Category Archives: Drama

A Dangerous Method-2011

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.

Exodus-1960

Exodus-1960

Director Otto Preminger

Starring Paul Newman, Eva Marie Saint

Scott’s Review #1,005

Reviewed March 30, 2020

Grade: A-

Creating a monumental epic about the modern state of Israel, director Otto Preminger’s vast project Exodus (1960) is a bold adaptation of the Leon Uris novel from 1958.

Starring stars of the day for added Hollywood spice and a romantic element, the result is a sprawling war drama with robust proportions and a hefty running time.

The film sometimes lags or even drags, but the message’s enormous importance and influence on stimulating Zionism should never be forgotten.

With the treacherous World War II barely in the rear-view mirror, Israeli resistance fighter, Ari Ben Canaan (Paul Newman), attempts to bring six hundred European Jewish Holocaust survivors from British-blockaded Cyprus into newly developed Palestine.

At the camp, he meets Kitty Fremont (Eva Marie Saint), an American volunteer nurse. The pair teams up with others to attempt to liberate the survivors.

The action eventually switches to Palestine, where other characters and motives come into play in a complex story. During this time, opposition to the partition of Palestine into Arab and Jewish states was heating up, leading to tension, bombs, and death among similar types of people.

Central to the main plot is a young love story involving spirited Dov Landau (Sal Mineo), a radical Zionist resistance group member, and Karen Hansen Clement (Jill Haworth), a young Danish-Jewish girl searching for the father from whom she was separated during the war.

Exodus has so much story going on and multiple plots to follow.

Besides the tense story, the main draw is the two love stories told amid the political turmoil.

Newman and Saint have marginal chemistry; he is an eye candy who electrifies the screen, and she seems too old for him and does not photograph well. Kitty, a widow, hedges on her romantic feelings for Ari, but they ultimately unite.

A gorgeous sequence occurs when the two share a delicious meal of fish and martinis amid a rooftop restaurant overlooking the dazzling landscape. She later dines with his parents and his mother, a classic Jewish mother who, in stereotypical fashion, cooks and fusses.

The fresh-faced pairing of Dov and Karen is reminiscent of Tony and Maria from West Side Story. Doomed from the start, the youngsters are opposites in many ways: hot-headed, sensible, and resilient. He is bronze and swarthy; she is blonde and blue-eyed.

I fell in love with the couple more than Ari and Kitty and rooted for their happily-ever-after moment, which sadly never occurred.

At nearly four hours, the film is best watched in segments, perhaps even four, to let the action marinate overnight. The sweeping cinematic photography and the lush exterior sequences aid the complex drama.

A drawback was not seeing the film on the big screen, which was almost a must in hindsight and limited by the DVD quality over Blu-Ray.

Nonetheless, the film is delicious in nearly every way. When tedium is about to occur, an event snaps the viewer back to immediate attention.

A notable fun fact is that Preminger boldly hired blacklisted screenwriter Dalton Trumbo, on the dreaded Hollywood blacklist for over a decade for communist leanings, to write the script.

Together with Spartacus (1960), made the same year, Exodus is credited with ending the practice of Blacklisting in the motion picture industry. The importance of what is written on the blank page is arguably surpassed by the man who wrote those pages.

Exodus (1960) nearly rivals the epic of all epics, Lawrence of Arabia (1962), in its cinematography of exotic and sacred landscapes in daring and forbidding lands.

Perhaps twenty minutes could be carved out when the action loses momentum. Still, with great direction, a top-tier cast, and a history lesson in the harshness of war and generations of conflict, the film resonates with the realism of the subject matter.

Oscar Nominations: 1 win-Best Supporting Actor-Sal Mineo, Best Music Score of a Dramatic or Comedy Picture (won), Best Cinematography, Color

A Better Life-2011

A Better Life-2011

Director Chris Weitz

Starring Demian Bichir, Jose Julian

Scott’s Review #1,004

Reviewed March 26, 2020

Grade: B+

A Better Life (2011) is a heartwarming and timely project that focuses on and showcases the Hispanic culture, both positively and negatively. The subject matter of illegal immigration is studied amid a powerful family drama.

Lead actor, Demian Bichir, deservedly received a Best Actor Oscar nomination for his sensitive portrayal of a man wanting only the best for his son while having life odds stacked against him.

The film is an atypical Hollywood production, told simply and with heart.

Carlos Galindo (Bichir), is a struggling Los Angeles gardener who manicures the lawns of the rich and famous in sunny California with his partner and close friend Blasco. Carlos lives a content life but is always on guard because he is an illegal immigrant and worries about his son Luis (Jose Julian) falling in with the wrong crowd.

When one day Carlos’s sister loans him $12,000 to purchase a truck, he needs for his job, the man hits his stride, only to have the truck stolen.

Desperate, Carlos and Luis are determined to get back the truck while avoiding trouble with the law.

The title of the film, while basic and not sexy, is powerful in its simplicity.  Bold and thought-provoking, this is merely what Carlos wants for Luis and what every father wants for his son.

His trials and tribulations a constant, he strives to teach Luis to steer a positive path and avoid mistakes that Carlos has made.

Regardless of the political discussion, the film could have, what lies beneath is a heartwarming story of cherished love between a man and his son.

Cleverly, the film provides a hopeful final message for both major characters.

