Category Archives: Biography

2021 Films, Andrew Garfield, Biography, Cherry Jones, Drama, Jessica Chastain, Michael Showalter, Vincent D'Onofrio

The Eyes of Tammy Faye-2021

February 26, 2022 scottmet99 Leave a comment

The Eyes of Tammy Faye-2021

Director Michael Showalter

Starring Jessica Chastain, Andrew Garfield

Scott’s Review #1,233

Reviewed February 26, 2022

Grade: A-

When thinking of the name Tammy Faye Baker, usually images of outlandish pancake makeup and ridiculous evangelical spewings are conjured up.

Alongside her husband Jim Baker, the duo was prominent and highly visible throughout the 1970s and the 1980s as fixtures of Christian broadcasting.

Naturally, scandals ensued, resulting in prison time for Jim and shame and career ruin for Tammy.

The Eyes of Tammy Faye (2021) delves into the thoughts and experiences of Tammy, hence the title. It’s sympathetic material and made me learn much more about the celebrity than I knew.

Other characters, such as husband Jim and sullen evangelists like Jerry Falwell and Pat Robertson, are explored, but Tammy is the main draw.

I love the depiction of Tammy Faye Baker, and hats off to a dynamite performance by Jessica Chastain, especially in the final act. Nearly unrecognizable, the actress unleashes a flurry of brilliant scenes and a depiction of a tacky woman winning over an audience.

It is Chastain’s best role yet.

Tammy’s LGBTQ+ community appreciation and thoughtfulness during the AIDS crisis in the 1980s, when very few others, especially in her inner circle, wanted anything to do with them, is compelling and heart-wrenching.

She saw them as human beings when others saw them as lepers. She continued to support the LGBTQ+ community until she died in 2007.

The Eyes of Tammy Faye is an intimate look at the extraordinary rise, fall, and redemption of televangelist Tammy Faye Bakker.

The film begins with her humble beginnings in frigid Minnesota and her closeness with her very religious mother, Rachel (Cherry Jones), and her kind stepfather, who accepted her as his own.

An innocent college romance with Jim Baker (Garfield) blossoms into marriage, leading to their rise to success in creating the world’s largest religious broadcasting network and theme park. They promote a message of love while skimming from the top to enjoy their lavish lifestyle.

Tammy Faye was legendary for her indelible eyelashes, her idiosyncratic singing, and her eagerness to embrace people from all walks of life. However, it wasn’t long before financial improprieties and scandal toppled their carefully constructed empire.

This is the point where the film takes off.

Chastain had me at the very first scene when an extreme close-up of her face, now aging, is featured. Though wacky, she infuses a humanism and kindness into Tammy that immediately made me champion her.

Through trials and tribulations, from nearly cheating on her husband to turning a blind eye to the financial scandals surrounding her, she always keeps her head held high and fills any room she enters with love and sincerity.

The best scene by Chastain is at the end of the film when Tammy makes a triumphant yet humble return to the stage.

As she nervously takes the stage at Oral Roberts University, she imagines a stage filled with glamour and pomp rather than the meek one it is. It helps her get through, and I wanted to give her a big hug.

All the awards attention has gone to Chastain, but Andrew Garfield is nearly as flawless. Complex and struggling with Tammy’s brazen approach, his sexuality, and playing nice with the other major players, he gets his comeuppance, but Garfield makes him sympathetic and a fine study.

Directed by Michael Showalter, I feel he could have gone much darker with this film. Sure, there is some sadness, like when Tammy overhears a bunch of kids whispering that she is a freak or colleagues mocking her as a clown, but it’s a soft touch.

The woman battled cancer for years before dying from it, but the film ends before any of that even happens.

The Eyes of Tammy Faye (2021) belongs to Chastain and Garfield. It’s a bit glossy and skates over some hard-punching attributes it could have showcased, but it balances the camp with endearment and champions acceptance and compassion for one another.

Oscar Nominations: 2 wins-Best Actress-Jessica Chastain (won), Best Makeup and Hairstyling (won)

2021 Films, Audra McDonald, Biography, Drama, Forest Whitaker, Jennifer Hudson, Liesl Tommy, Marlon Wayans, Mary J. Blige, Tate Donovan, Tituss Burgess

Respect-2021

December 17, 2021 scottmet99 Leave a comment

Respect-2021

Director Liesl Tommy

Starring Jennifer Hudson, Forest Whitaker, Marlon Wayans

Scott’s Review #1,208

Reviewed December 17, 2021

Grade: B-

I had high hopes when I heard that a new biopic based on the life and times of the Queen of Soul, Aretha Franklin, was in the works.

My elation was solidified when Jennifer Hudson was cast in the iconic role. It seemed just perfect for her.

After all, the singer has pipes for miles and is now far removed from her appearance as a chubby but lovable young upstart on television’s American Idol. She has already won an Oscar for portraying a singer Effie White in Dreamgirls (2006) and is firmly established in the big leagues.

Sadly, Respect (2021) underwhelms through no fault of Hudson’s.

Almost every aspect of the film is standard and by the numbers, and the word ‘safe’ comes to mind multiple times throughout the viewing. On par with a television movie rather than a big-screen spectacle, the feature can largely be skipped, except for Hudson’s performance scenes.

Hudson’s finale of ‘Amazing Grace’ is astonishing, as is the real-life performance by Aretha Franklin for President Obama and his wife, Michelle, that appears over the closing credits.

I would recommend this film only for the die-hard Aretha fans. If novice South African director, Liesl Tommy, had visions of mirroring the recent successes of Bohemian Rhapsody (2018) or Rocket Man (2019), she sadly missed the mark completely.

For a similar experience, watch the superior What’s Love Got to Do with It (1993) starring Angela Bassett as Tina Turner.

Respect follows the rise of Aretha Franklin’s career, from a privileged child singing in her father’s church choir to her international superstardom and her journey to find her voice.

She battles her ‘demons’ like overindulging in alcohol and dating abusive men as she struggles with the rigors of touring and recording hit singles, becoming a demanding diva along the way.

The film contains nearly every cliche in the book, and I have my doubts that all of the plots are even factual. It is expected that Franklin falls for a charismatic yet abusive man and returns home with a black eye to her controlling father, played by Forest Whitaker.

The talented actor has little to do besides what you would expect from a typical controlling movie father.

She struggles with her career, battles the bottle, collapses on stage, fights with her family, scolds a housekeeper, reunites with her sisters, returns to the stage a star, and just about every other experience that the rise and fall and rise again of a superstar would behold.

Strangely, the film’s timeline primarily spans from 1962 to 1972, during the singer’s rise to fame. Notably, one period was also skipped over in her return to the top of the charts in 1985 with ‘Freeway of Love’ or any of her other 1980s hits.

She died in 2018, so much of her life is not featured at all.

Aretha is often portrayed as being overweight, despite being overweight for most of her life. The fact that Hudson, who was once overweight herself and is now svelte, is in the lead role suggests that either Hudson or the filmmakers (or both) didn’t want her to be perceived as fat.

While understandable, missed is an essential trademark of the Queen of Soul.

The best parts of Respect are when Hudson performs. Besides her brilliant rendition of ‘Amazing Grace’, other treats are ‘Think’, ‘I Say a Little Prayer’, and, naturally, ‘Respect’. Hudson rises to the occasion with every number.

Jennifer Hudson excels in a role for which she is perfectly cast. She successfully channels her inner Aretha Franklin and soars when she is allowed to let loose and give a brilliant performance.

Unfortunately, the rest of the material is lackluster, with dialogue and situations that are generic, and a gnawing feeling of watching Jennifer Hudson perform Aretha Franklin’s songs cannot be shaken.

I expected greatness out of Respect (2021), but all I got was mediocrity.

1982 Films, Ben Kingsley, Biography, Candace Bergen, Daniel Day-Lewis, Drama, John Mills, John Ratzenberger, Martin Sheen, Political Drama, Richard Attenborough, Roshan Seth, Saeed Jaffrey

Gandhi-1982

October 30, 2021 scottmet99 Leave a comment

Gandhi-1982

Director Richard Attenborough

Starring Ben Kingsley

Scott’s Review #1,189

Reviewed October 30, 2021

Grade: A

Ben Kingsley delivers an astonishing performance as Mahatma Gandhi, the steady-handed lawyer who stood up against British rule in India and became an international symbol of nonviolence and peaceful understanding until his tragic assassination in 1948.

Entitled simply Gandhi (1982) the film is directed by Richard Attenborough who has created masculine offerings such as The Great Escape (1963) and The Sand Pebbles (1966) before.

Calmly, the director creates a grandiose epic but one that is thought-provoking and introspective in its humility.

I was incredibly affected by this picture.

As beautiful as the cinematography and other such trimmings are the message is what stands out to me most. One man’s spirit and thirst for fairness and human equality are beyond inspiring decades after the film was made.

Thanks to Kingsley, the biography infuses an infectious channeling of what being a human being is all about and how human decency is the desired goal.

The film belongs to Kingsley. Despite hosting a cast of literally thousands he is the only name worth mentioning. He is that superior.

Attenborough, who teams with screenwriter John Briley presents major events in the life of Mohandas Gandhi (Kingsley). The film starts suddenly in January 1948, when an elderly Gandhi is on his way to an evening prayer service and is shot point-blank in the chest in front of a large number of dumbfounded greeters and admirers.

His state funeral is shown, the procession attended by millions of people from all walks of life, with a radio reporter speaking beautifully about Gandhi’s world-changing life and projects.

The film then returns to decades earlier when Gandhi, a young man, has a violent and racist experience. He vows to dedicate himself to the concept of nonviolent resistance. Initially dismissed, Gandhi was eventually internationally renowned, and his gatherings of passive protest moved India towards independence.

Gandhi has been criticized for its extraordinary length with a running time of three hours and ten minutes. A suggestion is to watch the film in multiple sittings though the best recommended approach would be to see it on the big screen.

Unfortunately, I didn’t but fantasize about the massive sequences and how gorgeous they would appear at the cinema.

The story, acting, production, and pretty much everything else about Gandhi is a ravishing spectacle.

It’s worth its weight to sit back and watch Kingsley completely immerse himself in the role. The actor deservedly won the Best Actor Academy Award and despite his oodles of other film roles is best remembered for this one.

I’m half surprised that it didn’t typecast him since he is so identifiable in the role.

I’d like to mention two aspects that some might not notice as much as others but that is simply astounding. The cinematography of the deserts, towns, and cities of India is plush with detail and accuracy. If one cannot go on a trip to India the next best thing is to watch this film instead. You’ll get a good dose of realism.

South Africa is also featured.

The costumes brilliantly showcase Indian flair and culture so well that I felt that I had been to an interesting country at the time that the film portrayed the events and felt nestled amid the luxurious colors and good taste.

Post-1982, the film genre of the epic exists rarely if ever anymore.

Long gone are the days of brilliance like Gone With the Wind (1939) or Lawrence of Arabia (1962) which are truly a delight to simply lay one’s eyes on.

Gandhi deserves to be appreciated as much as those other films despite being released in less than an artistic decade in cinema.

Gandhi (1982) is a wonderfully tragic film and leaves the viewer feeling sad but also inspired to carry the torch picked up by one brave man.

A history lesson it’s also as much a lesson in humanity and the courageous fight that one man fought. Military power is not the way to achieve change in the world.

Oscar Nominations: 7 wins-Best Picture (won), Best Director-Richard Attenborough (won), Best Actor-Ben Kingsley (won), Best Screenplay-Written Directly for the Screen (won), Best Art Direction, Best Cinematography (won), Best Costume Design (won), Best Film Editing (won), Best Makeup, Best Original Score, Best Sound

2021 Films, Ashton Sanders, Biography, Daniel Kaluuya, Dominique Fishback, Drama, Jesse Plemons, LaKeith Stanfield, Martin Sheen, Political Drama, Ryan Coogler, Shaka King

Judas and the Black Messiah-2021

September 9, 2021 scottmet99 Leave a comment

Judas and the Black Messiah-2021

Director Shaka King

Starring Daniel Kaluuya, Lakeith Stanfield, Jesse Plemons

Scott’s Review #1,176

Reviewed September 9, 2021

Grade: B+

I wanted to love Judas and the Black Messiah (2021).

