best Film Editing (won)

A History of Violence-2005

A History of Violence-2005

Director David Cronenberg

Starring Viggo Mortensen, Mario Bello, Ed Harris

Scott’s Review #1,016

Reviewed April 28, 2020

Grade: B+

David Cronenberg has directed films such as Videodrome (1983), The Fly (1986), and Crash (1996), stories safely classified as “off the beaten path”.

With A History of Violence (2005), he creates a film that on the surface appears conventional and even wholesome at the onset, a family drama or thriller, that turns sinister and bloody as it lumbers along.

The Christian-like small Indiana town is the perfect backdrop to quietly inflict mayhem and terror on its characters. Stars Viggo Mortensen and Ed Harris give tremendous portrayals.

Tom Stall (Mortensen) lives a quiet mid-western life and owns a quaint, little diner nestled in the center of town. He is a popular man and quite neighborly, befriending the many patrons who visit his lovely eatery. At his side are his adoring wife Edie (Maria Bello), and children, Jack and Sarah.

If they owned a golden retriever and resided in a house with a white picket fence, they would define the all-American family.

Late one night, two men attempt to rob the restaurant and when they attack a waitress, Tom kills both robbers with surprising ease and skill barely blinking at his violent tendencies. He is professed a hero by the townspeople and the incident makes him a local celebrity.

Tom is then visited by the frightening scarred gangster Carl Fogarty (Harris), who insists that Tom is a notorious gangster from Philadelphia named Joey Cusack. Tom is perplexed and vehemently denies the claims, but Fogarty begins to stalk the Stall family.

Because of the pressure, Tom’s family life hits crisis mode.

As the film ticks along the plot becomes thicker and thicker as the puzzle pieces are rife with mystery. Is Fogarty merely a liar, holding a vendetta against the person who killed his men? Does Tom suffer from amnesia, having forgotten his past life due to an accident?

Has Tom fled the criminal life seeking refuge and a new life in middle America, safely leaving his troubles behind? Does the truth lie somewhere in the middle of these possibilities?

Bello is cast in the role of Edie, Tom’s loyal wife. Bello is a stellar actor and does a wonderful job in the complicated role. Far too often, especially in thrillers, the wife role is as lacking in the challenge as it is in glamour. The ever-supportive wife must be a drag to play but pays the bills.

Edie is different, and as soon as the viewer has her figured out, she acts out of the blue which will surprise this type of character. This has a lot to do with Bello’s pizzazz and acting chops.

I adore the setting of the film. A far cry from the bustling City of Brotherly Love, Philadelphia, when the action eventually flows to the city, the rural setting of Indiana becomes even more important.

The quiet mornings, the imagined smell of fresh-brewed coffee, the crackling of sizzling bacon on the grill at Tom’s Diner, and finally, crickets chirping in the distance, all provoke the potent atmosphere and surroundings that work in this film.

A History of Violence (2005) is a superior film that contains excellent writing, the best aspect of the rich experience. A top-notch screenplay written by Josh Olson leaves the viewer not only with mounting tension but the mysterious unknown as to what will happen next and what the truth is.

Mortensen, commonplace in recent Cronenberg films, has found his niche playing complex yet humanistic characters, which must be a challenge for the actor and a splendid reward for the audience.

Oscar Nominations: Best Supporting Actor-William Hurt, Best Adapted Screenplay

10,000 B.C.- 2008

10,000 B.C.- 2008

Director Roland Emmerich

Starring Steven Strait, Camilla Belle

Scott’s Review #988

Reviewed February 11, 2020

Grade: F

10,000 B.C. (2008) is a by-the-numbers adventure/action hybrid film that attempts to be slick and modern with catchy visual elements and instead bottoms out resulting in an example of terrible filmmaking.

The CGI usurps all other qualities providing no historical accuracy, with a ridiculous 2008 feel rather than the time at hand. Those involved only had maximum box office returns in mind when the film was created.

An irritating formulaic quality and poor acting across the board leave this one dead on arrival.

Fierce, masculine mammoth hunter D’Leh (Steven Strait) sets out on an impossible journey to rescue the woman he loves, Evolet, (Camilla Belle) from an evil warlord and save the people of his village.

While venturing into the unknown and frightening territories, D’Leh and his fellow warriors discover an amazing civilization rife with possibilities.

Predictably, the warriors are attacked and slaughtered, leaving the young man to protect the remaining group while winning the heart of a princess, well above his station in life.

The story is complete schmaltz and easy to predict from nearly the very beginning of the film.

Powerful invaders force the hunters of D’Leh’s tribe into slavery and accost the princess in such a fashion that the setup is all put neatly in place for the viewer, providing nothing out of the ordinary. When the young and naive boy has an epiphany and realizes he is the only one who can save his tribe from extinction, it is all too much.

The film is riddled with cliche after cliche after cliche.

A tough ask to lead a film with summer blockbuster written all over it, newcomers Strait and Belle do their best, which only enhances how poor their acting is.

Cast for their good looks, they can offer little else. For audience delight, Strait is costumed with a bad wig, dripping sweat, and bulging muscles. Belle is also victimized as she pouts and sulks while wearing skimpy clothing.

The result is a standard boy meets a girl, the boy loses the girl, and the boy becomes a man to save the girl’s mess. Inexplicable is how they meet and fall in love before ever speaking or getting to know each other.

If only the bad acting were the only negative the film might be fair to middling, but nothing good is ever offered. All the hunters and tribesmen look like modern people dressed to look from a different period.

The endless battle scenes borrow from the legions of action and adventure films that have come before it. The animals prance across the screen in obvious timed moments providing little in the way of authenticity.

Director, Roland Emmerich, known for films such as Independence Day (1996) and The Day After Tomorrow (2004) has a knack for creating large epic adventures to please mainstream audiences.

There is nothing wrong with a conventional film if it manages to teach the viewer something or offer something of merit. With a target audience of pubescent boys and girls yearning to learn, Emmerich misses a golden opportunity to present an imaginative prehistoric moment and provide a lesson.

Complete with a bad story and bad acting, the drivel conjured up is nearly too much.

10,000 B.C. (2008) cannot be saved by the over-stylish visuals because they are so phony one cannot even fathom any credibility. The good-looking main stars look straight out of a glossy magazine and hardly from the prehistoric era presented.

With a little attempt at giving audiences anything of substance, this film is an epic fail to be missed.

300-2007

300-2007

Director Zack Snyder

Starring Gerard Butler, Dominic West

Scott’s Review #977

Reviewed January 7, 2020

Grade: D

On paper 300 (2007) could have been a good or even a great film under different circumstances, if a historical realism or a message of some kind had existed.

Unfortunately, what sounds like an interesting premise is met with a cartoon quality, over-acting, and cheesy testosterone-laden bombast.

Little more than drivel, the film is saved slightly by a charismatic lead, male flesh, and potent homo-eroticism, but this is no Magic Mike (2012), and the content fails because it is intended to be taken seriously.

The result is a silly affair, with predictability, and cliches for miles.

The story is based on a 1998 comic series of the same name that is a fictionalized retelling of a battle within the Persian War.

The flimsy plot revolves around King Leonidas (Gerard Butler), who leads 300 Spartans into battle against the Persian “God-King” Xerxes (Rodrigo Santoro) and his invading army of more than 300,000 soldiers (hence the title).

As the battle rages on, Queen Gorgo (Lena Headey) attempts to rally support in Sparta for her husband (Leonidas) and conquer the army.

Butler is the only slight positive worth mentioning as he preens and prances in little more than a loin-cloth with chiseled abs during the battle scenes, ferociously bellowing at his enemy.

A fine-looking man, he is unarguably charismatic and poised, so the audience is strongly encouraged to root for him, and naturally for the Spartans. Leonidas makes for a powerful leader and is great to look at, but that is where any positives to this film end.

The scantily clad gimmick is not intended to draw female viewers to the film, or at least the intent doesn’t seem to be there unless the marketing is botched. There is enough male nudity to go around and the beefcake and machismo are clear in most of the characters.

Laughable is how the Spartans all have washboard abs and appear to be freshly waxed. Did they have access to state-of-the-art fitness centers in 479 BC?

The Persians are mostly face-pierced and sneering, the clear enemy, which does nothing to diminish racist overtones. Spartan-good, Persian-bad.

Zack Snyder’s (Dawn of the Dead-2004) motivation seems to be to market this film to pubescent teenage males or the low-IQ crowd so the stereotypes are not the best thing to witness nor will they cause anyone to feel very liberated or united.

The characters are either cookie-cutter or grizzled and violent, which is in tune with most of the film- bloody, but without reason, substance, or merit. One-note character after one-note character appears through each scene.

Most bothersome is the intent to stir a pro-war stance, not helpful given the target audience.

300 was filmed mostly with a superimposition chroma key technique, to help replicate the imagery of the original comic book which does nothing but make the film look like a high-energy video game.