I adore the rich Mexican culture represented in the film. A battle of traditional appreciation of one’s roots versus immersing oneself in the American culture is examined.

Nearly the entire cast is of Hispanic descent and the numerous scenes of ethnic flavor, from restaurants and cafes to nightclubs and street life, the film is authentic and fresh.

Thankfully, the filmmakers do not try to pull off the insulting ploy of casting white actors clad in Mexican garb or a big-name actor in the role of Carlos.

Many of the characters even seem like non-actors.

The setting of Los Angeles is highly successful, especially since the low-budget independent film uses eons of exterior shots.

The camerawork is not exceptional but feels fresh, letting the warm climate marinate with viewers so that they feel implanted in the southern Californian neighborhoods. The contrast between the East Los Angeles area where Carlos lives versus where he works is a harsh reality for most landscapers.

Bichir more than deserves the accolades heaped upon him for this mesmerizing and intelligent role. He quietly portrays an empathetic man who is an unsung hero and a representative of many fathers who never get their due respect, especially if they are undocumented immigrants.

When Luis denounces Mexican music, the pain is evident on the face of Carlos as he must endure what surely breaks his heart. The realism and the truth of the characters are led by Bichir.

A Better Life (2011) is a story rich with poignancy and relevance as the plight of a good man is showcased. Now almost ten years ago, the film is arguably more important than ever since immigration has become a hot ticket item in the turbulent political climate.

Do hardworking, undocumented people deserve a break from being in the United States? The answer seems obvious and the film skews steadily to the left, but is there any other strong viewpoint?

Oscar Nominations: Best Actor-Demian Bichir

Independent Spirit Award Nominations: Best Male Lead-Demian Bichir

A Beautiful Mind-2001

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

(500) Days of Summer-2009

(500) Days of Summer-2009

Director Marc Webb

Starring Zooey Deschanel, Joseph Gordon-Levitt

Scott’s Review #1,002

Reviewed March 20, 2020

Grade: B

(500) Days of Summer (2009) is an unconventional love story that deserves props for being different, but never completely catches fire as a film effort.

What it tries to do left-of-center from most conventional romantic comedies is to be admired, but I did not feel much connection to the characters and the result seemed pointless.

The independent film garnered some praise for being unique and clever, but this is out-shined by a gnawing, forced feeling, like the filmmakers are trying to be edgy for the sake of being edgy, adding in contrived story elements.

The lead characters conveniently both like an obscure band and an obscure artist, throwing them immediately together.

The film is a modest effort but will only be remembered as an indie project with a bit of unfulfilled potential.

When his girlfriend, Summer (Zooey Deschanel), unceremoniously dumps him, greeting card copywriter and hopeless romantic Tom (Joseph Gordon-Levitt) spins into depression and begins reflecting on the year-long relationship the pair spent together, looking for clues as to what went wrong.

As he rummages through the good times and the bad times, his heart reawakens to find what is most important.

The Los Angeles backdrop sets the tone for the five hundred days of Tom and Summer.

Director, Marc Webb, a first-time director at this point, now known more for The Amazing Spider-Man reboot franchise (2012-2014) steers in an experimental direction.

Shown somewhat like a “year in the life” of the young lovebirds blossoming relationship, the film is presented in a nonlinear narrative, jumping between various days within the five hundred days of Tom and Summer’s relationship. There is an on-screen timer showing the day, which is a nice addition.

Props are given for the creativity Webb infuses. The romantic comedy genre, not my favorite, is constantly saturated with formulaic films, predictable from the start.

Frequently told from the female perspective, (500) Days of Summer tells the story from the male perspective, even reversing the traditional gender stereotypes. Tom is the lovesick romantic, and Summer is the rough-and-tumble, one-night-stand type.

This is nuanced and throws the entire genre upside down.

The characters are questionable and the ablest to relate to is Tom. There is some confusion and mystery with some motivations. The audience can understand how Tom falls head over heels for Summer, immediately smitten.

His depression is deep and to be taken seriously, but he is depressed because of Summer, and any history or previous causes of depression are not mentioned. It feels like his depression is a convenient way of adding a story element.

Summer is even more perplexing and not deeply explored. Is she merely playing the field? After a song and dance scene where she explains she is not looking for anything serious and wants a casual romance, she suddenly marries another man.

She hurriedly tells Tom that she discovered her husband was her true love and that she now believes in love, whereas Tom doesn’t anymore.

Again, this feels more like storyline-dictated writing versus anything character-rich.

Despite receiving a Best Screenplay Independent Spirit Award nomination, two Golden Globe Award nominations, and oodles of praise, (500) Days of Summer (2009) is a non-conformist piece with some nice moments but feels irrelevant.

The lead actors are talented and do a decent job with the material given, but meander through the experience since it is more about the film than the acting.

The result is not a pure dud, but neither is it a pedigree winner.

Independent Spirit Award Nominations: 1 win-Best Feature, Best Male Lead-Joseph Gordon-Levitt, Best Screenplay (won)

50/50-2011

50/50-2011

Director Jonathan Levine

Starring Joseph Gordon-Levitt, Seth Rogan

Scott’s Review #1,001

Reviewed March 17, 2020

Grade: B+

The subject matter of cancer is an incredibly tricky one to portray in a film. Especially tough when any comedic bits are incorporated- the risk lies with jokes not going over well or being misinterpreted.