I still champion the importance of the story, however, and the timeliness of its release. The film has some moments of glory where a bombastic scene occurs that immediately reins the viewer back into the fold.

However, other parts drag and feel fragmented or otherwise confusing, to the point where the film sometimes bored me, and I hate admitting that.

I teetered back and forth between a B+ grade and a B grade, and, perhaps channeling my political side, I finally settled on a very generous B+ determination. Before I watched the film, I would have bet on an A or an A-. Alas, it was not to be.

That the film was made and exposed a mass audience to the trials and tribulations of the late 1960s Chicago racial tensions that helped create the Black Panthers organization is, of course, a huge win.

But I wanted more. Much more.

A major gripe is that the song from the film, winner of the Best Original Song Oscar, only appears over the end credits and has nothing to do with the film. Having a tacked-on feel, the song, performed by H.E.R. and others, is not particularly memorable either.

The title is “Fight for You”, possessing images of battle and courage, which fit the theme of the film, but the song itself is pretty lackluster.

The plotline is a challenge to follow, but goes something like this. The FBI recruits small-time Chicago thief Bill O’Neal (LaKeith Stanfield) to infiltrate the Illinois Black Panther Party and is tasked with keeping tabs on their charismatic leader, Chairman Fred Hampton (Daniel Kaluuya).

At first, O’Neal enjoys the danger of manipulating both his comrades and his FBI primary contact, Special Agent Roy Mitchell (Plemons). Hampton’s political power grows as he falls in love with fellow revolutionary Deborah Johnson (Dominique Fishback).

To complicate matters, she becomes pregnant.

Meanwhile, O’Neal becomes conflicted. Does he align with The Panthers and where his heart lies, or thwart Hampton’s efforts by any means necessary, as FBI Director J. Edgar Hoover (Martin Sheen) commands?

The acting is fantastic, and along with the message, it is the film’s best part. Justified controversy ensued over the placement of Kaluuya and Stanfield in the Supporting Actor category at the Oscars; both received nominations, and Kaluuya was the victor.

It’s evident to me that Stanfield is the lead character, so it’s a shame he wasn’t nominated for a Best Actor award.

With Chadwick Boseman positioned to be the clear winner for Ma Rainey’s Black Bottom (2020) and shockingly losing to Anthony Hopkins for The Father (2020), was the thought that another black actor in the category might ruin Boseman’s chances?

We’ll probably never know.

Kaluuya and Stanfield are both mesmerizing, and I look forward to their subsequent projects, especially Kaluuya, whom I fell in love with after his turn in Get Out (2017).

A heavily made-up Martin Sheen is a treat to see in a woefully too-small role as J. Edgar Hoover.

The rest of the film is pretty good. The climax is thrilling and almost bumped the movie up a grade for me. Without giving too much away, it involves a bloody shoot-out, a real-life interview, and highlight footage. I love the reality the latter provides.

But then I remembered the snail’s pace it took to get to this point and how the other good scenes paled in comparison with a plodding pace.

I adored the characters and fell in love with the sweet, though doomed, romance between Hampton and Deborah. I yearned for them to live happily ever after, even after my hunch told me this was not in the cards for them.

My hunch was correct.

The intent was to evoke outrage in the audience at the unfairness that people of color endured in the late 1960s. I was angrier still at the realization that they are still being maltreated in the time of George Floyd and others.

Judas and the Black Messiah (2021) receives hands-down significant praise for its intent and acting, but disappoints in terms of delivery and final product. It is not equal to the sum of all its parts.

Oscar Nominations: 2 wins-Best Picture, Best Supporting Actor-Daniel Kaluuya (won), Lakeith Stanfield, Best Original Screenplay, Best Cinematography, Best Original Song-“Fight for You” (won)

2008 Films, Biography, Comedy, Drama, Elizabeth Banks, Ellen Burstyn, James Brolin, Jeffrey Wright, Josh Brolin, Oliver Stone, Richard Dreyfuss, Satire, Scott Glenn, Stacy Keach, Thandie Newton

W.-2008

April 7, 2021 scottmet99 Leave a comment

W.-2008

Director Oliver Stone

Starring Josh Brolin, Elizabeth Banks

Scott’s Review #1,130

Reviewed April 7, 2021

Grade: B+

I’ve said it once and I’ll say it again- the United States political landscape forever changed with the dastardly 2016 presidential election. Presidents pre and post-2016 are held to a completely different standard.

We didn’t see this coming.

That said, the film W. (2008) is a biography and satire of George W. Bush, the forty-third president of the United States, who held office during the deadly 9/11 attacks.

Thought by some to be a moron, director Oliver Stone is careful to ease up on the obvious mockery and barbs that are usually thrown at Bush. There is some of that but surprisingly the film contains some sympathetic moments.

For example, a clever addition is a complex relationship between father and son, something shadowed from the spotlight. At least I was never aware there was any friction between Dad and Son.

Fans who lean or are conservative may not like the film. It’s not exactly pro-Bush but neither is it anti. It simply tells a good and accurate story.

Stone wisely features an all-star cast and offers a retrospective chronicling the life and political career of George W. Bush, from his troubles as a young adult through his governorship of Texas and to the Oval Office.

It’s well-made because it provides the uninformed viewer with an important history lesson.

The lineup is juicy featuring an array of elite Hollywood stars. Josh Brolin sinks his teeth into the title role while Elizabeth Banks is more low-key as former First Lady Laura Bush.

In support, James Cromwell and Ellen Burstyn play George H.W. Bush and Barbara, while Richard Dreyfuss is fantastic as Dick Cheney.

Finally, Thandie Newton is as delicious as Condoleeza Rice.

Flashbacks are key to his life events revealing the rise of George W. Bush from ne’er-do-well party boy and son of privilege to president of the United States. After giving up booze for religion, George mends his restless ways and sets his sights first on the Texas governorship, which he achieves, then on the presidency.

By a fluke, he achieved this too but lost the popular vote, forever a bee in his bonnet.

However, the country’s involvement in the Iraq war affects his reign and decreases his approval rating.

The historical accuracy appears to be valid and most details are taken from non-fiction books. That’s why the film is perfect for those who wish to brush up on their history or who are intrigued about the life and times of a modern president.

Just be prepared for a bit of comedy.

To be fair, there are moments in W. when it feels like a long Saturday Night Live sketch and the characters are caricatures. It’s not exactly a parody nor is it a documentary either.

Sort of a hybrid.

The heart of the film belongs to Josh Brolin (reportedly he stepped in for Christian Bale at the last minute). Major props go to Brolin for a nuanced, spot-on characterization of the former president.

He’s got the mannerisms down and turns of the head, his walk, and speech patterns. He is careful to take a controversial public persona and portray him with both humor and humanity. Never completely silly but not as a straight man either. The real Bush always had a bit of a devilish aww shucks persona.

Post 2016 it’s tough to care much about W. (2008) though. It’s sort of an “of its time” film. Too much has happened since the Bush years, or even since 2008 when the film was made.

Donald Trump made so many things irrelevant. I can’t wait until a satire emerges about him. You know one is coming.

2020 Films, Amanda Seyfried, Arliss Howard, Bill Nye, Biography, David Fincher, Drama, Gary Oldman, Joseph Cross, Lily Collins, Tom Burke, Tom Pelphrey

Mank-2020

February 9, 2021 scottmet99 Leave a comment

Mank-2020

Director David Fincher

Starring Gary Oldman, Amanda Seyfried, Tom Pelphrey

Scott’s Review #1,110

Reviewed February 9, 2021

Grade: A

Everyone knows that Citizen Kane (1941) is one of the greatest films ever made. Well, I hope so anyway. Almost always appearing at the top of ‘best of’ lists, its merits are justified, and its creativity astounding. In a word, it’s groundbreaking.

The visual beauty, tone, and lighting are exceptional, to say the least. But this review is not meant to kiss the ass of that treasured masterpiece.

Mank (2020) is a film that is a love letter to the Golden Age of Hollywood. For those unfamiliar with Citizen Kane, please see the movie immediately, or the beauty of Mank will be missed.

The film celebrates the brilliance of Citizen Kane by offering new fans a glimpse into the creation of the movie while breathing life into the 1930s and 1940s film for new and younger fans to experience.

It also gives classic film fans something to sink their teeth into and a reaffirmation of their passion for the cinema. Film lovers will adore Mank.

The project stems back to the 1990s when director David Fincher’s father, Jack, began work on the film. It never came to fruition, and Jack Fincher died in 2003.

Eventually, the project was officially announced, and filming took place around Los Angeles from November 2019 to February 2020.

The film is about Citizen Kane specifically, but is so much more than that.

It’s part biography about alcoholic screenwriter Herman J. Mankiewicz (Gary Oldman) as he scrambles to finish writing Citizen Kane, given a tight deadline while also trying to recover from a broken leg. He is hired by the famous Orson Welles (director and star of Citizen Kane) to pen the script without any credit.

As terrific as Oldman is, as he always is, Mank also explores and dissects the politics of California of that time, the impending Nazi regime that soon led to World War II, and the rich and powerful producers.

It harkens back to the 1930s so genuinely that I felt I was living this important decade through my cinematic eyes. How different Hollywood was then!

Oldman is the star of a large cast with many actors being given small yet important roles. Nearly unrecognizable with a bloated beer belly and stringy hair, Herman is a lifelong boozer.

Mank spans ten years, from 1930 to 1940, and goes back and forth between the years. Mankiewicz dictated dialogue to his secretary, Rita (Lily Collins), in one scene while visiting the set of films made in the early 1930s.

Fun fact- Collins is the daughter of British pop artist Phil Collins and is on the cusp of a big career.

With his wit and humor, never afraid to call a spade a spade, or insult billionaire American businessman William Randolph Hearst (Charles Dance), he offends glamorous starlets over an extravagant dinner, forcing them to depart one by one as he gets drunker and drunker.

Never a big fan of Amanda Seyfried, the actress impresses with a fabulous performance, the best of her career. Playing Marion Davies, the inspiration for a character in Citizen Kane, she befriends Mankiewicz platonically, and the pair become close.

Seyfried nails it with a giving performance.

Tom Pelphrey plays Herman’s handsome brother, Joseph, on the cusp of becoming a famous writer and director, and the actor is terrific.

The look of Mank is delicious. The black and white cinematography pays homage to Citizen Kane, employing a stark contrast of dark and light in a gorgeous form.

Two great scenes come to mind- In 1933, Herman and Marion go for a stroll in a lavish courtyard, where they bond over discussions on politics and the film industry. It’s a benevolent and sweet scene where many topics are explored and embraced, and it is a definite ode to Hollywood.

The other takes place within the Hearst Mansion, directly before the scene as mentioned above, where a drunken Herman lets loose on some of the Hollywood elite. He insults Louis B. Mayer, founder of the famous MGM studios, the most famous and influential of all studios.

A gem is the addition of so many historic Hollywood figures, a treasure chest for fans of old cinema. Joan Crawford, Great Garbo, and Bette Davis are featured, although if you blink, you’ll miss them.

A terrific suggestion is to work double-time and follow up a viewing of Mank with Citizen Kane (I did!) for further appreciation of the film. A gift is realizing how the characters who appear in the classic film are based on real-life characters in Mankiewicz’s world.

Mank (2020) should be appreciated and revered for its lovely hybrid of crisp dialogue and wry comedy based on a real-life Hollywood director, and its cinematography and visual appreciation of a long-ago era of cinema.

I hope this inspires some to appreciate and salivate over films created almost a hundred years ago.