The product is quite stylized with gloomy battleground scenes and dire bleakness and derives a graphic novel or comic book approach but lacks any subtle qualities or pretty much anything else interesting from a cinematography perspective.

The battle scene finale is by the numbers and should come as no surprise who the inevitable victor is. The film requires little thought or attention span and one can simply immerse themselves onto a cushion and absorb the nonsense couch-potato style.

Battle after battle erupts with cliched earnestness and a bevy of blood-spurting wounds and kills. This would be okay if there existed any point or good plot twist.

Any character development is missing.

300 (2007) is a weak offering and decidedly boring, a surprise since much of the events take place on the battleground where the action is produced a mile a minute. The experience is forgettable, and a legion of other action-fueled films exist with more meat and potatoes on their plate.

The sinister and stereotypical aspects make the resulting film less than fun and the big, loud, dumb product is only marginally cinematic.

We can do better.

Dawn of the Dead-2004

Dawn of the Dead-2004

Director Zack Snyder

Starring Sarah Polley, Ving Rhames

Scott’s Review #956

Reviewed November 8, 2019

Grade: C+

Dawn of the Dead (2004) is a remake of the original horror-comedy-satire film by legendary George Romero. What the original provided in intrigue and concept is lacking in the much bloodier remake- the freshness is not there.

The film was made pre-television phenomenon The Walking Dead but watching it now with the zombie obsession in a steady decline, the film, while entertaining, feels tired and dated.

The film feels patterned after the successful and fresh 28 Days Later (2002).

Now set in Wisconsin (the original was in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania), Ana (Sarah Polley), returns from a shift at the local hospital, where she works as a nurse. She soon learns that massive bulletins alert sudden zombie plague, where former human beings have turned into cannibalistic corpses.

Her husband a victim, Ana joins a small group of survivors at the local shopping mall and attempts to stay alive while being encircled by the creatures, and other not-so-nice people.

The main group includes a grizzled police sergeant, Kenneth (Ving Rhames), electronics salesman Michael, petty criminal Andre and his pregnant wife, Luda, and three guards, C.J., Bart, and Terry.  They are later joined by others who arrive via delivery truck.

The large group befriends another survivor, Andy, who is stranded in his gun store across the zombie-infested parking lot.

The rest of the film offs the characters one by one in traditional horror style, while the remaining few try to figure out an escape route.

The main problem with Dawn of the Dead is that the characters are not written well, making them either one-note or not particularly interesting, and quite stereotypical. Examples of this are the angry and defiant guards, who make trouble for the rest of the group for no other reason than as a weak plot device to create drama other than from the zombies.

Kenneth is an angry cop, a lone wolf type of character, who frequently postures and preaches. Again, there is no interesting reason behind his personality.

Finally, Steve is an oversexed playboy who keeps recordings of his sexual shenanigans for repeated viewings.

The character meant to root for is Ana. We sympathize with her for her husband’s gruesome death and her struggle to stay alive, so she is the film’s hero. Her character is likable and Polley is a worthy actress, but I wonder if a name star would have been better in this circumstance.

Polley did not last very long in the Hollywood world and this only makes the film feel more dated than it already does. Many viewers will not know who the actress is.

Another irritant is the decision to make the zombies move faster. Part of the beauty of the zombies is that they are slow and brooding, unable to think, just existing in a mummy-like haze. Suddenly, they are fast, making them tougher to flee from. This attempt at a modern approach by changing things up too much does not work at all.

Dawn of the Dead is not all dour.

Props must be given to the mall setting, updated for 2004 shopping inclusiveness. Trendy and timely stores are added, and it feels like a mall of its time. This is one aspect of the film that works and feels interesting.

Eagle-eyed viewers may spot some of their favorite stores from this decade.

The strongest part of an otherwise mediocre film is the brilliant incorporation of the heavy-metal band Disturbed’s aggressive song “Down with the Sickness” from 1999. The song is incorporated over the stylistic end credits and a summary of what happens to the survivors is provided over the lyrically brutal song.

Unfortunately, it is at the very ending of the film where it finally hits a home run.

Since this is a remake it is impossible not to compare it to the 1978 version in many ways. The characters in the original had more salt and a romance added a bit of complexity. The original also felt fun whereas the 2004 version seems hardened and angry.

The originality that made the original fresh is lacking in this retread, which limits the unique social context and thought provocation that the original contained.

With little reason to watch Dawn of the Dead (2004), unless it was still 2004, the original 1978 Romero version is far superior. A fun tip might be to watch them in sequence (I did!) to notice differences in style and pacing and for general comparison sake.

The final musical score is a win, but much of the rest is dull and dated.

Atomic Blonde-2017

Atomic Blonde-2017

Director David Leitch

Starring Charlize Theron, James McAvoy

Scott’s Review #857

Reviewed January 19, 2019

Grade: B+

Atomic Blonde (2017) is a female-empowering action/spy film directed by David Leitch, a former stuntman. The film plays similarly to James Bond, but with the genders reversed.

The film is visually stylish, featuring dynamic music and cold, crisp location sequences of Europe.

The story is not the main appeal and cannot always be followed, but thanks to a great performance by Charlize Theron in the title role, the film is pleasant and recommended for fans of either the spy or action genres.

Based on the 2012 graphic novel The Coldest City, the film is set in Berlin in 1989, and its central theme is the collapse of the Berlin Wall amid a spy story and the Cold War backdrop.

A grizzled female MI6 agent, Lorraine Broughton (Charlize Theron), is quizzed about events that occurred during her recent time spent in the German city investigating the death of a fellow spy.

She recounts her mission via flashbacks and the whereabouts of a mysterious list that reveals the names of MI6 and KGB Russian agents. Lorraine deals frequently with David Percival (James McAvoy), an odd colleague who may or may not be trusted.

The plot and subsequent story are hardly the finer points of Atomic Blonde, and the title—a play on the words “atomic bomb”—is too cute to be taken seriously.

The novice director is a former stuntman, so one should not expect high art or exceptional writing material. The largest issue besides the plot holes and implausibility of the story is that it is not engaging. After thirty minutes of trying to ascertain who had “the list,” I gave up and tried not to follow too closely, instead enjoying the film’s other qualities.

Theron is well cast as bleached blonde vixen Lorraine—harsh as nails and badass. With icy eyes and a sneer that makes the most formidable opponents cringe, the actress has the charisma to make the role her own.

The tall and fit woman endures too many fight scenes to count, but her pizzazz and wherewithal make the character believable. Her toned physique is not dissimilar to that of her character in Mad Max: Fury Road (2015).

Bisexual, Lorraine has a brief romantic escapade with Delphine Lasalle (Sofia Boutella), a young French agent, until the woman is murdered.

Any advEuropean adventurer can be enamored for, logistically speaking, the exciting locales featured heartily in Atomic Blonde.

Sleek and modern, the photography and cinematography departments do a fantastic job of giving the film authenticity and audacity to reveal the terrific nooks and crannies the best cities offer.

Given the number of high-speed car chase scenes and a fantastic underwater sequence, London, Paris, and Berlin are all given their just due.

The feminist overview that Atomic Blonde possesses is worthy of praise. Able to tangle with the best of them, Lorraine takes no prisoners and is determined to battle until the end or until she is too bloody to fight back. She is tough yet sensitive and puts up with no nonsense.

Still, she has a heart, as evidenced by not only the violent death of her girlfriend and her subsequent reaction but also her calm despair at being unable to save a drowning man’s life. Lorraine’s calm and resilience, instead of over-dramatic emotional outrage, make her a character that has developed very well and is a role model for young women everywhere.

McAvoy is cute as a button as David adds comic relief and sly witticisms to many scenes. He often appears shirtless, exposing his lean and muscular physique. As a fan of sexual dalliances, he is both combative and flirtatious with Lorraine, though he never beds her.

A yin to her yang and sparring partners throughout, David is a nice addition to a cast containing mostly serious characters.

The 1980s-themed musical score features nostalgic songs peppered throughout the film, seemingly every few moments.

Atomic Blonde plays like a bold music video with intelligently penned songs, not disposable crap. The inclusion adds a genuine celebration of the decade of decadence crafted thoughtfully.

Treats such as the masterful “Voices Carry” by ‘Til Tuesday, “London Calling” by The Clash, and “Der Kommissar” by After the Fire is placed perfectly during relevant scenes.

With a ballsy lead character and enough action to envelope a nearly two-hour action thriller Atomic Blonde (2017) is a gift in the atmosphere and great ambiance. Forget bothering to deep-dive into the complex story too much- it isn’t worth it.

Admittedly, the coveting style over substance can be forgiven because the nice elements overshadow the negatives.

Atomic Blonde (2017) best serves as a kickback and enjoy the ride experience.

Moonraker-1979

Moonraker-1979

Director Lewis Gilbert

Starring Roger Moore, Lois Chiles, Michael Lonsdale

Scott’s Review #770

Reviewed June 8, 2018

Grade: A-

Moonraker (1979) is an installment in the James Bond film franchise, not usually well regarded and rarely appearing on critics’ top-ten lists.