With 50/50 (2011), director Jonathan Levine and writer Will Reiser craft an intelligent and genuine story, based on a true one, led by upstart actor Joseph Gordon-Levitt, shining in the lead role.

Comic actor Seth Rogan is on board to cement the comedy elements.

Healthy twenty-something Seattle resident, Adam Lerner (Gordon-Levitt) experiences severe back pain and is shocked to learn he has a malignant tumor in his spine. Devastated, his world is turned upside down.

Adam is usually accompanied by his best friend Kyle (Rogan).

While Kyle is brash and outspoken, Adam is reserved and mild-mannered. They are opposites, but inseparable friends. Adam is dating artist Rachael (Bryce Dallas Howard), whom Kyle despises adding conflict to the story.

The screenplay and Gordon-Levitt’s performance are the superior aspects of 50/50. The title of the film is poignant because Adam is given the dubious news that he has only a 50/50 chance of surviving his cancer.

The young actor provides heart and soul to his challenging role and his acting is such that scenes do not feel cliched or manufactured. This, naturally, is due to the excellent writing by Will Reiser.

He crafts a sincere script that is straightforward, avoiding razzle-dazzle, but one that is also heartfelt.

My only criticism with 50/50 is that I would have liked a bit more darkness. As we all know, real-life cancer patients must endure the ravages that brutal disease inflicts. The film never really goes there and shows how devious the disease is and what happens to the human body.

I get that the film toes the line carefully, but despite shaving his head, Adam does not lose much weight or suffer other visible indignities.

The toned-down approach feels PG-rated rather than R-rated as it might have been.

This can largely be forgiven because the main message of the film supersedes this point. The film shows that love and friendship can be the best healers and the root of good, kind, humanity. This is something every viewer can take and learn from and it makes the film lovely and worthy to witness.

The romantic comedy elements do not work, and I am not even sure they are necessary. The main draw is the undying friendship between Adam and Kyle and Adam’s experiences with other cancer patients along his journey.

Combining comedy and cancer is not an easy task, but thanks to exceptional writing and a talented cast, 50/50 (2011) succeeds in its achievements.

The film and Gordon-Levitt were rewarded with Golden Globe nominations but missed out on any Oscar nominations. If the intended result of the film, is to ease cancer patient’s minds about their situations and provide some meaningful entertainment, the film is a major win.

Independent Spirit Award Nominations: 1 win-Best Feature, Best Supporting Female-Anjelica Huston, Best First Screenplay (won)

Giant Little Ones-2019

Giant Little Ones-2019

Director Keith Behrman

Starring Josh Wiggins, Darren Mann

Scott’s Review #1,000

Reviewed March 13, 2020

Grade: B+

Giant Little Ones (2019) is an independent LGBTQ film about both coming to terms with one’s sexuality and accepting and embracing other people for whom they love, and how they wish to spend their life.

It’s an honest and resilient coming-of-age story, most reminiscent (but rawer) of the recent Love, Simon (2018), told from a teenager’s perspective and the pressures and emotions of youth.

The subject matter has been explored to death in cinema, but there is still something fresh and meaningful that is offered.

High school chums Franky Winter (Josh Wiggins) and Ballas Kohl (Darren Mann) have been best friends since diapers. They joke around, go bike-riding, and knock back a six-pack together.

They are handsome, integral parts of the swim team, and popular with girls. Each has a steady girlfriend with who they anticipate soon going all the way. Any teenage girl would love to trade their life with the boys.

On the night of Franky’s seventeenth birthday party, Franky and Ballas get drunk together and spend the night crashing in the same bed. An unclear incident of a sexual nature occurs, altering and damaging their friendship.

Each boy has one sister and a set of parents, but Franky’s are more prominent, with a story of their own. His father, Ray (Kyle MacLachlan) divorced Franky’s mother, Carly (Mario Bello) after coming to terms with being gay.

While the focal point is on the teenage set, and Franky more than Ballas, it’s nice to see parents in these types of films with more to do than just pour coffee or offer unheeded advice.

MacLachlan and Bello are fascinating to watch, carefully distant from each other, but also have mutual respect. Both characters’ struggles are pointed out by Carly angrily lashing out that Ray was certainly not gay when she married him; Ray experiences guilt at wounding Franky emotionally.

The film is careful, admiringly so, to include two high school students who are already outwardly gay. The characters are not ridiculed or repressed, and one, Franky’s best friend Mouse (Niamh Wilson), is assumed to be slowly coming to terms with being transgender.

The other is a popular boy on the swim team. These representations are strong, though both characters face some level of opposition, so their plights are not easy.

The most heartfelt and poignant scene is when Franky and Ray reconnect as father and son in a treasured dialogue, where Ray explains how he met his partner. The beautiful moment blossoms because it’s Franky who asks Ray how he and his partner met.

Any LGBTQ person can attest to the powerful and heartwarming moment when they are asked about their significant other. The proud look in Ray’s eyes and the quiet cadence with which he carefully warns Franky not to label himself, but rather stick with those he connects to, is lovely and sentimental.

I like how Giant Little Ones is not a love story between the two boys and ambiguous is not only whether their friendship can be fixed, but whether one or both is gay, bi-sexual, curious, or merely experimenting with their sexuality.

The film avoids labels and boasts no clear-cut angle, steering clear of anything too preachy or defined. This supports its overall point.