Oscar Nominations: 2 wins-Best Picture, Best Director-David Fincher, Best Actor-Gary Oldman, Best Supporting Actress-Amanda Seyfried, Best Production Design (won), Best Cinematography (won), Best Costume Design, Best Makeup and Hairstyling, Best Original Score, Best Sound

2011 Films, Adam Driver, Armie Hammer, Biography, Clint Eastwood, Denis O'Hare, Dermot Mulroney, Drama, Jeffrey Donovan, Jessica Hecht, Josh Hamilton, Josh Lucas, Judi Dench, Kaitlyn Dever, Lea Thompson, Leonardo DiCaprio, LGBTQ+ Drama, LGBTQ+ Films, Naomi Watts, Stephen Root

J. Edgar-2011

January 12, 2021 scottmet99 Leave a comment

J. Edgar-2011

Director Clint Eastwood

Starring Leonardo DiCaprio, Armie Hammer, Naomi Watts

Scott’s Review #1,099

Reviewed January 12, 2021

Grade: A

When director Clint Eastwood and actor Leonardo DiCaprio align, exceptional things can happen. This is evidenced by J. Edgar (2011), a compelling and well-constructed drama with a biographical and character-driven focus.

One gets inside the head and psyche of the title character, J. Edgar Hoover, the head of the Federal Bureau of Investigations, with DiCaprio playing him flawlessly.

The film is left-of-center, surprising for the mainstream director, though his film-making style is familiar. Eastwood does what he does best by constructing a slick and “Hollywood” experience.

There are not daring camera angles or unique uses of light that Stanley Kubrick might use. He creates a steady affair that will appeal to the American heartland, getting butts to the movie theater on his name alone.

The film opens in 1919 when a young Hoover (DiCaprio) is tasked with purging radicals from the United States and obtaining their secrets, something he’d carry with him for decades. He meets a new Secretary, Helen Gandy (Naomi Watts), whom he makes an awkward pass and an even more awkward marriage proposal.

She refuses, and they become professional and personal allies.

The story then plods along with historical stops through the decades like the Lindbergh baby kidnapping, Martin Luther King Jr., and Richard Nixon.

Hoover is always involved in these escapades.

Hoover, who served as the head of the bureau from 1924 until he died in 1972, was a powerful and ruthless man.

Eastwood carefully dissects him, professionally and personally. He never married, lived with his mother, traveled, and enjoyed dinners with one man who in death, bequeathed his estate.

You do the math.

He was a gay man when one couldn’t be an openly gay man. Thus, he is conflicted, and Eastwood does a great job of showing the demons he wrestles with.

The relationship between Hoover and lawyer, Clyde Tolson (Armie Hammer) is my favorite part of J. Edgar because it’s interesting and humanistic.

DiCaprio and Hammer give outstanding performances with flawless chemistry and charisma.

When Hoover professes his love for Tolson and quickly recants his statement then professes love for an actress, we view his turmoil. He loves Tolson but cannot bear to accept it even though it would free him from his chains.

Despite the tender nature of the sequence above or that his mother was a traditional, no-nonsense, shrew, Hoover is not portrayed as a hero. He was a complicated and damaged man and Eastwood hits this point home.

He blackmailed Martin Luther King Jr., kept sexual secrets on several Hollywood stars, and participated in various abuses of power.

The film does admit that the director also instituted fingerprinting and forensic measures that reduced crime.

Those who desire a straightforward lesson in history may be slightly perturbed by the focus on Hoover’s personal life. Eastwood could have easily made Hoover’s career the only facet of the production-enough material that exists for this.

Instead, we get to see the inner workings of the man. Kudos for this.

Dustin Lance Black, who wrote Milk (2008), a portrait of a gay man, is back at the helm serving as a screenwriter. But the two films are not modeled after one another. They are very different animals.

While Milk celebrates a man refusing to deny who he and others are, demanding their just civil rights, J. Edgar provides the narrative of a man fleeing from who he is.

Offering a rich and complex biography of a tortured man, the audience is exposed to a person wrestling with inner turmoil. Hoover was a famous man, but the film could easily represent those thousands of men who could not bring themselves to accept who they were.

The largest praise goes to DiCaprio who makes us sympathize, pity, and admire the complexities of his character.

J. Edgar (2011) hits a grand slam.

2019 Films, Action, Biography, Caitríona Balfe, Christian Bale, Drama, James Mangold, Jon Bernthal, Josh Lucas, Matt Damon, Noah Jupe, Sports, Tracy Letts

Ford v Ferrari-2019

July 18, 2020 scottmet99 Leave a comment

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)

2019 Films, Biography, Clint Eastwood, Drama, Jon Hamm, Jonah Hill, Kathy Bates, Leonardo DiCaprio, Olivia Wilde, Paul Walter Hauser, Sam Rockwell, Wayne Duvall

Richard Jewell-2019

June 19, 2020 scottmet99 Leave a comment

Richard Jewell-2019

Director Clint Eastwood

Starring Paul Walter Hauser, Sam Rockwell, Kathy Bates

Scott’s Review #1,035

Reviewed June 19, 2020

Grade: B

With most Clint Eastwood films, especially in the latter part of his career, one should expect a mainstream story with a conservative edge. The man has lost his touch with age, unlike greats like Martin Scorsese.

This may not always make for the most cutting-edge cinematic experience, but the results can still be compelling.

Richard Jewell (2019) was not on my radar, but for the last minute, a surprising Oscar nomination for Kathy Bates.

I am still smarting that she presumably took the last spot over the snubbed Jennifer Lopez (Hustlers-2019).

But I digress.

As anticipated, the project has a predictable edge and a safe feel, Eastwood sending a nasty note to the media and the FBI shaming them for their corruption and ineptness.

The biography, centering around the Centennial Olympic Park bombing and its aftermath during the 1996 Summer Olympic Games in Atlanta, Georgia, tells the story in a nicely paced way but feels light, pulling too much of a right-wing slant.

Lead actor Paul Walter Hauser is the standout of the film, bringing empathy and heroism to his portrayal of the one and only Richard Jewell.

Our title character is an overweight, average-looking man who lives with his mother in a modest apartment in Georgia. He works as a supply clerk in a small law firm where he meets arrogant attorney Watson Bryant (Rockwell).

They bond over video games and become fast friends.

The time is 1986.

Jewell, aspiring to become a police officer, lands a job as a security guard at Piedmont College, where he is subsequently fired for overstepping his grounds. Finally, he begins a job running security for a concert series near the Olympic Games.

He has a keen eye for law enforcement and is passionate about doing his job well.

Hauser, who had supporting roles in I, Tonya (2017) and in BlacKkKlansman (2018), has reached his breakout role. Hauser makes the character likable and loyal. Law and order are his passions, and he eats, sleeps, and breathes life.

The actor makes it clear to the audience that Richard is not dumb. He is brilliant but has not been handed an easy life. The relationship with his mother is touching, and he genuinely wants to protect those whom he serves.

As far as the supporting roles go, Rockwell is fantastic as Watson, who ultimately defends Richard against the FBI. With wit, sarcasm, and outrage, his passion comes across on screen as a gruff but loyal friend.

Other big-name stars are not as lucky with their roles.

Jon Hamm plays FBI Agent Tom Shaw, a made-up character who wants to railroad Richard at all costs. He tricks Richard into confessing, which he then records. Olivia Wilde is Kathy Scruggs, an unpleasant journalist who will trade sex for stories.

The character is unlikable, and rumors abound that the writing is sharply embellished. Both Hamm and Wilde suffer from one-note characters.

Let’s discuss Kathy Bates’s performance.

Bates is a legendary actress and well-regarded. In the film, her best role is that of the maniacal Annie Wilkes in Misery (1990). Over the past few years, she has brightened the small screen with daring and unique roles on American Horror Story. Her role as the sympathetic and kindly Bobi Jewell is not one of her best.

There is nothing wrong with her performance, but the character never has a big, memorable scene.

Unclear is the historical accuracy of the story, and my hunch is that liberties could offer good drama. Inexplicable is the omission of anything related to the real bomber, who is never mentioned.

What were his motivations? Whatever happened to him? Viewers can conduct their research, but a notable omission is not including this.

The story only centers around Richard’s accusers and attempted railroading simply because he fits the profile of a bomber. The film could have gone further.

Also, viewers are left with no knowledge that Richard traditionally put a rose on one of the bombing victims’ graves or other niceties that could have been included.

Why did Eastwood need to hammer home the point that Richard was fretting about the perception that he may have been gay? True or false the point feels like a homophobic tidbit thrown in to appeal to a likely redneck audience.

Richard Jewell (2019) will not appear on Eastwood’s “greatest hits” of top films or even top 10 lists. Mystic River (2003) and Million Dollar Baby (2004) would get my votes for “best of” the year.

The film is only a slightly above-average biography of a falsely accused man who eventually gains justice. The spin is a politically conservative one, portraying the main characters as heroes who meet unfortunate circumstances.

Oscar Nominations: Best Supporting Actress- Kathy Bates

2019 Films, Alexis Louder, Biography, Clarke Peters, Cynthia Erivo, Drama, Janelle Monáe, Jennifer Nettles, Joe Alwyn, Kasi Lemmons, Leslie Odom Jr., Vanessa Bell Calloway

Harriet-2019

June 10, 2020 scottmet99 Leave a comment

Harriet-2019

Director Kasi Lemmons

Starring Cynthia Erivo, Leslie Odom Jr.

Scott’s Review #1,031

Reviewed June 10, 2020

Grade: B

The story of real-life American freedom fighter Harriet Tubman, a woman who risked her life multiple times to rescue enslaved people from the pre-Civil War South of the United States, is a story of monumental importance to get right.

An escaped enslaved person herself, Harriet was more than an Abolitionist; she was a political activist and hero to all whose lives she touched. She was a figure that all women and men should aspire to emulate with her message of freedom and civility.

The cinematic telling of Harriet’s story, titled Harriet (2019), is a mild success, mostly deserving of praise for being told at all.

At well over one hundred and fifty years post-civil war, racism still runs rampant across the United States, so the release of the film is essential.

A gutsy performance by Cynthia Erivo, a British singer-turned-actor, is the high point. Still, unfortunately, the rest of the offering is lackluster, frighteningly modern in look and feel, with clear heroes and villains, and nobody with muddied motivations to be found anywhere.

We first meet young Harriet (Erivo), then named “Minty” Ross, in 1840s Maryland, then a slave state. She is to be married to her intended, John Tubman (Zackary Momoh), already a free man.

Minty’s father, also free, asks her owner to release her as his grandfather had promised before his demise.

Refusing, his son, Gideon (Joe Alwyn), decides to sell Minty as punishment. Savvy, Minty flees for the northern states and settles in Philadelphia, a newly free woman with her life ahead of her.

She risks capture and death to return to Maryland, in disguise, to rescue her family from the horrors of slavery.

Her plight was so essential and so heroic that I wanted to love this film.

It is okay, but it does not do justice to the real-life Harriet, nor does it succeed as a cinematic offering. The weakest point is the modern look that the film and the actors possess, and I think this was done intentionally.

Every single actor, black and white, looks like a present-day actor dressed in mid-nineteenth-century garb, and it does not work. My hunch is that filmmakers wanted to add relevance to the current racial issues, and I am all for that, but the film suffers as a result.

I am all for feminism in cinema, but Harriet can be accurately accused of stomping that point into the ground.

During some of the numerous action sequences when Harriet becomes a flawless sharpshooter, she nearly rivals a Marvel superhero instead of a simple woman championing a cause. And why is Harriet psychic?

This is a silly addition that feels plot-driven. Director Kasi Lemmons, known for films like Eve’s Bayou (1997) and Black Nativity (2013), knows her way around a picture, but Harriet will not be known as her finest achievement.

There are some positives to mention. Erivo, not known for her acting as much as her singing ability, rises to the occasion. Viola Davis nearly ended up being cast, who would have been brilliant, but Erivo nonetheless impresses.

She is both pretty and plain, which humanizes Harriet and makes her relatable to many.

Erivo strikes a balance between toughness and sympathy, allowing the audience to champion her cause without it feeling forced. Early in the year, thought to be a lock for the Best Actress Oscar, the film lost ground critically, and Erivo limped to an Oscar nod, and she was lucky to get that.