Perhaps a reason for this is the film’s timing, hot on the heels of the late 1970’s Star Wars craze. Plans for a different Bond film were scrapped in favor of an outer space story.

Regardless, I adore most of Moonraker, save for the final thirty minutes when the plot gets way too far-fetched for anyone’s good.

The rest of the film is a superior entry and holds up quite well in the modern age of all things Bond.

Many of the familiar elements remain intact following the successful and lavish The Spy Who Loved Me (1975). An even heftier budget featuring gorgeous locales like Venice, Rio de Janeiro, and the Amazon rainforest is on display, as is a capable, intelligently written “Bond girl”.

The villains, compelling and suave, including the return appearance of Jaws (Richard Kiel), and handy, dandy gadgets make Moonraker a treat for fans.

Therefore, I find the non-love for the film rather mystifying.

The action begins when a jumbo jet carrying a Drax Industries Moonraker space shuttle is hijacked midair, causing the plane to crash and the shuttle to disappear.

Since the space shuttle was on loan to the United Kingdom from the wealthy and powerful Hugo Drax (Michael Lonsdale), 007 (Roger Moore) is tasked with finding its whereabouts. He visits the grand shuttle-manufacturing plant in California, where he learns that Drax and his bodyguard Chang are sinister and plotting global destruction.

Bond befriends the gorgeous and highly intelligent Dr. Holly Goodhead (Lois Chiles), an astronaut who works at the facility, and Corinne Dufour (Corinne Clery), the beautiful personal pilot of Drax.

As events roll along, Jaws returns to the story seeking revenge on Bond and subsequently serves as Drax’s new bodyguard.

Of course, treasured favorites like M (Bernard Lee), Q (Desmond Llewelyn), and Miss Moneypenny (Lois Maxwell) return to the fold.

To explain the weakest portion of the film first, producers were attempting to capitalize on the tremendous success of 1977’s Star Wars by featuring a space exploration theme.

Only in the final half-hour does this come into play, as Bond and Goodhead, and nearly the entire cast, don bright yellow spacesuits. Drax’s evil plan is to eradicate all humankind and begin a new world with only beautiful people existing and reproducing.

The inevitable final battle scenes take place in a sprawling space station amid laser guns shooting bright beams- a direct rip-off from Star Wars.

The entire sequence is too long and quite reminiscent of my criticism of the tedious finale from the otherwise brilliant The Spy Who Loved Me, Moonraker’s predecessor.

Otherwise, the film is top-notch.

Fantastic sequences involve Bond’s midair fight with a bad guy and a dangerous struggle for a parachute, a fight scene high atop a Cable Car during Rio Carnival, vicious sparring in a Venice museum, and a female character chased and torn to bits by Drax’s carnivorous dogs, all of which make for great action sequences.

The highlight, though, may very well be Bond’s harrowing ordeal inside an out-of-control centrifuge chamber.

The return of Jaws is certainly a highlight of Moonraker, especially as the popular villain turns “good” and finds a love interest! When he sees the cute blonde girl with pigtails and glasses, both characters’ eyes light up in a “love at first sight” moment.

As Jaws realizes Drax’s plans for both of them to exterminate his alliances have suddenly switched, a touching scene unfolds between the two over champagne.

Moore and Chiles have tremendous chemistry as the MI-6 agent teams with the capable female CIA agent. Holly Goodhead is portrayed exceptionally well: female, intelligent, gorgeous, and savvy.

Impressive (and progressive) is how Goodhead takes charge as she and 007 make a harrowing journey back to planet Earth and then work nicely together to destroy Drax’s deadly missiles.

Sure, the romance is there, but also the mutual respect between the two.

Fondly recalling childhood memories of watching this film numerous times, I have good memories of Moonraker (1979).

More importantly, it possesses wonderful Bond qualities that will enchant many Bond fans seeking fun and entertainment.

The film has a ludicrous plot that attempts to fit the times, but thanks to lavish sets and a competent main Bond girl, it is quite memorable.

Oscar Nominations: Best Visual Effects

Indiana Jones and the Temple of Doom-1984

Indiana Jones and the Temple of Doom-1984

Director Steven Spielberg

Starring Harrison Ford

Scott’s Review #759

Reviewed May 17, 2018

Grade: A

The second in the trilogy (I refused to acknowledge the middling Kingdom of the Crystal Skull in 2008), Indiana Jones and the Temple of Doom (1984) is easily my favorite of the group.

Much darker than its predecessor, Raiders of the Lost Ark, it is also better, with more flair and pizzazz.

All three (1989’s The Last Crusade added) could be watched in sequence and easily enjoyed as companion pieces for a slice of 1980’s nostalgia.

A prequel to Raiders of the Lost Ark, the action picks up a few years prior as our hero narrowly escapes the clutches of a crime boss in Shanghai, China.

Indiana Jones (Harrison Ford), along with sidekick eleven-year-old Short Round (Ke Huy Quan) and nightclub singer Willie Scott (Kate Capshaw), embarks on an adventure to retrieve a stolen sacred stone.

The poor villagers have also lost their children to a lavish palace where they are forced to work as enslaved people.

Wisely in keeping with the continuity of the first story, director Steven Spielberg and writer George Lucas return to the fold. This enriches the experience, as both men are attuned to Indiana Jones’s character and do not try to change him.

His familiar wittiness and charismatic nature return, and the dashing hero shows more skin this time around with more than one shirtless scene.

To cement the good character, Harrison Ford returns to the role he created and made famous.

Indiana Jones and the Temple of Doom is layered with positive aspects and holds special childhood memories for me. I vividly recollect going to the movie theater and excitedly watching the film on the big screen, clutching a tub of buttery popcorn.

For a young boy, this is the best- an adventure story for the ages with thrills and edge-of-your-seat sequences.

The film is perfect for the entire family.

Many gorgeous exterior sequences abound throughout the film. A prime example is when the trio encounters deadly assassins on a precarious rope bridge high atop a crocodile-infested, murky river.

This scene is fraught with tension and “how will he ever get out of this?” thinking when the killers corner dear Indie.

With lightning-quick thinking, he severs the bridge, resulting in a dangling escapade. As numerous bodies fall into the river, they are chopped to bits by the hungry reptiles. The fact that the action is all shot outdoors in lush scenery only adds to the enjoyment.

The film is admittedly filled with dark and scary aspects, necessitating a PG-13 rating rather than a PG one. As Indie, Willie, and Short Round are held hostage in the evil palace, a dangerous sacrifice occurs.

One poor man is chosen to give his life by being burned alive in a roaring fire. Indie is then forced to drink the potion and presumably suffer the same fate.  Other bloody moments include a bad guy meeting his fate after being flattened like a pancake by a steamroller.

The tone of the film is much darker than that of Raiders of the Lost Ark.

To offset the blood, guts, and voodoo, the film occasionally parleys into humor, mostly at the expense of Willie, the film’s comic relief.

Accustomed to the glamour of costumes and luxurious hotels, the singer is forced to fend for herself amid snakes, elephants, and other creatures. As she hungrily sits down for what she thinks is a scrumptious dinner, she is served soup with monkey brains and bulging eyeballs, deemed Indian delicacies.

Readily apparent, watching the film now, are glaring negative stereotypes associated with the Indian culture. As I am sure the intent was not to insult, some stereotypes do abound with the hokey cuisines and the severe poverty.

The underlying image of tribal Indians as being weird or out of touch is prevalent, to say nothing of the odd religious overtones.

Kate Capshaw as Willie is the complete opposite of the central female character, Marion, in Raiders of the Lost Ark. Whereas Marion is intelligent and serious, Willie is pampered, rich, and gullible.

I find the camaraderie between Indie and Willie much more palpable than between Indie and Marion, and the romantic overtures appealing.

Who can forget the famous “bug scene” in the palace?

Conjuring up wonderful and exciting childhood memories, Indiana Jones and the Temple of Doom (1984) is a treasure for the eyes and the strongest entry in the bunch.

If you are in the mood for a good, fun-filled experience with a healthy dose of Indian culture, adventurous antics, and a slice of darkness, this one is a must-see.

Oscar Nominations: 1 win-Best Original Score, Best Visual Effects (won)

Raiders of the Lost Ark-1981

Raiders of the Lost Ark-1981

Director Steven Spielberg

Starring Harrison Ford, Karen Allen

Scott’s Review #757

Reviewed May 15, 2018

Grade: A

A film that kicked off the tremendously successful and ever-so-fun 1980s trilogy, Raiders of the Lost Ark (1981), is a treasure in the adventure genre time capsule.

Director Steven Spielberg embarks on the journey of one of the most highly visible film heroes in the form of Indiana “Indie” Jones, a swashbuckling, aw-shucks kind of guy.