A minor criticism is that, despite the boys being best friends and on equal footing, Franky becomes the central character, while Ballas is not explored thoroughly. Ballas borders on sociopathic behavior and has a ton of anger, but why? Is it only his sexuality?

The character remains mostly a mystery, and I was eager to learn more about him and what drives him.

Giant Little Ones (2019) is a heartfelt and intimate coming-of-age story about friendship, self-discovery, and the power of love without labels. The young actors are all natural, believable, and earnest, and the seasoned supporting cast lends credibility to a tiny, low-budget picture.

The LGBTQ community will embrace this film, while anyone else will be touched by its honesty and poignancy.

Bread and Chocolate-1974

Bread and Chocolate-1974

Director Franco Brusati

Starring Nino Manfredi, Anna Karina

Scott’s Review #996

Reviewed March 6, 2020

Grade: B

Bread and Chocolate (1974), known in Italian as Pane e cioccolata, is a mixed dramatic and comedic offering by Franco Brusati, a well-known Italian screenwriter and director.

The film is charming and tells of one man’s trials and tribulations trying to make it as a migrant worker in a foreign country- in this case, neighboring Switzerland. He is conflicted by the opportunities presented and the catastrophic way his life is screwed up at every turn.

The film is meaningful and poignant, but sometimes has no clear path. A commonality is the representation of differing cultures.

Nino (Nino Manfredi) is a hard-working Sicilian man who heads for Switzerland in search of a better life- the time is the 1960s or the 1970s, when this was a common occurrence. Despite his best efforts to fit in with his neighbors, he never quite seems to make it, haplessly going from one situation to the next.

He befriends a Greek woman named Elena, a refugee who harbors secrets, and is supported by her for a time. He forages a career as a waiter and befriends a busser.

As his luck dwindles, he is reduced to finding shelter with a group of Neapolitans living in a chicken coop, surviving on the same chickens they tend.

With bizarre gusto, they frequently emulate the chickens, strangely parading around their quarters like animals.

The main character, Nino, reminds me of the character Roberto Benigni played in the 1997 gem Life Is Beautiful. In that film, Guido tries to shelter his son from the horrors of war.

In Bread and Chocolate, Nino has a zest for life, using humor to survive and get through daily situations, slowly realizing his dire straits.

Both characters are scrappy and daring: Nino humorously urinating on a tree or awkwardly stumbling upon a dead body in the woods.

The film’s theme centers on the conflict between staying in Switzerland to find a better life and returning in shame to his homeland, Italy, which is assumed to be a failure. Nino constantly wrestles with this quandary and discusses this point with his family photos in his bedroom.

In two instances, he nearly gets on a train headed back to Italy but changes his mind. The film does not do a great job explaining or showing what is so awful back in Italy.

Bread and Chocolate is difficult to categorize because it is neither a straight-ahead comedy nor pure drama. As the film progresses, it loses some of its situational comedy in favor of melancholy and sadness.

I am not sure this is a great decision, as we often wonder whether we should laugh with Nino or feel bad for him. Perhaps both?

The film scores big on comedy, as evidenced by several laugh-out-loud restaurant scenes. Nino, clearly not knowing what he is doing, struggles to peel an orange properly to serve a guest. He emulates another waiter with hilarious results.

Later, he offends a snobbish, sophisticated woman after she blames him for causing her to fall to the floor.

The strangest scene occurs when the chicken people spy on four gorgeous Swiss siblings bathing in a nearby river. Gorgeous and tranquil, they are the definition of stunning and lush.

Charmed by the idyllic vision of the group, Nino decides to dye his hair and pass himself off as a local. The images of the cackling and dirty Italian people, with their snickering and drooling, set against the peaceful family, are both beautiful and odd.

The scene could almost be featured in an Ingmar Bergman art film.

Bread and Chocolate (1974) is a film about a man’s journey that can be classified as an adventure, drama, art film, or comedy, and sometimes crosses genres too much.

The comedic antics draw rave reviews, but the film slips a bit when it ventures into dramatic territory, becoming middling and overly preachy.

Actor Nino Manfredi breathes all the life he can into a film that is appealing, but not quite marvelous.

The Two Popes-2019

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

The Leopard-1963

The Leopard-1963

Director Luchino Visconti

Starring Burt Lancaster, Claudia Cardinale

Scott’s Review #991

Reviewed February 18, 2020

Grade: A

One of the great works in cinematic history, I preface this review by stating that I viewed the English dubbed version of the brilliant The Leopard (1963) starring Burt Lancaster and Claudia Cardinale.

This version is considerably shorter, at two hours and forty-one minutes, than the Italian version, which is three hours and five minutes.

As grand as the former is, my hunch is that something is lost in translation with the latter. The English version has no subtitles and is available only on DVD, so the film is difficult to follow but is rich in texture.

An interesting tidbit is that the film surgery was performed without director Luchino Visconti’s input – the director was unhappy with the editing and the dubbing. This point is valid since some voices are Italian and French, sounding too American and unauthentic.

Admittedly inferior, the English version is nonetheless extravagant and lovely on its own merits, though I would die to see the original version if it were available.

The time is during the 1860s, when the tumultuous era affected Italy and, more specifically, Sicily. Prince Don Fabrizio Salina (Lancaster) is at a crossroads between holding onto the glory he once knew and accepting the changing times, welcoming a more modern unity within the country.