She lost.

The cinematography is credible, which is another positive aspect of the film. The green, lush landscapes are distinctly southern and peaceful, featuring roaring rapids, bridges, and spacious forests that make for atmospheric backdrops serving as settings for many sequences.

Casting Janelle Monae as the gorgeous (and free) Marie Buchanan is okay and adds a Color Purple (1985) comparison, reminiscent of Celie and Shug Avery.

Ironically, the acting among the black actors is superior to that of the most over-the-top or cartoon-like white actors.

Best described as a formulaic Hollywood film with a good message, Harriet (2019) could be a launching pad for Erivo, a new name in Hollywood films.

She tackles a challenging role and is the standout performer in the production. The sleekness and modernism make the resulting experience less than the grittiness that a film like Harriet needs.

Much better biographies of legendary figures exist, a shame since Harriet Tubman is one of the most prominent to have their story told on the big screen.

Oscar Nominations: Best Actress- Cynthia Erivo, Best Original Song-“Stand Up”

1968 Films, Anne Francis, Barbra Streisand, Biography, Herbert Ross, Kay Medford, Musical, Omar Sharif, Walter Pidgeon, William Wyler

Funny Girl-1968

May 11, 2020 scottmet99 Leave a comment

Funny Girl-1968

Director William Wyler

Starring Barbra Streisand, Omar Sharif

Scott’s Review #1,022

Reviewed May 11, 2020

Grade: B+

Barbra Streisand won the Academy Award for Best Actress for her outstanding portrayal of Fanny Brice in Funny Girl (1968). She reprises a role that she made famous on the Broadway stage, bringing her to the big screen.

The role is vitally important and sends a powerful message, teaching viewers that an unconventional woman with extraordinary talent can succeed in showbiz, leaving prim and proper starlets salivating with jealousy.

Features the classic tunes “People” and “Don’t Rain on My Parade” as well as the title track.

Fanny (Streisand) is an unhappy Jewish New Yorker, living in semi-poverty and dreaming of the big time. Her mother (Kay Medford) and others in the community try to persuade Fanny to live an everyday life far from the hot, judgmental glare of the stage, but she will have none of it.

Finding success on her terms in Ziegfeld Follies throughout World War I, she also finds love and passion with the suave Nick Arnstein (Sharif) following her debut performance.

The story is loosely based on the life and career of the honest Fanny and her stormy relationship with the entrepreneur and gambler, Nick.

Taking nothing away from Sharif, who is more than adequate, the film belongs to Streisand. Despite being a novice, producers wanted no one but Streisand in the role, since she had hit a home run in the stage version.

A brief consideration to have Shirley MacLaine star in hindsight seems laughable and unimaginable.

Sharif’s suave, dangerous, swarthy characterization balances perfectly with Streisand’s naivety and innocence. The Jewish woman and the Muslim man must also have raised an eyebrow or two at the time.

Streisand is a breath of fresh air in a role that could be said to mimic real life and reflects film in 1968 and beyond. Glamour girls were the height of fashion throughout the 1950s and 1960s, where looks sometimes usurped talent.

With the lifting of the Hollywood Code, grittier and dirtier roles were to be found for women. Streisand, as Fanny, proves that a self-proclaimed ugly duckling can rise to the top of the cream.

Refusing to get a nose job or otherwise alter her appearance or name, she mirrors Fanny in many ways, inspiring both women and men to be themselves to achieve truth.

Director William Wyler, no stranger to Hollywood success with pictures such as Mrs. Miniver (1942) and The Best Years of Our Lives (1946), knows how to pace and balance a film, and to present a cheery, splendid offering, careful not to make the movie too lightweight.

Comic scenes, such as when Fanny upstages everyone and prances around the stage as a pregnant newlywed, becoming the talk of the town, are the best ones.

The film succeeds when it is fun.

Sharif does his best with a small role, surprising given the character’s importance, but the dramatic moments are not the best scenes. They are okay and certainly not overacted by the stars, but do not work as well as when Streisand belts out “People” on a lonely sidewalk.

The issue is that Streisand is Funny Girl, and even prominent actors like Sharif never had a chance. The one exception is Medford, who goes toe to toe with Streisand in every scene with gusto and humor.

Funny Girl (1968) may suffer from a few overly melodramatic moments that slow it down, especially in the central romance, but its central message is to stay true to one’s colors.

Refusing to be influenced by elders or even her beau, Fanny is an inspiration to all viewers. With delightful musical numbers and zesty wardrobe pieces, the film has a cheery and fun veneer, but more lies beneath the surface.

Whether the intention is a sing-along experience or a deeper meaning, the film has something for everyone.

Oscar Nominations: 1 win-Best Picture, Best Actress-Barbra Streisand (won), Best Supporting Actress-Kay Medford, Best Score of a Musical Picture-Original or Adaptation, Best Song Original for the Picture-“Funny Girl”, Best Sound, Best Cinematography, Best Film Editing

2011 Films, Biography, David Cronenberg, Drama, Independent, Independent Drama, Keira Knightley, Michael Fassbender, Viggo Mortensen, Vincent Cassel

A Dangerous Method-2011

April 9, 2020 scottmet99 Leave a comment

A Dangerous Method-2011

Director David Cronenberg

Starring Keira Knightley, Viggo Mortensen, Michael Fassbender

Scott’s Review #1,009

Reviewed April 9, 2020

Grade: B+

A literal psychological-themed drama, if ever there was one, director David Cronenberg uses popular actors of the day to create a film based on a non-fiction book.

Famous psychoanalysts, Sigmund Freud and Carl Jung share a tumultuous relationship when they catch the eye of the first female psychoanalyst, who was a patient of each.

Thanks to a talented cast and an independent feel, the result is a compelling piece and a history lesson in sexual titillation, jealousy, passion, and drama, among real-life elite sophisticates.

Set on the eve of World War I in Zurich, Switzerland, a young woman, Sabina Spielrein (Keira Knightley), suffering from hysteria begins a new course of treatment with the young Swiss doctor Carl Jung (Michael Fassbender).

He uses word association, dream interpretation, and other experimental methods as part of his approach to psychoanalysis and finds that Spielrein’s condition was triggered by the humiliation and sexual arousal she felt as a child when her father spanked her naked.

They embark on a torrid affair.

Jung and friend and confidante, Sigmund Freud (Viggo Mortensen) explore various psychoanalytical methods, but cracks appear in their friendship as they begin to disagree more frequently on matters of psychoanalysis.

When Spielrein, now a student, meets Freud, she confides her relationship with Jung to him, which leads to animosity between the men. Spielrein embarks on other lovers as she attempts to reconcile the geniuses, to allow for their psychoanalysis studies to continue to develop with relevancy.

The film is intelligently written and for any viewer fascinated with psychology or sexual interest, a wonderful marvel. Since Freud and Jung are two of the most recognizable names in behavioral science and Spielrein is one of the most influential women in the field, the production is as much a historical and biographical study as it is dramatic enjoyment.

Spanking, bondage, and sexual humiliation for gratification and pleasure, strong taboos at the turn of the twentieth century, are explored and embraced in delicious and wicked style.

Given that Fassbender, Mortensen, and Knightley are easy on the eyes provide further stimulation than if less attractive actors were cast. Nonetheless, what the actors provide in eye candy is equally matched by their acting talent as each one immerses themselves into each pivotal role.

Cleverly and uniquely, the film is not a trite romantic triangle or giddy formulaic genre movie. Rather, the sets, costumes, and cinematography are fresh and grip the audience.

Carl Jung is the central figure as both his personal and professional experiences are given plenty of screen time. He wrestles between remaining committed to his wife or giving in to his deepest desires with Speilrein- we can guess how this turns out!

The early scenes between Fassbender and Knightley crackle with passion and will make many blush and smirk with naughtiness.

The title of the film is bold but doesn’t always live up to the subject matter. More sensual, fun, and intelligent than dangerous, the film is hardly raw or gritty, surprising given it’s an independent project. It is softer to the touch, especially during scenes between Jung and Speilrein than hard-edged.

Many early psychoanalytical ideas of approach and remedy are discussed and explored making the film more of a study than a thriller.

A Dangerous Method (2011) received stellar reviews and year-end awards consideration, but unsuccessful box-office returns. Hardly a popcorn film and deeply accepting of its indie roots, the film ought to be shown in high-school or academic psychology classes- whether in abnormal or general studies remains a question.

With a fascinating story that risks making the prudish blush or turn away, the film will please those independent thinkers, sexual deviants, or those aching for an expressive and satisfying film.

2001 Films, Best Picture Oscar Winners, Biography, Christopher Plummer, Drama, Ed Harris, Jennifer Connelly, Judd Hirsch, Ron Howard, Russell Crowe

A Beautiful Mind-2001

March 25, 2020 scottmet99 Leave a comment

A Beautiful Mind-2001

Director Ron Howard

Starring Russell Crowe, Jennifer Connelly

Scott’s Review #1,003

Reviewed March 25, 2020

Grade: A-

A Beautiful Mind (2001) is a superior-made film based on the life and times of American mathematician John Nash, a Nobel Laureate in Economics and Abel Prize winner.

The biography explores Nash’s battles with schizophrenia and the delusions he suffered, causing tremendous stress on friends and family.

The film is well-written and brilliantly acted, but deserves a demerit for factual inaccuracies, especially related to Nash’s complex sexuality and family life.

This leaves a gnawing paint-by-the-numbers approach for mass appeal only.

The film was an enormous success, winning four Academy Awards, for Best Picture, Best Director, Best Adapted Screenplay, and Best Supporting Actress. It was also nominated for Best Actor, Best Film Editing, Best Makeup, and Best Original Score.

Arguably one of the best films of 2001, it cemented director Ron Howard’s reputation as a mainstream force to be reckoned with in the Hollywood world.

The project was inspired by the Pulitzer Prize-nominated book of the same name.

Starting in 1947, we meet Nash (Russell Crowe) as a virginal and socially awkward college scholar, studying at Princeton University. He is a whiz at science and mathematics, coming up with unique and dynamic ideas for problem-solving.

Rising the ranks in respectability, he is given an important job with the United States Department of Defense, tasked with thwarting Soviet plots. He becomes increasingly obsessive about searching for hidden patterns and believes he is being followed, sinking further into depression and secrecy.

A Beautiful Mind is an important film because it brings to light the overwhelming issue of mental health and the struggles one suffering from it is forced to endure. Nash largely lives in a fantasy world and has imaginary friends who have followed him for decades by the time the film ends.

Nash conquers his demons with little aid of medication causing a controversial viewpoint. Amazing that the man was able to rise above, but is this a realistic message for those suffering from hallucinations?

Russell Crowe carries the film, fresh off his Oscar win the year before for his stunning turn in Gladiator (2000). He would have won for portraying Nash had he not recently received the coveted prize.

Crowe, hunky at this point in his life, convincingly brings the brainy and nerdy character, rather than the stud, to life, adding layers of empathy and warmth to the role.

We root for the man because he is as much sensitive as he is a genius.

Jennifer Connelly, in what is disparagingly usually described as the wife or the girlfriend role, does her best with the material given. My hunch is her Oscar nomination and surprising win have more to do with piggybacking off the slew of other nominations the film received.

She is competent as the supportive yet strong Alicia, the wife of Nash. In her best scene, she flees the house after a confused Nash leaves their infant daughter near a full bathtub, putting her life in danger.

The most heartfelt scene occurs during the conclusion. After many years of struggle, Nash eventually triumphs over this tragedy, and finally, late in life, receives the Nobel Prize. This is a grand culmination of the man’s achievements and a sentimental send-off for the film.

The aging makeup of all principal characters, specifically Nash and Alicia is brilliantly done.

Despite the heaps of accolades reaped on A Beautiful Mind, several factual points are reduced to non-existence. Questionable is why Howard chose not to explore Nash’s rumored bisexuality, instead of passing him off as straight.