Harrison Ford is perfectly cast in a role that perfectly fits him and, besides Han Solo, defined him during the decade- the best role of his career if you ask me.

Wonderful to watch in sequence with the even more superb Indiana Jones and the Temple of Doom (1984), these two films are a pure pleasure as our hero faces dangerous obstacles at every turn, either being chased by or pursuing sinister robbers and other undesirables.

All the while, Indie keeps his familiar sly grin and numerous jokes to entertain audiences.

Raiders of the Lost Ark has it all with superior writing, editing, cinematography, art direction, sound, and visual effects.

They reaped many Oscar nominations, quite uncommon for an adventure tale, but the merits were warranted. Atypical compared to other films of this type, the film is not overly saturated with phony machismo or unnecessary “guy” stuff, but rather appealing and genuine.

The time is 1936, and archaeologist Indiana Jones works as a professor at a University. Known for retrieving ancient artifacts, he is contacted by Army intelligence officers who ask him to help stop the Nazis from acquiring the Ark of the Covenant, which they believe will make their armies invincible and allow them to conquer the world in a sinister fashion.

Events lead Indie to Marion (Karen Allen), who harbors resentment towards him for a failed past romance.

The rest of the film follows the pair through Nepal and Cairo as they attempt to recover the Ark before the Nazis do.

Raiders of the Lost Ark contains all the elements of a successful “hit” movie and has “blockbuster” written all over it. This is not a slight against the film, but rather a testament to all involved.

Led by the successful Spielberg, who knows how to connect all the dots, Ford, first and foremost, infuses his character with charisma so that the audience enjoys his sensibilities and desire for the truth.

Indie is intent on protecting humankind, so Spielberg carves a “good versus bad” approach- making the villainous Nazis the antithesis of Jones, which creates a clear rooting value.

My favorite scene in the film is nicknamed the “face-melting scene” and contains state-of-the-art special effects that compelled and mesmerized me, and also led to light nightmares for any kid under the age of twelve.

The way that the bad guys see swirling, benevolent ghosts- first beautiful and peaceful, but soon turning deadly- causes their faces to melt off or shrivel. The scene is both inventive and dramatic.

Not to be dismissed as trite or fluff are the exciting and memorable scenes dubbed “the snake scene” and “the rolling boulder scene”.  In the former Indie, wryly admits his fear and trepidation of snakes as he must traverse a huge pit filled with thousands of them, and he comes face to face with a deadly King Cobra.

In the latter scene, Indie must outrun a speeding boulder as he takes an ancient artifact from a sacred spot inside a cave, causing boulders to collapse around him.

Both scenes are enormous fun and the immeasurable edge-of-your-seat sequences.

I never sensed much chemistry between actors Ford and Allen. Still, writing the characters of Indie and Marion as former lovers adds a good bit of tension and sparring between the characters- this provides some good fodder and humorous situations.

Thankfully, the romance between the two is neither the focal point of the film nor all that important, but rather, in the safety that 1980’s cinema afforded, merely a necessity.

Raiders of the Lost Ark (1981) is a superb adventure film that holds up better than it should, decades beyond its release. The film is rich with good old-fashioned action, a charismatic hero, thrills, intrigue, and a good history lesson for those interested in the build-up to World War II.

The accounts are fictional, of course, but Spielberg offers a fine 1980s cinematic experience that’s got it all.

Oscar Nominations: 4 wins-Best Picture, Best Director-Steven Spielberg, Best Original Score, Best Sound (won), Best Art Direction (won), Best Cinematography, Best Film Editing (won), Best Visual Effects (won)

GoldenEye-1995

GoldenEye-1995

Director Martin Campbell

Starring Pierce Brosnan, Sean Bean, Izabella Scorupco

Scott’s Review #717

Reviewed January 19, 2018

Grade: B

By 1995, after a record six years between films, the James Bond franchise re-emerged energetically with Pierce Brosnan assuming the role of the MI6 agent-, and breathing some fresh life into the character.

The charming and suave Irish actor gave a new direction to the role last played by Timothy Dalton-an an actor who gave Bond more of a brooding quality. The resulting GoldenEye offers mixed results, though the casting is a vast improvement over its predecessor.

GoldenEye sees other monumental roles recast- that of Judi Dench as M and Samantha Bond as Miss Moneypenny.

The film has a slick look, and a compelling story, but at times is tough to follow, and overall- despite containing all the elements- something seems missing.

Or maybe I just prefer the other Bonds more? Still, the offering is far from a bad watch.

GoldenEye kicks off with, in hindsight, a major clue to the story as Bond  (Brosnan) and fellow 00 agents, Alec Trevelyan (Sean Bean), infiltrate a Soviet facility in northern Russia in 1986, searching for chemical weapons.

Alec is tragically killed by sinister Soviet General Ourumov and Bond mourns the loss of his friend.

The action resumes in present times (1995) as, now in gorgeous Monte Carlo, Bond follows the beautiful and sadistic Xenia Onatopp, a  crime syndicate member known for crushing men with her thighs. Xenia and Ourumov travel to Siberia where they destroy a bunker holding GoldenEye satellites and kill everyone except the computer programmer, Boris (Alan Cumming), and the lone survivor, Natalya  (Izabella Scorupco).

In a clever twist, it is revealed that Alec has betrayed British Intelligence and is himself leading the crime syndicate.

In one of the quietest, and best scenes, Bond and M have an interesting exchange in her office as M (a woman) calls Bond out on his arrogance and chauvinism, and states that it is a new day.

Dench adds a ton of female modernism into the role (about time in 1995) as Bond now reports to a woman. The scene is important as it leads the two characters to achieve mutual respect and arguably parlays the franchise into a new, more female-empowering direction.

A great positive to GoldenEye is the setting, which I think does wonders for the film as a whole- the bitter, blustery, Siberian set gives a soothing feeling, especially while watching the film during the ravages of winter, snug with a warm blanket and heaters.

Regardless, the sets are realistic, never cheesy, and loaded with atmosphere- so the film itself looks wonderful.

Issues abound with the frenetic pacing of the film- at times I found myself losing track of the action or the sequence of events.

Understandably, as in many Bond films, events circle the globe and, surely London, Russia, and Monte Carlo are great locations, but especially within the film’s final climax, I suffered from sensory overload.

Furthermore, Brosnan is not one of my favorite Bonds. Sure, he has the charisma, the looks, and the charm to pull off the role, but something about him does not measure up to Sean Connery, Roger Moore, George Lazenby, or Daniel Craig- certainly he supersedes Timothy Dalton.

Don’t get me wrong- I do not despise him as Bond, but nothing stands him out against the others either.

The villains in GoldenEye are perfectly adequate if not spectacular. Sean Bean gives Alec a sly, aww shucks appeal and defines good-looking, but his motivations for switching sides are not very exciting- something about Nazis in World War II, the Cossacks, and revenge are quickly mentioned, but it doesn’t much matter.

General  Ourumov is effective- with his sinister look, he is the perfect Bond villain. Xenia is little more than a cartoon character (with the name to boot) and her gimmick quickly wears thin.

Finally, Cummings as the programmer is played only for laughs, and his final chant of “I am invincible!” as he freezes into solid ice is mildly humorous.

The title theme song, “GoldenEye”, performed by Tina Turner is forgettable at best and one of the most lackluster in the illustrious musical catalog.

GoldenEye has many of the standard Bond elements within its frames and is a decent entry in the franchise. With the debut of a new Bond, the film has a fresh and very modern and technical feel to it that, along with a fantastic setting, overlooks some flaws in the storytelling.

Filled with bombast and a crowd-pleasing method, GoldenEye (1995) is hardly the best Bond film, but not the worst.

Octopussy-1983

Octopussy-1983

Director John Glen

Starring Roger Moore, Maud Adams

Scott’s Review #716

Reviewed January 17, 2018

Grade: A-

Hardly regarded as one of the most stellar of entries in the James Bond franchise, 1983’s Octopussy is nonetheless a guilty pleasure of mine.

This is undoubtedly because the film was the first installment I was allowed to see in the movie theater, and it is filled with exciting memories.

As the film stands in the current days, it is perfectly fine, containing all of the enjoyable elements necessary for a good Bond film- interesting villains, solid action, and gorgeous women.

Perhaps at times a bit silly, Octopussy is still quite the fantastic watch.

Roger Moore, admittedly looking slightly aged and sagging, returns to the fold as 007, the shaken, but not stirred action hero known as James Bond. However, he is, true to form, as witty and suave as he always is with witty one-liners and a mischievous smirk.

Moore ritualistically infuses the character with a measure of comedy- a wink of the eye or a raised eyebrow adds humor to the character so that any other actor who has portrayed Bond.

In this installment, Faberge eggs, clowns, and gorilla suits are featured.

Attempting to escape from East Berlin to West Berlin, 009- dressed as a circus clown- is murdered on the estate of a British Ambassador while attempting to deliver a fake Faberge egg.