A new mayor surrounds him, Don Calogero Sedara (Paolo Stoppa), who has a gorgeous daughter, Angelica (Cardinale).

He intends to marry Fabrizio’s French nephew, Tancredi Falconeri (Alain Delon).

The film dissects the changing times in Italy.

The visual treats for the viewer are astounding and by far the best part. The lovely, palatial estates are gorgeous, with decorative sets, bright and zesty colors, and meals displayed during parties that captivate audience members.

The costumes are state-of-the-art, and each frame can easily be a painting on a canvas. A tip is to pause the film, study it, and immerse yourself in its style.

Many film comparisons, both past and yet to come, can easily be made when thought about. An Italian Gone with the Wind (1939), if you will, with Angelica as Scarlett and Tancredi as Rhett (okay, the chemistry is not quite the same, but similarities do exist), and Concetta as the long-suffering Melanie, the characters can be compared.

The grand ball, the costumes, and the ravaged country are more prominent comparisons.

Nine years after The Leopard, a little film entitled The Godfather (1972) would change the cinematic landscape forever.

Director Frances Ford Coppola must have studied this film, as there are plentiful scenes of the Italian landscape and the culture in which both are immersed. Even snippets of the musical score mirror each other.

What a grand film to borrow and cultivate from!

Despite all the beautiful trimmings that make The Leopard a masterpiece, the film belongs to Lancaster in the best role of his career. The hunk in 1953’s From Here to Eternity, as the Prince, he is aged to perfection, distinguished-looking with graying sideburns.

The film is an epic extravaganza, and the actor leads the charge, carrying the film. He is a stoic man, but not without fault and emotion, wearing his heart on his sleeve, realizing that he must adapt to the changing times. We feel his quandary and embrace the character as a human being.

Attention-paying fans must be forewarned that the plot is basic and complex because of the absence of subtitles; however, the story is not highly complex.

The story is about how the Prince maneuvers his family through troubled (and changing) times to a more secure position. This is the overlying theme of the film.

Suffering from dubbing and quality control issues can do nothing to ruin a spectacular offering that is a cinematic gem and testament to the power of The Leopard’s (1963) staying power.

I eagerly await the day when the traditional Italian version can be found and discovered. It will be a treat to eat.

Until then, the film is a historical epic that can be appreciated for the dynamics and importance it so richly deserves.

Oscar Nominations: Best Costume Design, Color

21 Grams-2003

21 Grams-2003

Director Alejandro G. Iñárritu

Starring Sean Penn, Naomi Watts, Benicio Del Toro

Scott’s Review #990

Reviewed February 14, 2020

Grade: A

21 Grams (2003) is an independent drama containing crisp writing, top-notch acting, and a unique directing style by Alejandro G. Iñárritu.

An early work by the acclaimed director, he delivers a powerful exposure to the human condition using intersecting storylines.

The result is a powerful emotional response that resonates among viewers taking the time to let the story evolve and marinate.

Outstanding filmmaking and a sign of things to come for the director.

The film is the second part of screenwriter Guillermo Arriaga’s and Iñárritu’s Trilogy of Death, preceded by Amores Perros (2000) and followed by Babel (2006), 21 Grams interweaves several plot lines in a nonlinear arrangement.

Viewing the films in the sequence is not required to appreciate and revel in the gorgeous storytelling and mood.

The story is told in a non-linear fashion and focuses on three main characters, each with a “past”, a “present”, and a “future” story thread. Events culminate in a horrific automobile accident, which is the overall story. The sub-story fragments delve into the lives of the principals as the audience learns more about them.

Ultimately, all three lives intersect in dramatic fashion leaving the viewer mesmerized and energized by the deep connections.

Paul Rivers (Sean Penn) is a successful, married college mathematics professor who desperately needs a heart transplant. He and his wife are considering having a baby in case he should die.

Cristina Peck (Naomi Watts) is a recovering drug addict now living a happy suburban life with a loving husband and two young children.

Jack Jordan (Benicio Del Toro) is a former convict who is using his newfound religious faith to recover from drug addiction and alcoholism and live a happy existence with his wife and kids. After the car accident, each life takes a shocking turn forever changing things.

The multiple timelines and back-and-forth storytelling are an excellent part of 21 Grams, adding layers upon layers of potential entanglements among the characters. This could be a confusing quality, but instead, it provides mystique and endless possibilities.

What worked so well in the outstanding Traffic (2000) is used by Inarritu and delivers. The recipe of clever plotting characters the audience cares about and top-notch acting is created, mixed, and served on a silver platter.

Penn, Watts, and Del Toro are stellar actors who give their characters strength, sympathy, and glory. Each has suffered greatly and faced (or faces) tremendous obstacles in life, soliciting feelings from viewers.

All three are good characters, trying to do the right thing, and grasp hold of any sliver of happiness they can find. They have moral sensibilities without being judgmental, delicious is how each character interacts with the others, but in differing ways.

The film is not happy and not for young kids, but the brilliant elements will leave the film lover agape at the qualities featured. The dark, muted lighting of the film is perfect for the morbid stories told throughout and the common themes of anguish, courage, and desperation.

The clever title refers to an experiment in 1907 that attempted to show scientific proof of the existence of the soul by recording a loss of body weight (said to represent the departure of the soul) immediately following death.