Admittedly, the film is not about sexuality, but isn’t this a misrepresentation of truth? Nash had a second family, which is also never mentioned.

These tidbits eliminated from the film leave a glossy feel like Howard picked and chose what to tell and not to tell for the sake of the mainstream audience.

Bringing needed attention to a problem of epic proportions, A Beautiful Mind (2001) recognizes the issue of mental health in the United States.

The methods may be questionable, and the film has an overall safe “Hollywood” vibe but must be credited for a job well done in a film that is not only important but displays a good biography for viewers eager to learn about a genius who faced unrelenting issues.

Oscar Nominations: 4 wins-Best Picture (won), Best Director-Ron Howard (won), Best Actor-Russell Crowe, Best Supporting Actress-Jennifer Connelly (won), Best Screenplay Based on Material Previously Produced or Published/Adapted Screenplay (won), Best Original Score, Best Makeup, Best Film Editing

2019 Films, Anthony Hopkins, Biography, Drama, Fernando Meirelles, Jonathan Pryce, Luis Gnecco

The Two Popes-2019

February 27, 2020 scottmet99 Leave a comment

The Two Popes-2019

Director Fernando Meirelles

Starring Jonathan Pryce, Anthony Hopkins

Scott’s Review #994

Reviewed February 27, 2020

Grade: B+

The Two Popes (2019) is a biographical drama that focuses on two real-life religious figures and the close friendship they form while sharing differing ideas and viewpoints.

The two men hold the highest spiritual office, and deep respect culminates over time while past secrets are uncovered.

The film carefully balances past and present but offers too few meaty scenes between the legendary actors for my taste.

Otherwise, a thought-provoking and historical effort, with brilliant sequences of Italy and Argentina.

The film begins in April of 2005 during a pivotal moment in history, following the death of Pope John Paul II. The world is abuzz with the naming of Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger (played by Anthony Hopkins), elected Pope Benedict XVI.

At the same time, Bergoglio (Jonathan Pryce), from Argentina, receives the second-highest vote count.

Ratzinger has a stiff and more traditional approach to Christianity, while Bergoglio is more modern in thinking and open to new ideas.

Seven years later, the Catholic Church is embroiled in the Vatican leaks scandal, which tarnishes the very concept of religion. Benedict’s tenure has been marred by public accusations regarding his role in the cover-up, which has shocked the world.

Meanwhile, Bergoglio intends to retire and arrives in Rome to receive Benedict’s blessing. This is the point at which the men slowly come to terms with each other and develop mutual respect and admiration.

The Two Popes is worth the price of admission for the acting alone. With heavyweights such as Hopkins and Pryce, one can rest easy in this regard and simply enjoy the experience.

The scenes between the two actors are fantastic and fraught with energy.

As the religious figures confide in one another and secrets brim to the surface, the actors are believable as the real-life figures. Even good, old-fashioned small talk is fascinating to watch.

While the present-day sequences enthrall, the flashbacks of Bergoglio as a younger man and his journey into the church are explored a bit too much, sometimes halting the flow.

He was once engaged to be married, but instead joined the Jesuits. He was married in scandal when the perception was that he had collaborated with the Argentine military dictatorship, and he was exiled to serve as an ordinary parish priest to the poor for the next ten years.

The balance between timelines is acceptable, but the flashbacks become too prevalent as the film progresses.

Director Fernando Meirelles seems more comfortable shooting scenes within Argentina since those are best directed using black and white filming to showcase both the ravages of a chaotic nation and the decades preceding the present.

Best known for the wonderful City of God (2003), he also intersperses real-life news sequences featuring the peril of the Argentinian people. The two time periods do not always flow naturally together, though.

A huge positive is the inclusion of the child abuse scandal that rocked the religious world and the brave decision that Meirelles made to focus on the revelation that Benedict knew about the accusations and dismissed them, clearly aiding in their continuation.

Both Popes deal with the struggle between tradition and progress, guilt and forgiveness, and confronting one’s past, making it a character study.

The exterior and surrounding sequences are an absolute treat. Having visited Rome and particularly Vatican City, the Sistine Chapel, a showcase of the Vatican, is wonderful to view on a personal level.

The chapel in the Apostolic Palace, the official residence of the pope, is both astounding due to its lovely religious art and the backdrop for many scenes between Benedict and the future Pope Francis (Bergoglio).

Any viewer fond of world history or religious history will enjoy The Two Popes (2019). With great acting, secrets revealed, conflict, and loyalty, the film is crafted well.

Some momentum is lost in the story’s back and forth, and the film is hardly one that warrants repeated viewings or study in film school; however, it provides a realistic look at modern religion, complete with its arguments and discussions, to delve into.

Oscar Nominations: Best Actor-Jonathan Pryce, Best Supporting Actor-Anthony Hopkins, Best Adapted Screenplay

2019 Films, Allison Janney, Amy Landecker, Ashley Greene, Biography, Brian d'Arcy James, Charlize Theron, Connie Britton, Drama, Holland Taylor, Jack Haven, Jay Roach, John Lithgow, Kate McKinnon, Malcolm McDowell, Margot Robbie, Mark Duplass, Mark Moses, Nicole Kidman, P. J. Byrne, Richard Kind, Stephen Root

Bombshell-2019

December 26, 2019 scottmet99 Leave a comment

Bombshell-2019

Director Jay Roach

Starring Charlize Theron, Margot Robbie, Nicole Kidman

Scott’s Review #972

Reviewed December 26, 2019

Grade: B+

Bombshell (2019) is the type of film that, depending on your political affiliation, you will either refuse to see or see and have a love/hate reaction to.

As a non-lover of the “news” network Fox News, I am firmly ensconced in the latter camp, so my opinion of the film is mixed.

The importance of releasing the film during a time of political turmoil in 2019 is crucial and intentional, which is why I commend the film.

Still, the subject matter of sexual harassment against women is complex to watch and a sobering reminder that this behavior continues to occur.

The performances of the principal players — Charlize Theron, Nicole Kidman, Margot Robbie, Kate McKinnon, and John Lithgow — are outstanding and key to the film’s success. Theron and Lithgow receive the lion’s share of makeup and prosthetic work, making them look identical to their real-life counterparts.

Beneficial is a myriad of Fox News political figure portrayals (Sean Hannity, Jeanine Pirro, and Bill O’Reilly) with frighteningly good accuracy, creating a surreal effect.

The film centers on female Fox News personnel in Manhattan and their sexual harassment allegations against founder Roger Ailes (Lithgow).

The central figure- Megyn Kelly (Theron) is conflicted over the risks to both her career and her financial stability if she comes forward and admits her harassment by Ailes years ago, after Gretchen Carlson sues the network.

Margot Robbie plays Kayla, a young Fox employee whom Ailes also harasses.

McKinnon plays a closeted lesbian and confidante to Kayla, who works for the network despite being liberal and a massive admirer of Hillary Clinton.

The plot is fast-paced and unfolds like a quick page-turner, with some sections narrated by Kelly. Bombshell feels timely and has a distinct “ripped from the headlines” makeup.

The fact that the real-life events occurred as recently as 2016 is a striking aspect that will captivate the viewer, especially those who follow United States politics or current events.

The story is fresh and vibrant, with a sense of familiarity, rather than a tale from an event decades ago that many viewers have forgotten or were too young to remember.

I had difficulty feeling much sympathy for most of the characters, which detracts from the film’s overall impact.

The standard definition that the term “Fox News” usually conjures is one of male chauvinism and the good old boys club, with old-fashioned machismo ruling the roost.

Why would any woman choose to work for them or align themselves with the Conservative party, which is not a fan of women or women’s rights?

With this fact in mind, it was difficult for me to watch the film.

To build on this, CEO Roger Ailes is written as the clear villain with no redeeming value. During one scene, he salivates over Kayla when she visits him in his office and instructs her to lift her skirt higher and twirl for him. The scene is sickening, and we feel Kayla’s embarrassment and humiliation.

In a cheer-out-loud moment at the end of the film, she quits, unable to remain in such a corrupt corporation.

One of the only likable characters is Jess Carr (McKinnon), probably fictitious. Hardly fitting the mold of the female staff, not perky or showing leg, she goes out for drinks with Kayla and admits to being gay; the two end up having a one-night stand.

The character is unique, and McKinnon makes wise acting choices.

Worth mentioning is Ailes’s long-time secretary Faye (Holland Taylor). Surely, she knows the antics that go on in her boss’s office, but she almost serves as an accomplice. Why?

Sad to realize that, as recently as 2016, women were still having to face discrimination in the workplace. Industries with powerful men still can be toxic and poisonous to women attempting to climb the ranks.

If the women harassed at Fox News were not top anchors, there is no way the accusations would have even been heard. What about the receptionists, cleaning staff, or administrators who are harassed?

Would anyone listen to them? This message crossed my mind while watching Bombshell.

With fantastic acting and incredible makeup, time will tell if Bombshell (2019) remains a relevant film. Leaving the viewer with an unsatisfying ending rather than a hopeful one, it isn’t easy to sympathize with most of the characters, even when they are supposed to be sympathetic.

Bombshell would make a perfect companion piece to Vice (2018), a similar political, yet superior film.

Oscar Nominations: 1 win-Best Actress-Charlize Theron, Best Supporting Actress-Margot Robbie, Best Makeup and Hairstyling (won)

2010 Films, Amber Tamblyn, Biography, Danny Boyle, Drama, James Franco, Kate Mara, Lizzy Caplan, Treat Williams

127 Hours-2010

December 13, 2019 scottmet99 Leave a comment

127 Hours-2010

Director Danny Boyle

Starring James Franco, Kate Mara

Scott’s Review #967

Reviewed December 13, 2019

Grade: A

A biography of epic proportions, 127 Hours (2010) provides a stunning account of one man’s journey and near-tragic fate. If not for his resolve and determination this would surely have been the result.

Director, Danny Boyle casts the charismatic James Franco in the role of the hiker who was forced to amputate his arm after becoming pinned by a rock. The effective title gives a non-stop active feel, a five-day in-life production if you will, and a pulsating ninety minutes of crafty filmmaking.

The film starts a cheery story of an excited mountaineer, Aron Ralston, (Franco) who prepares to embark on a long-awaited adventure.

The time is April 2003.

His goal is to enjoy a few days of hiking, reveling in the freedom the fresh Utah air offers him. Somewhat of a daredevil, he happily anticipates adventure as he begins his journey.

He meets two attractive young women, Kristi (Kate Mara) and Megan (Amber Tamblyn) and the trio swims in an underground pool before going their separate ways.

Had 127 Hours been a horror film there would be a sense of suspicion or dread surrounding the female hikers, but the scene is enchanting and pure innocence.

Once again on his own, Aron suddenly slips and falls, knocking over a boulder that crushes his right hand and wrist against the wall. He calls for help but realizes that he is alone. Aron begins recording a video diary and reflects on his past, for example forgetting to leave a note of his whereabouts while becoming more and more desperate to escape.

Most of 127 Hours is set within a state of claustrophobic peril in the tiny walls of the rocks that Ralston is trapped between. The film quickly becomes an emotional and personal experience as the camera is focused on Franco, mostly in the close-up form.

At times the shots are too close for comfort, but this is a necessary way for the viewer to experience events the way that Aron did, the style is tremendously effective.

At the risk of diminishing the amazing direction, editing, and cinematography offered, the film belongs to Franco.

As Aron faces peril, growing frantic with each passing hour, but trying to remain calm and focused, Franco does a tremendous job of balancing and revealing the proper emotions. He whimsically recounts memories while forbidding himself to lose sight of escape, rationing what little food and water he has.

The gruesome amputation scene is gory and powerful and may necessitate closing one’s eyes.

The remainder of the elements come together perfectly. The editing, cinematography, and pacing of the story are all spot-on. The musical soundtrack is key to the pacing of the film. At first energetic and excitable, the music slowly becomes darker and more subdued, while at the end it is low-key.