Assuming the Soviets are involved, MI6 instructs Bond to investigate the matter, and a complex smuggling ring is uncovered- featuring a gorgeous female smuggler named Octopussy (Maud Adams), along with sinister Afghan exiled prince Kamal Kahn (Louis Jourdan), and his bodyguard, Gobinda.

Watching the film in 2018, even though it was made in 1983, Octopussy does not suffer from the dreaded “1980s look” that so many other films do; it seems surprisingly clean and fresh.

The colors are vibrant- especially in the prevalent circus and clown scenes, and the best two scenes- the airplane and train scenes- still bristle and crackle with good action.

As the climax to Octopussy culminates, the inevitable heroine and main Bond girl- Adams’s “Octopussy”- has been bound and gagged and taken hostage by the baddies in a fleeing airplane, Bond grabs hold of the fuselage, and begins a harried flight over the mountains of remote India, clinging for dear life.

The scene climaxes with an exciting fight scene atop the rooftop of the speeding plane as Bond and Gobinda fight to the death, as Kamal unsuccessfully attempts to twist and turn the plane and rid themselves of pesky Bond.

The scene is still compelling and loses none of its appeal over the years, never appearing dated.

The train sequence is still relevant but does suffer from a small dose of silliness.

The action is plentiful as Bond races against time to prevent a Russian missile from detonating and killing thousands of American citizens, and worthy of note is the timely Cold War subject matter of the Russians versus the Americans, plentiful in American cinema during this time.

As Bond dons a phony-looking gorilla outfit- embarrassing even for the comical Roger Moore- he can successfully take off the costume and sneak out of a train car, all before the three seconds that it takes for Gobinda to turn around and slice the head off of the gorilla, thinking it is Bond.

Suspension of disbelief is required.

Impressive is the female empowerment slant evident. From the strong businesswoman character that Adams portrays- she is decisive, intelligent, and savvy, she is neither cowering nor impressionable, and cannot be bullied or pushed around.

Albeit her name, “Octopussy”, does teeter on male chauvinism. Be that as it may, her gang of feminist followers, all wielding assault rifles, are quite inspiring and, at this point, unusual for a Bond film- typically masculine leaning.

Octopussy (1983) is an overlooked, under-appreciated, too easily dismissed slice of goodness served up with a bit of comedy, plenty of action, and good, solid villains- everything that makes a Bond film a Bond film.

The film is worthy of a viewing.

Dunkirk-2017

Dunkirk-2017

Director Christopher Nolan

Starring Fionn Whitehead, Tom Hardy

Scott’s Review #666

Reviewed July 24, 2017

Grade: A

Of the hundreds of war films made over the years, most have a similar style, with either a clear patriotic slant or a questioning/message-type nature.

Regardless, most have a certain blueprint—from the story to the visuals to the direction—and rarely stray from it.

The genre is not my favorite, as machismo is usually overdone, and too many films turn into standard “guy films” or “good guys versus the bad guys.”

Finally, along comes a film like Dunkirk (2017)that gives the stale genre a swift kick.

The story is both simple and historical.

In 1940, Nazi Germany, having successfully invaded France, pushed thousands of French and British soldiers to a seaside town named Dunkirk.

With slim hopes of rescue or survival, the soldiers are sitting ducks for the raid of German fighter planes, which drop bombs both on the soldiers and rescue ships.

In parallel stories, a kindly British civilian (Mark Rylance) and his son sail to Dunkirk to help rescue the soldiers, and two British fighter pilots chase the German fighter planes, attempting to thwart their deadly intentions.

One will immediately be struck by the film’s pacing, which is nonstop action from start to finish. The action, combined with very little dialogue and an eerie musical score, is what makes the film feel unique and fresh.

Directed by Christopher Nolan (The Dark Knight, 2008 and Inception, 2010), critics herald this film as his most remarkable work yet- I tend to agree.

Scenes involving such differing musical scores as screechy violins mixed with thunderous, heavy beats shake up the film and keep the audience on their toes as to what is coming next.

An interesting facet of the film, and certainly done on purpose, is that the characters’ backstories are not revealed- we know very little about them.  Do they have families? Are they married? This is a beautiful decision by the screenwriters and by Nolan.

For instance, the first scenes involve a disheveled private named Tommy (Fionn Whitehead).  Panicked, he runs through the streets in pursuit of the beach, where he meets a fellow soldier named Gibson, who is burying another soldier in the sand.

Together, they find a wounded soldier and carry him to a departing ship. The men never speak but communicate through their eyes and gestures—it is a powerful series of scenes.

Another positive to Dunkirk is the anonymity of the enemy. The German soldiers are never shown. We see many scenes of fighter planes overhead, pummeling the soldiers with bombs and pulsating gunfire in various scenes. Still, the mystique of the enemy troops is a constant throughout the film.

The faceless component of the villains adds terror and haunting uncertainty.  In this way, the film adds to the audience’s confusion about where the enemy may be at any given moment.

The visuals and the vastness of the oceanside beach are at the forefront throughout the entire film, which is one hour and forty-six minutes, relatively brief for a war film. It elicits both beauty and a terrible gloominess.

Scenes of the vastness of the beach peppered with thousands of cold and hungry men are both pathetic and powerful.

The best scenes occur on Mr. Dawson’s  (Rylance) mariner boat. Aided by his son Peter and Peter’s frightened schoolmate, the trio heads for dangerous Dunkirk to help rescue, but en route, he picks up a shell-shocked soldier determined to stay as far away from Dunkirk as possible.

This leads to compelling drama and deep characterization of all the central characters.

Many list 1998’s Saving Private Ryan as the best film in the modern war genre, but Dunkirk may very well rival that film in intensity and musical effectiveness. Dunkirk (2017) also contains shockingly little bloodshed or dismembered soldiers—it does not need this to tell a powerful story.

The film is sometimes emotional and intense, but it never lets go of its audience from the very first frame—it is a war film for the history books and a lesson in film creativity and thoughtfulness.

Oscar Nominations: 3 wins-Best Picture, Best Director-Christopher Nolan, Best Original Score, Best Sound Editing (won), Best Sound Mixing (won), Best Production Design, Best Cinematography, Best Film Editing (won)

Bullitt-1968

Bullitt-1968

Director Peter Yates

Starring Steve McQueen, Robert Vaughn, Jacqueline Bisset

Scott’s Review #660

Reviewed July 7, 2017

Grade: B+

Bullitt (1968) is one of the ultimate “guy movies”, hardly a stretch considering it stars the “regular guy” hero of the time, Steve McQueen.

With his macho, tough-guy persona and his cool, confident swagger, he was a marquee hero during the late 1960s and into the 1970s.

While the film is rife with machismo stereotypes and is not precisely a women ‘s-lib film, it is also a good old-fashioned action thriller with plenty of chase and fight scenes to make most guys (and some girls) happy.

The story is not particularly thought-provoking, but the film works as escapist fare and is an example of good late-1960s cinema.

Set in San Francisco, Lieutenant Frank Bullitt (Steve McQueen) is assigned to watch a Chicago gangster, Johnny Ross, over a long weekend, before the criminal is set to testify against his brother on Monday morning.

Robert Vaughn plays ambitious politician, Walter Chalmers, who is determined to see the case go off without a hitch and see convictions in the organized crime syndicate.

Predictably, the weekend does not go as planned, and hitmen attack Ross. This, in turn,  sets off a cat-and-mouse game of deception and intrigue. As expected, the action is virtually non-stop with many action sequences lighting up the screen.

The plot of Bullitt does not matter, and one does not need to completely understand what is going on to enjoy the film for what it is. The intent of a movie like Bullitt is not good storytelling, but rather good action.

This is not meant as a put-down, but rather good, honest critiquing. One can sit back, relax, and enjoy the testosterone-laden affair.

Bullitt contains some riveting scenes that raise it above an average, middling action flick. The muscle car chase involving a then-state-of-the-art, flashy Ford Mustang and a Dodge Charger is fantastic and one of the film’s high points.

The quick, edgy camera angles as the cars zip down the windy, narrow San Francisco roads build compelling tension.

Will one of the cars careen off the side of the road or blow up? Since one of the cars holds Frank Bullitt and the other car is the bad guy, it is not tough to guess how the sequence will end.

But it’s good fun all the same, and well filmed.

The other spectacular sequence is the finale: as Frank and company overtake a busy San Francisco airport in pursuit of a baddie about to board a transcontinental flight, the chase leads them throughout the airport, onto a taxiing plane, and finally onto the runway as a plane is about to take off.

It is action at its finest and a treat for the viewer, bringing us back to airport days, pre-9/11, when airports were just different—the luxurious flight crew, the innocence, and the glamour- all a distant memory.

The scene is such that it shows all of the airport elements- the people, the employees, the airport, and the planes, giving it a slice-of-life feel, circa late 1960s airport days.

Appealing is the period in which the film is made. 1968 was an excellent year for cinema; Bullitt capitalized on the newly liberal use of blood in films, making it an influential action film.