Only the second full-length film in Inarritu’s young career, 21 Grams is brilliant in human emotion and connections. The powerful director would go on to create Babel (2006) and The Revenant (2015), two vastly different films but with similar hearts.

21 Grams (2003) is a wonderful introduction to good things to come while utilizing crafty acting and layered writing to create a gem well worth repeated viewings.

Oscar Nominations: Best Actress-Naomi Watts, Best Supporting Actor-Benicio del Toro

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

Little Women-2019

Little Women-2019

Director Greta Gerwig

Starring Saoirse Ronan, Florence Pugh

Scott’s Review #982

Reviewed January 21, 2020

Grade: A-

Numerous adaptations of the 1860s classic novel by Louisa May Alcott have been forged upon the silver screen, some good and some not as good.

The consensus is that Little Women (2019) is one of the better offerings, if not the best.

Director Greta Gerwig crafts a clear feminist, progressive version of the trials and tribulations of the March family, led by the spirited, spitfire Jo (Saoirse Ronan). Gerwig’s telling is fantastic, breathing fresh life into a classic story.

The story fluctuates heavily between 1868 and 1861, spanning both the United States Civil War and its aftermath.

Liberal, the Marches reside in Massachusetts, led by matriarch Marmee (Laura Dern), who mainly lives life while their patriarch, Father March (Bob Odenkirk), is off at war. The rest of the household includes sisters Jo, Meg (Emily Watson), Amy (Florence Pugh), and the youngest daughter, Beth (Eliza Scanlen).

The family endures joy, hardship, romance, love, and death as they navigate the decade.

The focal point is Jo, a determined young lady, who moves to New York City, frequently reflecting on her life through back-and-forth sequences.

She begins, as an aspiring writer, and as she grows up, eventually becomes a success, having her novel published boldly. She resists the tried and true and questions why a woman must rely on a man for success rather than her efforts and talents.

During the story, she is pursued by two young men, Laurie (Timothee Chalamet) and Friedrich (Louis Garrel).

Little Women is a fantastic and emotional story and a film that has no need for CGI, car chases, explosions, or any ingredients meant to enliven a film. It does not need them.

The excitement is in the plot, as we thirst for more of the ups and downs that the March family faces. With any successful drama, there are nuanced characters, each taking a turn at a story.

While Jo is the headliner, Amy, Meg, and Beth are much more than opening acts. They each have their own lives, dreams, triumphs, and hardships, and the audience cares about each of them.

To capitalize on this point, the casting is dynamite. In a small, but brilliant role, Meryl Streep gives a bombast to her character of Aunt March, the wealthy widow who owns a gorgeous house and vacations in Paris.

She is cranky, but wise, only wanting the very best for her nieces, which is, of course, to marry rich!

Ronan is well-cast and charismatic as Jo, the actress who loses her Irish accent for an American one. She utilizes her acting skills to imbue Jo with determination and just enough empathy to win over the audience.

Gerwig assures that the audience is reminded of the times and what it meant to be female during the 1860s, with a minimal chance at self-achievement, having to rely on a man for nearly everything.

She is in no way demeaning or ridiculing the male gender, though. She paints no villains in her film, instead showing men as supportive at times, enamored at other times, but never exerting their power over women.

Little Women receives a minor demerit in the pacing department. The film sharply shifts back and forth, in a too rapid manner, from period to period, at times leaving the viewer unclear as to which section of the film they are in.

Blessedly, this ceases about midway through, but the technique is jarring and unnecessary. One wonders what the action was intended to achieve and why a more straightforward approach to storytelling was not used.

A key facet of any outstanding film is the emotional reaction, and Little Women had this viewer with tears streaming down his face. Sometimes for joy, sometimes for sadness, all in an organic way given oomph by a powerful musical score that resonates but never overwhelms.

The film is one in which all its elements come together in perfect harmony.

The film received six nominations, including Best Picture, Best Actress (Ronan), Best Supporting Actress (Pugh), and Best Adapted Screenplay. Sadly, and in a never-ending slight for female directors, Gerwig was overlooked.

Before the 2019 film adaptation of Little Women, the novel had been adapted for film six times, with the most successful versions being in 1933 and 1949.

Seventy years later, the most modern version is arguably the best, with a left-leaning stance that is oh so necessary in modern times.

Oscar Nominations: 1 win- Best Picture, Best Actress- Saoirse Ronan, Best Supporting Actress- Florence Pugh, Best Adapted Screenplay, Best Original Score, Best Costume Design (won)

The Lion King-2019

The Lion King-2019

Director Jon Favreau

Voices: Donald Glover, Alfre Woodard, Seth Rogen

Scott’s Review #981

Reviewed January 17, 2020

Grade: B

An impossible feat would have been to eclipse the magic of the stage version or the loveliness of the animated version. Still, The Lion King (2019) offers a different approach as well.

Arguably, this version is both animated and not, infused with computer-generated animation (CGA) and marvelous visual effects, showcasing creativity.

Partial to the two-former offering, this telling is lovely and perfect for the entire family.

The realism of the animals and scenery is remarkable.

To recap, new viewers, the story centers on a den of lions living among the creatures in the “Pride Lands of Africa”. They hunt, prance, love, and guard their territory, mainly from the hungry hyenas, who are kept at bay during peaceful times.