Aron is thankful to simply be alive as he walks a lonely walk to help as the film concludes.

Since the real-life figure is still very much alive, the historical accuracy of the experience is preserved, as confirmed by the hero. He only showed Kristi and Megan basic climbing moves and they never swam together, but the remainder is a brilliant documentary-style film experience.

The real Ralston himself, along with his wife and son make cameo appearances at the end of the film, providing good authenticity.

127 Hours (2010) scores big, creating an experience that is breathtaking, disturbing, and real. Inspiration will be given to each viewer and a lesson in endurance and perseverance will resonate in their own life.

The film deservedly received Oscar nominations for Best Picture, Best Actor, Best Adapted Screenplay, Best Original Score, Best Original Song, and Best Film Editing, but sadly coming up empty-handed.

Oscar Nominations: Best Picture, Best Actor-James Franco, Best Adapted Screenplay, Best Original Score, Best Original Song-“If I Rise”, Best Film Editing

Independent Spirit Award Nominations: 1 win-Best Feature, Best Director-Danny Boyle, Best Male Lead-James Franco (won)

2019 Films, Biography, Chris Cooper, Christine Lahti, Drama, Marielle Heller, Matthew Rhys, Susan Kelechi Watson, Tom Hanks

A Beautiful Day in the Neighborhood-2019

December 6, 2019 scottmet99 Leave a comment

A Beautiful Day in the Neighborhood-2019

Director Marielle Heller

Starring Matthew Rhys, Tom Hanks

Scott’s Review #964

Reviewed December 6, 2019

Grade: A

Any viewer seeking a weepy affair should look no further than A Beautiful Day in the Neighborhood (2019). The film is sentimental, without ever feeling sappy or overwrought; instead, it abounds with freshness and authenticity.

Tom Hanks is brilliant as the iconic children’s television personality, and Matthew Rhys holds his own, delivering a fantastic performance as an angry journalist tasked with writing a magazine article about the legend.

The film is heartwarming and teary with a poignant and inspirational message, and in 2019, we could all use a little Mister Rogers in our lives.

The film’s period is 1998, and on the outs with his father, Jerry (Chris Cooper), Lloyd Vogel (Rhys) works as a writer for Esquire magazine. Both attend Lloyd’s sister’s wedding, where the two men come to blows over past disputes, ruining the wedding reception and reigniting their feud.

Lloyd’s wife, Andrea, serves as a mediator when their newborn son becomes an interesting link between father and son. When Lloyd meets with Mister Rogers (Hanks), he is at first skeptical of the man’s benevolence, but the two men slowly develop a strong bond, forging a deep friendship.

Director Marielle Heller drew acclaim for her recent film, Can You Ever Forgive Me? (2018), a project about a grizzled New York writer.

Once again, her lead character is a dark and troubled writer, but with enough humanity bubbling under the surface to make the character likable. The contrast between the two main characters (Lloyd and Mister Rogers) is palpable and central to the story, making it intriguing and successful.

Her message is a strong lesson in humanity.

The setup is tremendous for anyone who has a clue to the unconditional kindness that Mister Rogers embodies. He not only adores children but also all of humanity, and, as referenced, he is particularly drawn to those who are wounded or broken.

The legend sees the goodness in all human beings and focuses on everyone he speaks with rather than on himself. What a wonderful message of patient, goodness, and empathy Heller carves from start to finish.

No surprise is how Rogers teaches Lloyd to accept and forgive Jerry. During a thrilling scene, Lloyd lashes out at his father, reminding him that when he was bedding other women, his wife (Lloyd’s mother) lay riddled with cancer, not dying in peace, but screaming with agony.

The irony is that Jerry is now at death’s door, attempting to make amends with Lloyd before he dies. Both men are wounded and damaged, but because of Mister Rogers’ kindness, they come to an understanding. The message is lovely and kind.

I was surprised at how emotionally fulfilling the film turned out to be. Mister Rogers cares, and one can easily slip into a fantasy that, as he sits and holds a conversation with Lloyd, gazing whimsically and thoughtfully into his eyes, he is staring into our very own eyes.

I sure did, and what a powerful emotion that conjures. When Mister Rogers asks to take a moment of silence to think about the people who have shaped our lives, there is no doubt that each member of the movie theater audience did just that.

Hanks is a godsend and ideally suited for the role. Known to be a kindly humanitarian himself, he easily slips into the role of Mister Rogers and imitates the mannerisms perfectly. Especially impressive is when Danny, a puppet bear, appears on screen.

Savvy viewers will realize that Rogers channels his childhood through this character and the pain he felt as an overweight child.

Hanks is a tremendous actor, winning Oscars for Philadelphia (1993) and Forrest Gump (1994), so we have every confidence in his ability to craft a new character so well.

A Beautiful Day in the Neighborhood (2019) wins the year’s award for evoking the most emotion from viewers. The familiar “Mister Rogers’ Neighborhood” tune will evoke memories and add a level of sentiment to a heartwarming film.

Instead of crafting a sterile or preachy film, Heller delivers a simple message of kindness and understanding, along with a valuable lesson in accepting people as they are.

Oscar Nominations: Best Supporting Actor-Tom Hanks

2019 Films, Bella Ramsey, Biography, Drama, Finn Wittrock, Jessie Buckley, Judy Garland, Renée Zellweger, Rufus Sewell, Rupert Goold

Judy-2019

October 14, 2019 scottmet99 Leave a comment

Judy-2019

Director Rupert Goold

Starring Renee Zellweger

Scott’s Review #946

Reviewed October 14, 2019

Grade: A

Creating a film about an iconic figure like Judy Garland is undoubtedly a challenging task. Casting the role is even tougher.

Both points come together with perfect symmetry as director Rupert Goold provides Judy (2019) with heart, hope, and a sense of sadness. Rene Zellweger is astounding in the title role as she embodies the character.

The film is excellent and an accurate telling of the real-life person.

The period is 1967, and we meet the adult Judy Garland (Zellwegger) well after midnight, having performed with her two young children in tow. Haggard, they are informed by the Los Angeles hotel staff that their room has been given up due to non-payment.

The American singer and actress is broke due to bad marriages, drugs, and alcohol. The star is forced to return to her ex-husband for shelter—the two quarrel about the children.

The film does not focus solely on the late 1960s and the final years of Garland’s life, but also delves back to her debut as Dorothy in The Wizard of Oz (1939).

The pressures put upon the aspiring actress to perform, lose weight, and maintain her energy are shown in savage fury, so that the audience realizes how the young girl has turned into a boozy, unreliable middle-aged woman.

Hollywood ruined her innocence.

Zellweger is beyond brilliant. Having disappeared from the spotlight for several years, the actress is back with a vengeance, having something to prove. Prove she does as she becomes Judy Garland.

From her small but expressive eyes to her nervous movements and pursed lips, she delivers a flawless performance and has been rewarded with praise across the board.

It is a remarkable portrayal that should be remembered in history.

Much of the film takes place in London as Garland is forced, for financial reasons, to agree to a series of concerts to bring in cash. This necessitates leaving her children behind.

A poignant scene unfolds in a phone booth as Judy reaches the heartbreaking conclusion that her children would prefer the stability of living with their father. Though she understands, the star crumbles in sadness and loneliness.

A treat is the showcasing of Garland’s compassion for others deemed outcasts, as she also was. Gravitating towards gay men, she spots one gay couple in the audience night after night and befriends them as they eagerly await her exit from the theater one night.

She suggests dinner, and the dumbfounded couple clumsily searches for a restaurant open that late, finally offering to make her scrambled eggs at their flat.

Things go awry, but it hardly matters in a heartfelt scene that exposes the prejudices same-sex couples faced as recently as the 1960s and the champion Garland was to the LGBTQ community.

The iconic “Over the Rainbow” is featured late in the film and perfectly placed. Judy ends her touring engagement due to hecklers but returns for a final night on stage, where she asks to perform one last song.

She breaks down while singing “Over the Rainbow,” but recovers with the encouragement of supportive fans and can complete the performance.

Judy asks, “You won’t forget me, will you?” She does not live long thereafter and dies in the summer of 1969. The scene is painful, and not a dry eye is left in the house.

Judy (2019) is a wonderful tribute to the life and times of a Hollywood legend. The film is neither a complete downer nor cheerful.

What the filmmakers do is make it clear that Garland always had hope for a better life and for the happiness that eluded her. She was kind to most and loved her children beyond measure.

Zellweger will likely eat up a plethora of awards throughout the season, as she should.

Oscar Nominations: 1 win-Best Actress-Renee Zellweger (won), Best Makeup and Hairstyling

Independent Spirit Award Nominations: 1 win-Best Female Lead-Renee Zellweger (won)

2018 Films, Biography, Casey Affleck, Crime Drama, Danny Glover, David Lowery, Drama, Elisabeth Moss, John David Washington, Keith Carradine, Robert Redford, Sissy Spacek, Tom Waits

The Old Man & the Gun-2018

October 11, 2019 scottmet99 Leave a comment

The Old Man & the Gun-2018

Director David Lowery

Starring Robert Redford, Sissy Spacek

Scott’s Review #945

Reviewed October 11, 2019

Grade: B

Quiet films centered on older characters are not the norm in youth-obsessed Hollywood, where profits are always in fashion.

The Old Man & the Gun (2018) spins a tale offering adventure and a good old-fashioned love story, with appealing stars. The film is slow-moving and not groundbreaking, but it possesses a fine veneer and a snug plot that gives viewers a fuzzy feeling of watching something wholesome.

The script is loosely based on David Grann’s 2003 article “The Old Man and the Gun”, which was later collected in Grann’s 2010 book The Devil and Sherlock Holmes.

Career criminal Forrest Tucker (Robert Redford) is wanted for his daring escape from San Quentin State Prison in 1979. The current period is 1981.

Addicted to petty bank robberies for relatively small dollar amounts because he is addicted to the rush. A charmer, he is unassuming and unsuspecting. As he flees the scene of a recent heist, he meets a kind widowed woman named Jewel (Sissy Spacek), whose truck has broken down.

The pair have lunch at a diner and quickly bond.

Forrest is in cahoots with two other bank robbers as the trio makes their way across the southwest United States, garnering a reputation. Detective John Hunt (Casey Affleck), a Dallas detective, is tasked with finding and arresting Tucker until the FBI takes the case away.

Hunt cannot give up the search, and the duo embarks on a cat-and-mouse chase across the area, sometimes crossing paths in the local diner.

Where The Old Man & the Gun succeeds is any scene featuring Forrest and Jewel together. Their chemistry is radiant during calm scenes of the couple eating pie and sipping coffee at the diner, simply getting to know each other organically.

During their first encounter, Forrest slips her a note, adding mystery to their bond. It is unclear whether he reveals his shady career to her, but it is alluded that he has confessed something that she is not sure she believes.

Redford carries the film as if he were still a leading man from his 1970s and 1980s blockbuster days, which is a testament to his Hollywood staying power.

With his charismatic smile and still dashing good looks, it is little wonder that the bank tellers he holds up describe him as friendly and polite, easily wooing the folks into his good graces.

A crowning achievement for the actor, he narrowly missed an Academy Award nomination but did score a Golden Globe nod.

The film suffers from predictability during the final act, when one of his accomplices turns him in to the police, and a chase ensues between Forrest and Hunt.

This is not the film’s best part, and it feels like dozens of other crime dramas. Affleck looks to be in a role he didn’t particularly enjoy; at least, that is how it seems to me watching the film.

The actor is an Oscar winner playing cops and robbers and second fiddle to Redford. Can you blame him for looking glum?

Speaking of misses, Hunt is in an interracial relationship with Maureen, a beautiful black woman who has a mixed-race daughter. Rural Texas in 1981 must have posed racial issues for the family, but this is never mentioned. Maureen and her daughter also look straight out of 2019 with fashionable hairstyles and clothes.

The relationship is progressive, a plus, but it is written unrealistically.

Although rumored to be retiring from the film industry (we’ll see if that happens), Robert Redford gives a terrific turn as a man who reflects upon his life and treats the audience to the same effect.