Dozens of imitators (some admittedly with superior writing) followed, including classics Dirty Harry and The French Connection (both 1971). These contain the exact basic blueprint that Bullitt has.

A negative of Bullitt is the trite way women are portrayed. Female characters are written as dutiful nurses, gasping in fear and helplessly running away when an assailant runs rampant in the hospital, praying for a man to save the day.

Or, they are written, in the case of Bullitt’s girlfriend, as a gorgeous yet insignificant character, given a laughable scene in which she questions whether or not she knows Frank after witnessing the violence in his job- hello?

He is in the San Francisco Police Department after all.

Bullitt is a meat-and-potatoes kind of filmmaking. An early entry into what would become the raw 1970s and the slick formulaic 1980s action genre, the film deserves credit for being at the front of the pack in style and influence.

The story and character development are secondary to other aspects of the film, and Bullitt (1968) is just OK as escapism fare.

Oscar Nominations: 1 win-Best Sound, Best Film Editing (won)

Escape from Alcatraz-1979

Escape from Alcatraz-1979

Director Don Siegel

Starring Clint Eastwood, Patrick McGoohan

Scott’s Review #656

Reviewed July 2, 2017

Grade: B+

Made during the heyday (the 1970s and the early 1980s) of a slew of action and thriller films starring popular actor Clint Eastwood, Escape from Alcatraz is a gritty, man-focused film with not a single female character in sight.

The film is directed by Don Siegel, who also directed Eastwood in several previous films, most notably Dirty Harry in 1971, and contains a grittiness frequently used in this genre of film during the period.

Reminiscent in style of 1975’s One Flew Over the Cuckoo’s Nest in its authority, repression, and exploitation of the victimized commoner, the film is also a good historical account of one of the most famous prison escapes ever achieved in 1962.

Having recently visited the long-since-shut-down Alcatraz prison near San Francisco, California, I found the film wonderful to watch, as much of it was shot inside and around the actual prison grounds.

We immediately meet Frank Morris (Eastwood) as he is unceremoniously led to the infamous Alcatraz prison on a stormy, chilly night in foggy San Francisco. The dark, harsh weather perfectly sets the tone for the dreary prison experience he will face.

Morris is stripped, searched, intimidated by the warden and the guards, and paraded around naked, finally taken to his tiny cell, where he will presumably spend the rest of his life.

The film does not reveal what crimes Morris committed to warrant his tenure at Alcatraz; as a result, the character is more sympathetic.

Slowly, Morris befriends other inmates and devises a plan to escape the impossible prison by digging through the concrete walls with spoons and using the pipes.

The other inmates featured in the film are the Anglin brothers, in for robbery, a kindly older man named Doc, who fervently paints the time away, nervous Charlie Butts, and English, an intelligent black man serving two life sentences for killing two white men in self-defense.

All of these men, in some way, aid Morris in his escape from the torturous Alcatraz.

A side story involves a bully named Wolf, who has designs on Morris from day one. Whether Wolf is actually gay or merely a menace is unknown and not explored.

Throughout the film, Wolf and Morris fight and spend time in solitary confinement, and their rivalry is an interesting subplot.

The film wants the viewer to be on the prisoners’ side, and I am not sure whether, in real life, the prisoners would be as sympathetic as portrayed in the film. Most of them seem to be confined to Alcatraz for robberies or crimes they did not commit, or for circumstances that deem the crimes inevitable in some way.

Furthering a liberal slant to the film is the friendship between Morris and English. An interracial friendship between the men reveals that our hero, Morris, is progressive-thinking and a “good guy”.

Conversely, most of the guards and certainly the Warden (Patrick McGoohan) are written as terrible, unsympathetic people. When an inmate drops dead of a heart attack, the warden coldly remarks, “Some men are destined never to leave Alcatraz alive”.

The Warden is the foil of the film, and in the final scene, the Warden gets a bit of comeuppance when a mocking souvenir is left for him.

To further compare Escape from Alcatraz to One Flew Over the Cuckoo’s Nest, the Warden is a similar character to the infamous Nurse Ratched in their mutual, diabolical sadism.

I am unsure if in “real life” the distinctions between the prisoners and the authority figures were so black and white, but it sure makes for good film drama. It is “the heroes versus the villains” but in reverse.

The inevitable escape sequence is predictable yet highly compelling as Morris and Company enact their escape plan over the course of an overnight.

The usage of papier-mache dolls to fool the guards is heavily dramatic and compelling.

Escape from Alcatraz (1979) is not high art, but it works as a historical account of a real-life incident in one of the most discussed prisons in United States history.

The film is also a perfect vehicle for Eastwood, as he is well cast in the gritty yet likable role of prisoner Morris.

The film is a good, solid late-1970s thriller.

Live and Let Die-1973

Live and Let Die-1973

Director Guy Hamilton

Starring Roger Moore, Jane Seymour, Yaphet Kotto

Scott’s Review #646

Reviewed May 25, 2017

Grade: A-

When Live and Let Die was released in 1973, it began a new chapter in the James Bond film franchise with the introduction of a new Bond.

Sean Connery refused to do any more Bond pictures, and Roger Moore was crowned the new film hero and successfully made the role his own during his tenure.

My personal favorite Bond from top to bottom- I enjoyed the wry humor Moore added- he makes Live and Let Die more than it otherwise might have been with a less charismatic actor.

The story and the subsequent elements of the film have issues, but this installment holds a soft spot for me because it was one of my first exposures to the mountainous franchise that is Bond, and I adore the mid-1970s period.

Bond (Moore) is summoned to duty by his leader, M, after three MI6 agents are simultaneously killed in the Caribbean, New Orleans, and at the United Nations in New York City. Bond is then tasked with figuring out who killed these agents and how the deaths are connected.

The adventure takes Bond from Harlem to an unnamed island in the Caribbean, and back to the bayous of southern Louisiana as he tangles with a heroin drug lord, Dr. Kananda.

Bond’s main love interest in the film is the virginal tarot card reader, Solitaire, played by Jane Seymour.

Live and Let Die is a breakthrough in some ways, though the film admittedly contains both positives and negatives worth discussing.

Since the film was made in 1973, following a successful run of “Blaxploitation” films like 1971’s Shaft and 1972’s Super Fly, it has been influenced by those films’ style (for better or worse).

This means that all of the villains are black, from the main villain, Kananga, to various henchmen and even background criminals, growing the massive amounts of heroin shipped to the United States for distribution.

Having such representation among a minority group is fantastic and feels cutting edge, but stereotypes such as derogatory racial epithets, a pimpmobile, and the addition of weird voodoo exist.

Another major flaw in the film, and despite my overall warmth for Live and Let Die, is the goofiness it takes on towards the end.

At a certain point, the film feels like a different film from what it starts as, which becomes quite jarring. The introduction of Sheriff J.W. Pepper during a Louisiana chase scene turns the film into more of a cheesy Dukes of Hazzard episode, with bumbling law enforcement officials, rather than a quality film, and the southern stereotypes run rampant.

Why does a throwaway scene of a speedboat racing through an outdoor wedding feature all high society white folks with nary a black character existing other than as servants?

Some diversity in this scene would have been welcome, given that the film goes out of its way to feature black characters.

Still, many positives do exist. Live and Let Die has the honor of featuring the first-ever black Bond girl, the CIA double agent Rosie Carver, who, sadly, meets a grisly end far too soon.

Gloria Hendry’s chemistry with Roger Moore is readily apparent, though the film chooses to make the character inept rather than a true equal. The smoldering sex scenes between the duo are wonderful and groundbreaking to watch, so the film gets major props for pushing the envelope in this way.

Memorable is the terrific title theme song, “Live and Let Die”, by Paul McCartney and Wings. The success of this hit song, especially decades later, does wonders to elevate the film and keep it relevant in pop culture.

Also great to see are the location sequences and good action car chase scenes along the West Side Highway in New York City and into Harlem.

A treat for this retro fan is the inclusion of early 1970s Chevrolet Impalas and Chevy Novas throughout the entire feature film- was Chevy a financial backer?

Classic cars are a major inclusion in Live and Let Die, which, as a current-day viewer, is a cool treat and quite retro.

In terms of the primary villain and primary Bond girl, the film misses. Jane Seymour is a dud as Solitaire, a character that really should have been played by a black actress. Seymour and Moore have zero chemistry, and her character is weak and simpering, lacking any backbone.

Similarly, Yaphet Kotto as Dr. Kananga seems miscast, with no real qualities that make him devious or dangerous, and his inevitable swan song underwhelms.

Live and Let Die (1973) is not the greatest in the Bond collection and suffers from some problematic, now-dated aspects, racial issues, and a silly overtone, but, perhaps more so as a terrific childhood memory, I hold a particular fondness toward this film despite many negatives.