King Mufasa (James Earl Jones) and Queen Sarabi (Alfre Woodard) are fair rulers and anticipate their son, Simba (Donald Glover), taking over the throne one day, much to the chagrin of Mufasa’s evil brother, Scar (Chiwetel Ejiofor), who was passed over for the crown.

Envious of Simba, Scar tricks him and his friend Nala (Beyoncé) into wandering into the land of the hyenas, hoping to cause their deaths. When a heroic Mufasa foils his plot, Scar ups the ante and hatches a scheme to kill his brother.

He not only succeeds but also makes Simba believe he caused his father’s death. Ashamed, the youngster runs away to begin a new life, unaware that he will one day return to save the day.

Props must be given to the filmmakers for their inclusion and cultural authenticity, as many of the characters, especially those at the forefront, are voiced by African-American talent.

This is a notable achievement, considering the film is set in Africa, and it’s unusual for the voices to be Caucasian.

Heavyweights like Jones and Woodard sound polished, especially Jones with his deep and dominant, yet fatherly voice, perfectly cast as the King. Woodard provides gentle warmth and confident complexity.

The musical numbers are terrific.

The film begins with an energetic and tribal rendition of “Circle of Life,” where a legion of wild animals dances together in a warm display of diversity.

The song appears later in the film. The powerful and romantic “Can You Feel the Love Tonight” is performed against a lovely moonlit sky with decadent stars.

The new song “Spirit” performed by Beyoncé is adequate but does not figure into the story as much as it should, seeming more like an afterthought.

The best parts of The Lion King, however, are the astounding visuals.

The contrasting sequences of bright, sprawling African terrain and a magical oasis of colorful flowers and running water, set against the dark and foreboding landscape of the dangerous hyenas, offer the viewer a multitude of delights to savor.

The orange and red colors during the climactic finale are unrivaled in the dazzling bombast of adventure.

As realistic as the elements are in the film, they are also negative. Watching the animals talk and prowl amid the lush landscape felt wonderful, until I realized that all of it is fake.

Real animals were never used; instead, it is a virtual reality tool that creates the illusion of reality.

This aspect slightly saddens me as the genuine quality left me feeling robbed. The possibility of another alternative would have meant a reboot of the animated classic, and I am not sure that would have been wise.

Favreau, once an actor and now a director, known for creating films such as Iron Man (2008) and Iron Man 2 (2010), certainly knows his way around an adventure film.

The story, while containing some menacing moments, also feels a bit safe and lacks the freshness or edginess that the 1994 version possessed. Something seems watered down, and the excitement and heart of the original feel missed.

I will always go back to the animated 1994 treasure for a cinematic feast, but while The Lion King (2019) could have been a disaster, it isn’t. With modernized songs and enough CGA to last a lifetime, I could easily see some people hating the film, but I embraced it for what it is.

Spectacular visual treats await any fan of cinema, as one will ponder how the project all came together.

Oscar Nominations: Best Visual Effects

1917-2019

1917-2019

Director Sam Mendes

Starring George Mackay, Dean-Charles Chapman

Scott’s Review #979

Reviewed January 14, 2020

Grade: A

My tastes do not always lean towards the standard war film, so when I first heard about 1917 (2019), I was less than enthusiastic for no other reason than my pre-conceived perceptions.

Though it peaked with the idea of a World War I film rather than the standard World War II or Vietnam War film, I anticipated a run-of-the-mill experience or a story that had already been told.

Boldly told with incredible intensity and a brilliant technical style, director Sam Mendes creates a memorable cinematic treasure.

In April 1917, during the height of World War I, two British soldiers are tasked with a daring assignment: to hand-deliver crucial news to the 2nd Battalion of the Devonshire Regiment, calling off their planned attack on the German forces.

The Germans have faked a retreat to the Hindenburg Line and are ready to ambush the battalion, intending to kill sixteen hundred soldiers.

Schofield (George MacKay) and Blake (Dean-Charles Chapman) are chosen, with Blake’s brother Joseph among the soldiers bound to meet their fate.

As they journey, the young men face a myriad of hurdles including booby traps left by the Germans, terrain littered with dead bodies of their comrades, a precarious helicopter crash, giant rats, and the rapidly approaching deadline to deliver their message.

If they do not accomplish their mission in a timely fashion (twenty-four hours), the results will be devastating. Mendes keeps the tension high because he tells his story in real-time.

1917 is raw and emotional, hitting a hard punch.

Powerful scenes of dead bodies riddle the land, fat and pale from days spent immersed in cold water, young soldiers once handsome, now dead and bloated, remind the viewer what a terrible thing war is, and the ravages it causes.

Unlike other war films, patriotism and nationalist pride are not present.

Instead, the soldiers are weary and angry, confused as to why they are sent to fight for land as ugly as where they are, to die for land that is not even their own. They are depressed and confused.

The relationship between Schofield and Blake is excellent. Both men are weary and afraid, but have each other’s backs throughout their assignment.

It is not clear how long they have known each other, but they are at least acquaintances. They each come to the other’s rescue, and a pivotal scene occurs in a dusty hideout where they nearly die after a cave-in.

The characters possess grit and determination, but it is their humanity and connection with each other that resonate powerfully with the viewer.