Spacek is a delicious role and a crowning achievement for a great career and is a perfect cast and a treasure to have along for the ride, celebrating two fantastic careers.

The Old Man & the Gun (2018) is a touching, romantic bank heist film with more positives than negatives.

2018 Films, Amira Casar, Biography, Drama, Julian Schnabel, Mads Mikkelsen, Oscar Isaac, Rupert Friend, Willem Dafoe

At Eternity’s Gate-2018

October 9, 2019 scottmet99 Leave a comment

At Eternity’s Gate-2018

Director Julian Schnabel

Starring Willem Dafoe

Scott’s Review #944

Reviewed October 9, 2019

Grade: B+

At Eternity’s Gate (2018) is a journey into the mind of one of the most tortured painters- Vincent van Gogh.

The film focuses only on the final years of the artist’s life and the events leading up to his death. Inventive direction by visionary Julian Schnabel creates an isolated and majestic world amid a feeling of being inside Van Gogh’s mind.

Though slow-moving, Willem Dafoe performs brilliantly, eliciting pathos from its viewers.

It is 1888, and Van Gogh is traveling to Paris to meet his good friend and fellow painter, Paul Gauguin (Oscar Isaac), an equally tortured individual. They share ideas and qualms about Paris life, and Gauguin convinces Van Gogh to travel to the south of France, while his brother Theo (Rupert Friend) resides in Paris.

Fluctuating scenes occur of Van Gogh’s relationship with a prostitute, a woman he meets on a country road and obsesses over, and his complex relationships with both Theo and Gauguin.

Dafoe, a legendary actor recognized for this role with an Oscar nomination for Best Actor, is one of the best components of At Eternity’s Gate.

He engulfs Van Gogh with a constant state of emotional exhaustion and dissatisfaction. As he becomes attached to Gauguin, who leaves him, Dafoe so eloquently emits his quiet depression, seeming to have nobody left. As he violently chops off his ear as a show of loyalty to Gauguin, the mental hospital awaits him.

Dafoe carries all these complex emotions with calm grace and dignity.

Schnabel, known chiefly for his groundbreaking Oscar-nominated work on The Diving Bell and the Butterfly (2007), has a beautiful technique. He provides even the darkest scenes with a lovely and sometimes dizzying camera effect and frequently adds scenes of blurred focus with close-ups of his characters.

As a painter himself, the result is a magical interpretation of colors and framed scenes. Many of his films focus on real-life studies, and the director made a great choice in Van Gogh.

The French landscape is lovely and culturally significant to the experience. The busy and robust Parisian lifestyle juxtaposes nicely against scenes of the lavish countryside, presumably north and south of the City of Light.

When Van Gogh quietly sits and paints numerous canvases of still objects—a bush or a tree—the flavorful colors stand out against the landscape and are bursting with natural beauty.

The cinematography is excellent.

The main detraction to At Eternity’s Gate is its slow or snail-paced pace. Although the film is only one hour and fifty-three minutes, it feels much longer.

Viewing the film on an international flight may or may not have influenced this note, but the story seems to drag on endlessly, though the beautiful aspects outweigh the boring scenes.

The mental health aspect and the encouragement Van Gogh receives to get better and heal seem a bit too modern a method for the late nineteenth century.

This may have been incorporated as an add-on to current and relevant issues to be exposed, but while inspiring, it does not seem to fit the film. This is a slight criticism I noticed.

Bordering on the art film genre, At Eternity’s Gate (2018) is a sad depiction of a disturbed man’s lonely existence creating art that would not be recognized as a genius until after his death.

It is a slow film that uses gorgeous camera shots and lovely snippets of Vincent van Gogh’s works to seem poetic.

The film is not for everyone and is not a mainstream Hollywood experience, but it is a quiet biography of one of the greats.

Oscar Nominations: Best Actor- Willem Dafoe

2019 Films, Biography, Drama, Hannah Murray, Independent, Independent Drama, Marianne Rendón, Mary Harron, Matt Smith, Merritt Wever, Sosie Bacon

Charlie Says-2019

August 28, 2019 scottmet99 Leave a comment

Charlie Says-2019

Director Mary Harron

Starring Hannah Murray, Sosie Bacon

Scott’s Review #936

Reviewed August 28, 2019

Grade: B

With the very high-profile release of Quentin Tarantino’s Once Upon a Time in Hollywood (2019) centering around the sadistic Manson murders of 1969, Charlie Says (2019) is another film that delves into the same story, though in a very different way.

The latter takes the perspective of the followers, victimizing them and examining the choices they made that affected the rest of their lives.

The angle is of interest, but the production never completely takes off, resulting in an uneven experience that requires more grit and substance.

Karlene (Merritt Wever), a female graduate student focused on women’s studies, takes an interest in three followers who were viciously killed in the name of their “god”, Charles Manson.

A few years after their arrests, they co-exist together in relative solitary confinement in a California penitentiary. They remain under the delusion that Manson is their leader and their deeds were all part of a grand cosmic plan until Karlene slowly brings them out of their haze of unreality with heartbreaking results.

The casting of the real-life figures is as follows: Charles Manson (Matt Smith), Leslie Van Houten (Hannah Murray), Patricia Krenwinkel (Sosie Bacon), and Susan Atkins (Marianne Rendon).

Each is a prominent character, with the central figure being Leslie “Lulu” and her complex relationship with Manson.

The newest to be recruited, the audience witnesses her hypnotic possession and her occasional uncertainty about the cult. For a fleeting moment, she is even tempted to leave, which the film hammers home to the audience.

Murray plays the character well, but does not resemble her enough for praise, though we read the conflict on her face very well. She is meant to be the thoughtful member of the Manson Family, whereas Patricia and Susan are more reactionary and temperamental, especially Susan.

Whether this is how things were is not known. Still, I always had a gnawing feeling throughout the running time that historical accuracy may have been secondary to the story points and dramatic effect.

Charlie Says is bothersome because of the realization that the girls were recruited and fed lies, falling for the deceit, hook, line, and sinker.

The followers were indeed brainwashed into Manson’s disturbing version of reality, and that fact is alarming, as the girls were not dumb people, only vulnerable young women.

Decades later, it is easy to think of other victims polarized by a central or controversial figure, whether it be in politics or another arena. The lesson learned is that people can be easily influenced.

The actual “murder night” and the death of Sharon Tate are featured, but up-close and personal gore is thankfully avoided. The actress, well known to have suffered a terrible fate, to say nothing of her unborn baby, is a small but crucial aspect of the film.

When one of the girls watches one of Tate’s films in her cell, another girl clamors for her to turn off the film, beginning to feel pangs of guilt and remorse.

The film questions the girl’s responsibilities for their actions, a fact that in real life many wrestled with, including the courts and parole boards. Were they merely duped in the cleverest of ways, or do they deserve their fates?

Spared of the electric chair due to a California law, a positive aspect of the film is a current update of the happenings of each girl, now over forty years later, as mature women. Lulu and Patricia remain incarcerated while Susan has died in prison.

After the film closed and a good measure of time was left to ponder the movie, I was left feeling slightly less than fulfilled and desiring a bit more.

Charlie Says (2019) feels safe and lacks enough grit or bombast, although it is well-intended. The film is clearly from a feminist point of view and is an interesting watch, though, given the subject matter, I had hoped for more substance.

2018 Films, Biography, Chloë Sevigny, Craig William Macneill, Denis O'Hare, Fiona Shaw, Independent, Independent Thriller, Jamey Sheridan, Kristen Stewart, Thriller

Lizzie-2018

July 31, 2019 scottmet99 Leave a comment

Lizzie-2018

Director Craig Macneill

Starring Chloë Sevigny, Kristen Stewart

Scott’s Review #925

Reviewed July 31, 2019

Grade: B+

Lizzie (2018) is an odd and macabre interpretation of the life and times of the infamous Lizzie Borden, who was accused and acquitted of hacking her father and stepmother to bits with a deadly ax.

This offering is shrouded in controversy because of inaccuracies and interpretations of the events, specifically Borden’s sexuality, which is called into question. The film is quiet and a tad too slow, but it thunders to a grand climax, more than making up for any negatives.

The casting of its leads is perfect and key to success.

Thirty-two-year-old Lizzie (Chloë Sevigny) lives with her domineering and affluent father, Andrew (Jamey Sheridan), and rigid stepmother, Abby (Fiona Shaw).

Despising both, she lives out a lonely and depressing existence, her only outlet being occasional evenings at the theater. When an Irish immigrant, Bridget Sullivan (Kristen Stewart), moves into the Borden residence to work as a servant, the women form a strong bond, especially after Andrew abuses her.

Sevigny, one of my favorite modern actresses, possesses an astounding range in the myriad of characters she has played in her long career.

Debuting to the masses in the critically acclaimed and depressing Boys Don’t Cry (1999), she has churned out a multitude of independent features portraying one oddball character after another and deserves the strong influence she has achieved over the years.

Director Craig Macneill makes interesting choices with his film, which may or may not please audiences expecting a numbers horror offering. He dives into psychological thriller territory with more of a character study approach that provides layers to the finished product.

Sevigny is center stage, and plenty of camera close-up shots offer an introspective analysis of her feelings rather than from her parents’ perspective. Instead of a crazed killer spontaneously committing the crime, she is careful and calculating in her plan.

Macneill presents Lizzie as the victim and Andrew and Abby as the villains. This is to assume that Borden committed the crimes, which the film never doubts.

Historically, people assume that this is the truth, but Lizzie was set free by a jury refusing to believe a woman of such means would commit such a heinous crime. I wonder if Macneill directed the film with a bit of a smirk at this ridiculous decision of the times when the woman enjoyed the murders.

At the end of the film, what happened to Lizzie and Bridget is explained, which is a good decision and wraps the film up nicely.

Powerful is the quiet subtext that gives a moody and foreboding quality. I adore slow-moving films provided the reward is worth the wait and Lizzie sucker punches once the events begin rolling along.

Another positive is the gnawing feeling of terrible things about to happen but unsure when or how the attacks will occur. Most viewers watching this film will know the context and the reported murders committed.

The atmospheric additions succeed as the late eighteenth-century costumes and daily living are believable. The lavish Borden house is well-kept and brightly lit, offering a friendly New England feel.

Finally, the creaks and noises throughout the house perfectly encompass the danger lurking behind corners, and the fun is in wondering when Lizzie will strike.

Since the film moves back and forth through time, we know she will strike.

The film’s best work is in the relationship between Lizzie and Bridget. Sevigny and Stewart dazzle together with an unleashed chemistry that nearly rivals a similar dynamic seen in 2003’s Monster.

As with Aline Wuornos and Selby, Lizzie is dominant, and Bridget is submissive, following her lead. Both women share a lesbian relationship, and neither pair achieves happiness after the film.

A film sure to fly under the radar and likely to be forgotten before long, Lizzie (2018) is worth the effort. A spooky and controversial interpretation of the events leading up to, during, and after one of the most notorious crimes in United States history is dissected and analyzed from a human perspective.

Macneill makes Borden less maniacal and more sympathetic than some may prefer. He does a fine job and deserves praise for a rich story.

2018 Films, Biography, Brian d'Arcy James, Christopher Abbott, Ciarán Hinds, Claire Foy, Corey Stoll, Damien Chazelle, Drama, Jason Clarke, Kyle Chandler, Lukas Haas, Ryan Gosling

First Man-2018

July 4, 2019 scottmet99 Leave a comment

First Man-2018

Director Damien Chazelle

Starring Ryan Gosling, Claire Foy

Scott’s Review #915

Reviewed July 4, 2019

Grade: B+

First Man (2018) is a reteaming of efforts by director Damien Chazelle and actor Ryan Gosling, following the 2016 critical and commercial smash hit La La Land.

The former could not be more different from the latter, and the direction is unrecognizable for those expecting a comparison. First Man is a mainstream Hollywood production with good camerawork and edgy quality.