Oscar Nominations: Best Song-“Live and Let Die”

You Only Live Twice-1967

You Only Live Twice-1967

Director Lewis Gilbert

Starring Sean Connery, Akiko Wakabayashi

Scott’s Review #636

Reviewed April 23, 2017

Grade: B+

You Only Live Twice (1967) is the fifth in the James Bond film franchise and the fifth to star iconic Bond, Sean Connery, in the lead role.

Reportedly growing bored with the role and eager to move on to meatier acting challenges, Sean Connery is not quite as mesmerizing in the role this time around, but is still indisputably charismatic and sexy with his delivery of one-liners and various affairs with women.

You Only Live Twice is the last to feature Connery until he is coaxed back into the role four years later with 1971’s Diamonds Are Forever.

The film is not among my favorite Bond films of all time, nor is it even in the top ten, for that matter, but it is still quite an enjoyable watch, and the Japanese locales are undoubtedly the highlight.

The film as a whole suffers from a silly story, dated special effects, and a completely lackluster villain, but it does have Connery to rescue it and a nice little romance between Bond and the main girl, Aki, played by Japanese actress Akiko Wakabayashi- that is, until she is unceremoniously poisoned.

The plot involves the hijacking of an American NASA spacecraft by another mysterious spacecraft. The Americans suspect the Russians of the action, and the British suspect the Japanese since the aircraft landed in the Sea of Japan.

MI6 (Bond) fakes his death in Hong Kong and subsequently begins to investigate who is responsible. His search brings him to Tokyo, where he investigates Osato Chemicals and stumbles upon evidence.

He is aided by both Aki and Tiger Tanaka, leaders of the Japanese Secret Service. Soon, it is revealed that the mastermind is SPECTRE villain Ernst Stavro Blofeld, in this installment played by Donald Pleasence.

Mr. Bond must destroy his enemy and inevitably save the world from a global nuclear war.

Though a timely storyline since 1967 was in the midst of the Cold War, the plot seems somewhat forced and a bit uninteresting. The countries blame each other for the hijacked ship, but this comes across as extremely plot-driven and secondary.

The “swallowing” of the aircraft seems cheesy and preposterous, even given the year the film was made, and the writing is not as rich as in some of the preceding Bond films, like From Russia With Love or Thunderball.

The film also has an overall “cheap” look. However, the film does have plenty of positives worth mentioning.

The gadgets that James Bond fixture, Q (the MI6 technical wizard) creates are state-of-the-art and fun. The mini-flying helicopter Bond uses is creative and offers even more views.

Bond faking his death in the opening sequence is a treat (albeit having been done before), and ceremoniously being cast off into the sea in a coffin, only to be wearing a suit and an oxygen mask inside the casket, is clever and light.

Donald Pleasence, a storied, fantastic actor, is not well cast as the main villain, Stavros, and I am not entirely sure why. The fact that his face is not shown until the last act is not helpful, and the character (though seen in other Bond films) is not compelling and is underutilized.

I would have liked the character to be a bit more visible, though surprisingly, the character was highly influential in the 1990s spoof Austin Powers films. Adorable yet creepy is Stavros, only being seen clutching and stroking a gorgeous white cat.

As for the Bond women, the Aki mentioned above is the best of the bunch. Gone too soon in the story, she is replaced by Kissy Suzuki, who is rather unappealing. Mostly clad in a skimpy white bikini and heels, and wearing a black wig, the character is forgettable and serves no purpose.

Conversely, villainous Helga Brandt, SPECTRE assassin, is very well cast and shares good chemistry with Connery. After an unsuccessful attempt to kill Bond, she is fated with a date with killer Piranhas as payment for her failure.

You Only Live Twice (1967) has a myriad of ups and downs, but it is worth watching for fans of the franchise, and specifically, fans of the classic Bond films featuring Sean Connery.

Some will argue that the film feels dated and chauvinistic, and to some degree, they are correct, but it is also a large part of a treasured franchise and a fun experience.

Hell or High Water-2016

Hell or High Water-2016

Director David Mackenzie

Starring Jeff Bridges, Chris Pine, Ben Foster

Scott’s Review #609

Reviewed January 16, 2017

Grade: B+

Hell or High Water (2016), a splendid tale of bank robbers chased by law enforcement officers in rural western Texas, is reminiscent of the Coen Brothers’ No Country for Old Men (2007) or a classic Sam Peckinpah film from the 1970s.

The film provides a good story with a morality tale, so the viewer is unsure who to root for—the good gr tad guys. This gives the film substance compared to the typical action-guy film, which is done to death.

Odd, quirky, minor characters are interspersed throughout the film, which adds comedy and a unique feel.

David Mackenzie directed the film, but up until now, it has been unknown to me.

Chris Pine and Ben Foster play Toby and Tanner, two brothers who embark on small-town bank robberies to save their recently deceased mother’s ranch.

Tanner (Foster) is the more seasoned criminal, having spent time in jail and being more volatile than his brother. Toby (Pine) is a family man with two kids and is more intelligent and sensible than his brother.

Two Texas Rangers, Marcus Hamilton (Bridges), a grizzled man weeks away from retirement, and his partner, Alberto Parker (Gil Birmingham), pursue them.

What I enjoyed most about this film is the authenticity of the setting.

The film was shot in New Mexico but meant to be in West Texas. This is believable, and the cinematography is gorgeous. The vastness of the land and the sticky desert heat are filmed very well.

Small-town Texas is portrayed as tiny characters introduced as townspeople, giving much credo to the film.

My favorites are the diner waitress-smitten with the handsome Toby (and her $200 tip), and t-bone waitress- grizzled and rude after forty-four years in the same place. Their sassy and abrasive behavior works and adds much to the film.

Dale Dickey is a treat in any film, and her turn as a bank employee is a joy.

How nice to see Chris Pine in a challenging role. His character is conflicted morally. Not wanting to hurt anyone, he struggles with the robberies and wants to do right by his kids and mother.

He is a decent man caught in uncertain circumstances, and Pine does an excellent job of portraying him, proving that the actor is becoming more than just a pretty face.

Bridges plays anger quite well, and it is nice to see the actor succeeding career-wise in his golden years. His Texas Ranger character is determined to uphold the law. Still, below the surface, he is more than a bit worried about his upcoming retirement, closing a chapter in his life that is undoubtedly important to him.

His relationship with his partner is jovial and buddy-like, but is there an underlying physical attraction between the men?

The film does not go there, but perhaps on a subconscious level, it is hinted at.

A fantastic scene laced with tension occurs near the film’s end when two of the main characters are killed. It is a stand-off of sorts atop a desert mountain ridge. One of the characters loses it, which results in a shoot-out and a shocking loss of life.

The scene is excellent in that it is a good, old-fashioned shoot ’em up done well.

Hell or High Water (2016) is a gritty action film with excellent elements, nice characterization, and clean fun. It’s a throwback to a long-time crime western without the standard stock characters.

This film is more layered than the traditional and intelligently written, achieving something unique.

Oscar Nominations: Best Picture, Best Supporting Actor-Jeff Bridges, Best Original Screenplay, Best Film Editing

Independent Spirit Award Nominations: 1 win-Best Supporting Male-Ben Foster (won), Best Screenplay, Best Editing

London Has Fallen-2016

London Has Fallen-2016

Director Babak Najafi

Starring Gerard Butler, Aaron Eckhart

Scott’s Review #608

Reviewed January 13, 2017

Grade: D

Save for many enjoyable, incredible London shots of mostly aerial views, London Has Fallen (2016) is a complete drivel of an experience.

The film’s attempt at being a red-blooded, patriotic film comes across as insulting and racist, with a machismo that is cringe-worthy.

The dialogue is terrible, and the “us against them” mantra has been done to death in film, mainly in the 1980s and 1990s. To quote one reviewer, “London Has Fallen is Donald Trump in film form.”

I don’t understand how the film convinced such a talented cast to appear (it must have been money), and several parts are so small (Robert Forster, Melissa Leo, Jackie Earle Haley) that they are nearly glorified extras.

The plot is painfully contrived, to say nothing of the ludicrous nature of the entire story.

To retaliate against a drone strike killing a Pakistani leader, terrorists take advantage of the death of the UK Prime Minister to assassinate several world leaders who have gravitated to London to attend funeral services.

The President of the United States (played by Aaron Eckhart) is naturally in attendance, and his murder is thwarted by top Secret Service official Mike Banning (Gerard Butler), our film’s hero.

The rest of the film involves the President and Mike running throughout London, attempting to catch the terrorists and bring them to justice while avoiding death.

The London locales are superb, but sadly, they mainly appear at the film’s beginning and end. The London Eye, the Thames River, the Underground, and various metro stations are featured.

The numerous London bridges also get some exposure.

The best part is how the film showcases London’s vastness, not just the up-close shots of historic places like Westminster Abbey or Buckingham Palace.

Undoubtedly, London is known for those gems, but the aerial views give the viewer an appreciation of all London offers.

I loved only this aspect of the film.