The necessary full-throttle action approach is interspersed nicely with a personal family story and humanistic spin that is never too sappy nor forced.

The focus of the story is on Neil Armstrong (Gosling) and the events leading up to the historic Apollo 11 mission, which made him the first United States astronaut to walk on the moon.

Buzzy Aldrin (Corey Stoll), the second man to walk on the moon, is featured to a lesser degree, and his character is portrayed as self-centered and complex, though screen time is limited.

The overall message is of the triumphs and the costs to families, the astronauts, and the country during an already tumultuous decade in history.

The events of the film begin in 1961, as we see Armstrong as a young NASA test pilot struggling with mishaps due to his problems, and culminate in 1969 after the successful mission concludes.

Chazelle wisely balances human and personal scenes with the inevitable rocket take-offs and outer space problems that the astronauts face.

Both segments turn out well and keep the action moving, allowing for tender moments between the characters, mainly showcasing the relationship between Neil and his wife, Janet (Claire Foy).

Lacking (thankfully) are the scenes of machismo or “guy talk” that sometimes accompany films in this genre.

During one of the first scenes, the audience quickly witnesses the couple’s two-and-a-half-year-old daughter Karen retching and suffering from learning disabilities, only to promptly die from a brain tumor, forever destroying the couple.

This critical aspect reoccurs as Neil imagines his daughter playing with neighborhood kids and enjoying life.

In a wonderful moment, he tearfully drops Karen’s tiny bracelet into a giant crater, hoping to keep her memory alive forever.

These additions give the film a character-driven quality.

Worthy of analysis before and after viewing the film is the young director’s decision to tackle such a project, heartily appealing to the mainstream audience undoubtedly in mind.

Legendary director Clint Eastwood was initially slated to direct, and the historically rich story seems right up his alley.

It’s interesting to wonder if, during the 1990s, Tom Hanks might have been cast as Armstrong in his younger days, playing a similar part in Ron Howard’s 1995 film Apollo 13.

Well-known character actors appear in supporting roles, fleshing out the production and further adding name and face recognition. Kyle Chandler, Jason Clarke, and Ciaran Hinds appear as astronauts or various NASA Chiefs. Viewers who may not be able to name the actors will certainly recognize them as actors seen in other films.

This only brings First Man to the big leagues with a hearty and talented central cast.

Gosling and Foy are the main draws, and both actors were mentioned as possibilities for Oscar nominations throughout awards season, but a slot in the big race did not come to fruition.

While the film drew a couple of nominations for Best Editing and Best Score, a Best Picture nomination was not to be, probably due to the film not being as big a blockbuster success as expected.

The film is also more brooding and less patriotic than a Howard or Eastwood production would have been.

To expand on this, First Man came under attack by Senator Marco Rubio from Florida and President Donald Trump for Chazelle’s decision to omit any mention of the famous planting of the American Flag on the moon by Armstrong and Aldrin.

Chazelle refused to admit that this was a political statement, instead insisting that he chose to focus more on the lesser-known aspects of the moon landing rather than facts that everybody already knew.

Young director Damien Chazelle proves to be a multi-faceted filmmaker by changing course and creating a historic biopic that is quite different from a story of singing and dancing in Los Angeles.

He proves to be no one-trick pony and gets the job done, creating a brave and robust effort that does not limit action at the hands of humanity, successfully weaving a good dose of both.

First Man (2018) may not be a classic in the making, but it deserves to be seen.

Oscar Nominations: 1 win- Best Sound Editing, Best Sound Mixing, Best Production Design, Best Visual Effects (won)

2019 Films, Biography, Bryce Dallas Howard, Dexter Fletcher, Drama, Gemma Jones, Jamie Bell, Michael Gracey, Musical, Musical Drama, Richard Madden, Stephen Graham, Taron Egerton, Tate Donovan

Rocketman-2019

June 5, 2019 scottmet99 Leave a comment

Rocketman-2019

Director Dexter Fletcher

Starring Taron Egerton, Jamie Bell

Scott’s Review #906

Reviewed June 5, 2019

Grade: A

Following the unexpected success of 2018’s rock biography Bohemian Rhapsody comes the similarly themed Rocketman (2019).

This time, the subject at hand is Elton John, rather than Freddie Mercury, but both storied figures share unquestionable comparisons, as their successes, failures, and struggles are well-documented.

Both films take their names from popular title songs, and both feature the same director, Dexter Fletcher.

Freddie Mercury and Elton John are both larger-than-life onstage personas, yet both reportedly suffered from shyness, creating characters to portray that helped ease their difficulties.

Rocketman gets the slight edge over Bohemian Rhapsody when comparing the two, with experimental and psychedelic sequences making the experience more left of center than the latter and lacking a hefty feel-good component.

I would venture to assess that Rocketman has darker overtones.

The film opens impressively as an adult, successful Elton John (Taron Egerton) attends a support group therapy session in rehab, begrudgingly. This scene will recur throughout the film as John slowly reveals more to the group about his childhood, rise to fame, and struggles with numerous demons.

This is key to the enjoyment of the film, as it frequently backtracks in time, allowing us to see John’s development both as a musician and on a personal level.

Many scenes unfold like a Broadway play, which is an ingenious approach, not only a treat for fans of John’s vast catalog of songs but also immensely creative from a cinematic perspective.

At the film’s high point, the scenes are not only showy but also propel the direction of the film, rather than slowing down the events.

Fantastic are the offerings of hit songs like “Tiny Dancer”, as shown during John’s first trip to Los Angeles, where he is forced to witness the then-crush, Bernie Taupin (Jamie Bell), take up with a supermodel at an LSD-infused Hollywood party.

The musical numbers offer glimpses into the mind and heart of Elton and other characters through song. A teary number occurs early on when a pained, boyish Elton is learning to play the piano, facing struggles at home.

When the song begins, it is Elton’s tune to carry, but then his father sings a few lines, followed by his mother and then his grandmother. Each person offers their perspective based on the lyrics they are singing.

The beauty of this scene is powerful and sets the tone for the scenes to follow.

Rocketman is an emotionally charged film, evoking laughter and tears throughout its duration. Thanks to Egerton, who carries the film, the audience cares for him as a human being instead of a larger-than-life rock star.

We feel his pain, cry his tears, and smile during rare moments when he is content. He faces insecurity, sex addiction, drug and alcohol addiction, and an eating disorder. Through Egerton, we face the battles alongside him.

Elton John serves as Executive Producer of the film, providing a measure of truth and honesty in storytelling, something Bohemian Rhapsody was accused of not containing. John’s parents are portrayed accurately and decidedly, and both mother and father are dastardly, nearly ruining Elton’s self-esteem for life.

Dallas Bryce-Howard, as his mother, is happy to capitalize financially on his fame, but sticks a dagger in his heart when she professes he will never be loved since he is a gay man.

His father is nearly as bad. Abandoning his loveless marriage to Elton’s mother, he eventually finds happiness with another woman and produces two boys. He can never love his eldest son, despite Elton’s efforts to reconnect.

To add insult to injury, his father asks him to cross out the words “to Dad” on an album autograph, instead requesting that it be given to a colleague. Elton is devastated.

Events are not all dire and dreary, as with his parents and a major suicide attempt. Happier times are shown, and his grandmother (wonderfully played by Gemma Jones) remains an ardent supporter.

His relationship with Taupin is one of the most benevolent and life-long causes of trust and respect, and once his act is cleaned up, Elton can appreciate the finer things in life more completely.

Egerton performs beautifully in both acting and singing capabilities, but lacks the singing chops that Elton John has. The decision was made not to have Egerton lip-sync, which deserves its measure of praise.

It’s interesting to wonder what the opposite choice would have resulted in. Like with Bohemian Rhapsody, we are left with a brilliant portrayal of John by Egerton.

Watched in tandem with Bohemian Rhapsody, a great idea given the back-to-back releases, is one recommendation for comparison’s sake.

Offering a more creative experience, again, the musical numbers are superb. Both switching through the back and forth timelines, Rocketman (2019) squeaks out the victory for me, and doesn’t the victor get the spoils?

If Rami Malek won the coveted Best Actor Oscar statuette, what would that mean for the tremendous turn that Egerton gives?

Oscar Nominations: 1 win-Best Original Song-“(I’m Gonna) Love Me Again (won)

2017 Films, Bill Pullman, Biography, Drama, Historical Drama, Jeffrey Donovan, Jennifer Jason Leigh, Kim Allen, Michael Stahl-David, Political Drama, Richard Jenkins, Rob Reiner, Woody Harrelson

LBJ-2017

April 27, 2019 scottmet99 Leave a comment

LBJ-2017

Director Rob Reiner

Starring Woody Harrelson, Jennifer Jason Leigh

Scott’s Review #890

Reviewed April 27, 2019

Grade: B-

LBJ (2017) provides small glimpses of historical interest with a biography about a United States president who is perhaps underrepresented in cinema history compared to other presidents.

The production never catches fire and falls flat with an overproduced film lacking a bombast.

The film can easily be viewed once, never to be thought of again, nor providing the need for analysis or discussion.

Director Rob Reiner creates a glossy, mainstream Hollywood production with questionable casting choices and a muddled feel.

To its credit, the film introduces the fateful day of November 22, 1963, into the story.

As then-Vice President Johnson (LBJ), played by Woody Harrelson, and their wife, Lady Bird (Jennifer Jason Leigh), deplane and embark on a motorcade procession through downtown Dallas, Texas, dire events will follow.

As the violent assassination of President John F. Kennedy (Jeffrey Donovan) soon arrives, the film portrays the initial foreshadowing well, then backtracks to 1960 when the Democratic nominee was up for grabs with both JFK and Johnson in contention.

The film traverses back and forth from pre to post-JFK assassination as LBJ took over the presidency amid the controversial Civil Rights Bill and a still shocked United States public.

A character study develops as the gruff and grizzled man takes center stage to lead the country into the future. The attempt is to show LBJ, the man, at his best and worst, personally and professionally, facing pressure from his cabinet.

Reiner portrays LBJ as complex, brooding, and vulgar but also as a person whose heart is ultimately in the right place. A man we love to hate? Or hate to love?

The film fails from a historical drama perspective and a genre with many in the cinematic chambers.

A powerful political drama is supposed to be compelling, but LBJ feels dull, run-of-the-mill, and highly forgettable.

Some examples of exceptional political film projects are Lincoln (2012), JFK (1991), and Vice (2018). Each has flare, flavor, and a twist or otherwise unusual story construction that LBJ glaringly lacks.

Simply put, the experience feels plain and unimpressive.

Having regrettably not seen the HBO film version entitled All the Way starring Bryan Cranston as LBJ, I cannot compare the two other than from word of mouth that Cranston gives the superior portrayal.

Based on the trailers, I agree with the overall assessment. Harrelson’s version of LBJ is adequate, if not sensational. His mannerisms as President may be effective, but he does not resemble the man too well.

With a waxy, heavily made-up face, Harrelson the actor is unrecognizable and feels staged rather than authentic.

Jennifer Jason Leigh suffers the same fate as Harrelson in the critical role of First Lady Lady Bird Johnson. The actress successfully emulates the appropriate characteristics, specifically facially, but she also appears to be made up, like a wax figure in a museum springing to life.

As Harrelson and Jason Leigh daftly teeter from scene to scene, the result is marginally comical, but LBJ, the film is not a comedy nor a satire, played instead for the heavy drama.

LBJ (2017) is of mild interest but limited as a successful film adaptation of an important figure in United States history. Glimpses of political education for those not alive to experience the tumultuous 1960s are good, but much more was expected from this film than was provided.

Better studies will hopefully be created in the future than what adds up to little more than a snore-fest.

Welcome to my blog!1,504 reviews posted so far! I'm Scott Segrell and I reside in Stamford, CT. My site features hundreds of film reviews I have written since I launched the site in 2014. I hope you enjoy reading my latest reviews or searching for your own favorites to see if we agree. Please see my featured films of the month, and don't forget to utilize the tags and category links.