The supporting roles are abysmal, and given the more artistic parts they’ve received in the past; one imagines the actors cringing as they read the scripts for some of them.

I hesitate to think what possessed Leo, Forster, and Haley to accept meaningless roles save for a hefty paycheck. Each played a member of the President’s staff and was reduced mainly to reactionary shots.

As an ill-fated Secret Service Director, Angela Bassett and Radha Mitchell, as Banning’s weary-looking, pregnant wife, get more screen time but are treated to equally uninteresting roles.

Overall, the performances are forgettable. Respectable actors Butler and Eckhart merely phone in their vapid, dull lines, failing to make any of them believable.

The film never bothers with character development or anything beyond fundamental good and evil roles. Every character is either 100% good or 100% bad.

It is made crystal clear that the Americans are the good guys, and the foreigners (all Middle Eastern or Asian actors, of course) are simply the bad guys.

The motivations of the “bad guys” are never explained, and one cheesy line after another is written for the “good guys.”

During the finale, Banning professes that “we have been here for thousands of years and always will be” as he beats a lousy guy senselessly. Good grief. I’ve seen better dialogue on a network television drama.

And there is never any doubt about how the film will end. There is an American mole who has used his power to enable all of the assassinations, but when the mole is revealed, it is a character we have never seen before, so who cares?

Indeed, the film will soon be forgotten for its poor story, cliche-ridden script, and numerous stereotypes, but the fantastic London shots were inspiring and lovely.

I would have been happy with one hour and forty minutes of those.

Snakes on a Plane-2006

Snakes On A Plane-2006

Director David R. Ellis

Starring Samuel L. Jackson

Scott’s Review #607

Reviewed January 11, 2017

Grade: B

Snakes on a Plane, the surprise internet bruhaha sensation of 2006 has much to criticize.

The plot is inane, the acting way over the top, and the subject portrayed in such a dumb manner, I could see the results being horrific, but there is just something I enjoyed about the film too, as admittedly stupid as it is.

I simply could not help but sit back and enjoy it.

I enjoyed the setting of an airplane- trapped at 35, 000 feet, in peril, has always enamored me (think Airport disaster films of the 1970s).

The story involves a plot to release hundreds of deadly snakes on a passenger flight, to kill a witness to a murder trial.

Of course, innocent passengers are met with their dire fates as the cartoon-like characters are offed one by one, horror film style.

Sadly, the film did not live up to anticipated expectations, commercially or critically, and was considered somewhat of a dud after all of the hype, but I rather enjoyed it for what it was.

Hardly high art, it entertained me.

Tropic Thunder-2008

Tropic Thunder-2008

Director Ben Stiller

Starring Ben Stiller, Robert Downey, Jr.

Scott’s Review #593

Reviewed January 8, 2017

Grade: D-

Tropic Thunder (2008) was a ridiculous film that I found to be harsh, tedious, and very loud. Attempting to be a satire of sorts, it fails on almost every level.

The main issue was with the characters, who are abrasive and unlikable.

The only redeeming qualities are Robert Downey Jr.’s and Tom Cruise’s portrayals, though they both play idiotic characters.

The plot is something of an ode to 1979’s Apocalypse Now, in that the plot throws back to the Vietnam war.

A group of narcissistic actors is filming a Vietnam memoir on location in the jungles of Southeast Asia when they are abandoned and forced to fend for themselves amid a group of drug lords.

The film’s attempt at humor fell flat for me. It just seemed like a group of crazed guys running around the jungle acting wild and the film held little point for me.

Cruise’s part was interesting but way too small.

Directed by, and starring Ben Stiller, who should stick to acting (if that).

How Downey, Jr. scored an Oscar nomination for this drivel is beyond me- despite his acting being one of the better efforts in the film.

Oscar Nominations: Best Supporting Actor-Robert Downey Jr.

Sherlock Holmes-2009

Sherlock Holmes-2009

Director Guy Ritchie

Starring Robert Downey, Jr., Jude Law

Scott’s Review #575

Reviewed December 31, 2016

Grade: B-

From a technical perspective. Sherlock Holmes, a 2009 attempt at revitalizing the famous detective story into something of a modern franchise for the masses, achieves a measure of success in style and editing but ultimately fails in character development or story.

Traditionalist fans of the detective and his partner will undoubtedly be displeased with this film.

This film is very well made, with snappy editing, fast-paced wit, and attempts at humor, but it does not work all so well when put together as a film.

The re-birth of Sherlock Holmes was made to entice modern audiences.

Director Guy Ritchie even brings in superhero elements to Sherlock Holmes- suddenly he can kick ass as well as solve a complex mystery, which is so far removed from the original character.

Downey Jr. and Jude Law as Sherlock Holmes and his partner Watson, have some humorous moments, but the chemistry is not wholly there-it appears they are both trying too hard to create some magic where there is none.

All in all, though a well-made, entertaining two hours well spent, the story and characterization ultimately do not work.

Downey Jr. gives a great performance and shows why he is one of today’s most versatile actors, but this cannot ultimately make the entire film a success.

Oscar Nominations: Best Original Score, Best Art Direction

How to Train Your Dragon-2010

How to Train Your Dragon-2010

Director Dean DeBlois, Chris Chambers

Starring Gerard Butler, America Ferrera

Scott’s Review #537

70109893

Reviewed December 5, 2016

Grade: B-

How to Train Your Dragon is a  decent, but less than spectacular, animated film from 2010.

Undoubtedly targeted toward youngsters, it contains G-rated elements and I may have enjoyed it more if I were nine years old.

The film is loosely based on the British book series of the same name.

A subsequent sequel has commenced in 2014.

From a story perspective, the film does tell a story with a nice message. Young Hiccup is a teenage Viking on the cusp of becoming a man. As a ritual, he is expected to kill a dragon to prove his worth as a warrior to his tribe.

When put to the test, Hiccup finds that instead of desiring to kill the dragon, he wants to befriend it. Of course, the traditional Vikings want no part of any unity between the tribe and dragons, who are long-time enemies.

Mixed in with the main story is the inevitable love story between Hiccup and Astrid, a tough Viking girl.

There are way too many endless aerial battles between the tamed and vicious dragons, that it begins to feel more like an effort to fill time rather than furthering the main plot in any way.

This film has a nice message of kindness and togetherness but is very predictable and does not take any risks. There is nothing wrong with it, and animated fans may look at it differently, but to me, How to Train Your Dragon (2010) is quite run-of-the-mill.

Oscar Nominations: Best Animated Feature Film, Best Original Score

Salt-2010

Salt-2010

Director Phillip Noyce

Starring Angelina Jolie

Scott’s Review #522

70118402

Reviewed November 20, 2016

Grade: B+

Salt (2010) is a very good, fast-paced, political thriller starring Angelina Jolie as a woman accused of being a Russian sleeper agent, who must go on the run to clear her name, all the while being chased by officials attempting to accost her.

The film offers nothing that has not been seen countless times before in movies like this, but seeing Jolie in a role typically played by a male (the role was originally written for Tom Cruise), is cool and makes the film unique in itself.

She is great in the role.

There are some twists and surprises along the way that keep the viewer on edge- numerous action and car chase scenes abound and will keep the action flick viewer quite pleased.

It is quite fast-paced and very big budget.

On the downside, I couldn’t help but think are they making movies about the United States vs. Russia again?

They are, but I could not help but enjoy it for what it was.

Oscar Nominations: Best Sound Mixing

Machete-2010

Machete-2010

Director Ethan Maniquis, Robert Rodriguez

Starring Danny Trejo, Robert De Niro, Jessica Alba

Scott’s Review #501

70125125

Reviewed October 28, 2016

Grade: B

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

End of Watch-2012

End of Watch-2012

Director David Ayer

Starring Jake Gyllenhaal, Michael Pena

Scott’s Review #447

70235384

Reviewed July 8, 2016

Grade: B+

End of Watch (2012) impressed me much more than I was expecting. What I expected was a safe, by-the-numbers, buddy/action movie, since it was rather promoted as such from the previews.

It was worlds better than that and threw me for a loop, in a good way.

The film stars Jake Gyllenhaal and Michael Pena as two detectives patrolling the streets of grizzled central Los Angeles, which are riddled with drug and gang violence.

The viewer is brought along for the ride as we see a day in the life if you will, of their cop beat.

The one knock I’ll give the film is the implausibility factor of a cop videotaping everything. This seems silly and unrealistic.  Wouldn’t he be incredibly distracted? That said, some of the filmings were amazing, including the opening sequence.

The film contains a realistic, grittiness to it, and the Los Angeles locale is very effective.

End of Watch (2012) feels painstakingly real, is not always happy, and the dynamic between Jake Gyllenhaal and Michael Pena is evident and their friendship feels real.

The movie feels like a day in the life of an LA cop, sparing no edgy detail, and does not gloss over the lifestyle as many cop films choose to do.

Independent Spirit Award Nominations: Best Supporting Male-Michael Pena, Best Cinematography