An incredible scene unfolds as the day turns into night, and Schofield is well into enemy territory. To avoid a pursuing German soldier, he hides in a dusty basement area and finds a cowering young French girl. At first fearful, the pair quickly bonds, and a realization occurs to Schofield.

A newborn child accompanies the girl.

Assumed to be hers, the soldier immediately parts with his stash of food, not realizing the baby can have only milk. A ghastly realization is that the baby is not the French girl’s at all, but was instead found and rescued to prevent its death. The scene is tender and beautiful, perfectly contrasting the ugliness of the war.

The fantastic scene gives the viewer pause, prompting them to wonder what will become of the girl and the baby.

Nearly rivaling this lovely scene, another poignant moment occurs when Schofield stumbles upon a group of soldiers watching another soldier perform a rendition of the melancholy war tune, “Wayfaring Stranger”.

This moment slows the action down to a crawl, dedicated to loneliness and sadness amid the terrible battles.

The technical aspects that Mendes creates are spectacular and meant to be enjoyed on the largest screen possible. He uses a one-take approach, which keeps the action fast and furious.

The lavish and grandiose exterior scenes of immense dry land perfectly counterbalance a terrific watery scene when Schofield is chased into the river and soon embarks on wavy, grand rapids.

The camera remains on the soldier throughout the scene, as the viewer is taken on a wild adventure, sweeping every morsel of up and down motion with the tide.

To piggyback on this point, a scene occurs when one of the young men is knocked unconscious. It is daylight, but when he regains consciousness, it is night. The cinematography is brilliant, with a sharp left turn to translucent colors and blurry images of buildings.

The viewer is as disoriented as the soldier and fears what lurks in the shadows, as is found out when an unknown approaching figure begins to fire his gun.

1917 (2019) is a progressive-leaning gem with an anti-war message and a genuine approach to a “day in the life of a soldier”. It is not glossy or contrived, but a candid, realistic view of the savagery of war.

With a creative technical style, it is one of the best of its genre ever made.

Oscar Nominations: 3 wins-Best Picture, Best Director-Sam Mendes, Best Original Screenplay, Best Original Score, Best Sound Editing, Best Sound Mixing (won), Best Production Design, Best Cinematography (won), Best Makeup and Hairstyling, Best Visual Effects (won)

8 1/2-1963

8 1/2-1963

Director Federico Fellini

Starring Marcelo Mastroianni, Claudia Cardinale

Scott’s Review #973

Reviewed December 27, 2019

Grade: A-

For fans of acclaimed and experimental Italian film director Federico Fellini, a straightforward plot is rarely the recipe of the day with his projects.

With 8 1/2 (1963), he creates a personal and autobiographical story about a movie director who is pressured into another project but lacks the creative ideas and inspiration to fulfill the task.

We can all relate to this in one way or another.

The film is confusing, beautiful, elegant, and dreamlike, precisely what one would expect of a Fellini production. His film also hints at a more profound message and complexities.

The recommendation is to experience the film rather than analyze or over-analyze it. Let it marinate over time and relish in its offerings.

Guido Anselmi (Marcello Mastroianni) is a famous Italian film director who suffers from director’s block after he is tasked with directing an epic science fiction film and attempts to do so.

Experiencing marital difficulties, he decides to spend time at a luxurious spa where he has strange reoccurring visions of a beautiful woman (Claudia Cardinale), is visited by his mistress Carla (Sandra Milo), and is criticized by a temperamental film critic.

When Guido’s film crew arrives at his hotel to start production, he becomes overwhelmed by the mounting pressures and escapes into a world of memories. He visits his grandmother, dances with a prostitute, and relives his time at a strict Catholic school.

The film critic dismisses Guido’s attempts to incorporate these memories into his new film. The rest of the film is a mishmash of odd occurrences as Guido attempts to make his film.

Fans of Fellini’s other works will undoubtedly fall in love with 8 1/2, and since the film is about film, this scores points in my book.

His other famous works, Roma (1972) and Amarcord (1973) are similarly semi-autobiographical but differ in that they are more straightforward stories- as much as can be said about a Fellini film.

Usually lacking much plot, 8 1/2 resembles Juliet and the Spirits (1965) more than the others for comparison’s sake. Fantasy and reality are interspersed, making the film challenging to follow.

It appears to be about a man on the brink of a nervous breakdown and is a complex and personal study. As Guido spirals out of control and teetering towards insanity, he also muses about his situation. These highs and lows, told comically, make 8 1/2 even more challenging to figure out and react to.

My previous suggestion to experience 8 1/2 becomes credible as the film rolls along. Viewers may be unsure of what is happening, if not downright perplexed, but energy pulls one into its clutches with masterful sequences and potent embraces of life, love, and culture.

This must be attributed to the look and style of the film.

8 1/2 won the Academy Awards for Best Foreign Language Film and Best Costume Design (black-and-white) and is considered a highly respected and influential work of art by most film critics.

Appreciated mostly for its beautiful cinematography, it also delves into the meaning of life with a live-and-let-live approach.

Lovers of avant-garde works of interpretation and expressionism will be giddy while experiencing ruminating thoughts following 8 1/2 (1963).

Having only seen the film once and embraced it wholly as a work of art but frustrated by the lack of tangible meaning, I advise seeing it a second, a third, or even a fourth time for a deeper appreciation and understanding.

I plan to heed my suggestion.

Oscar Nominations: 2 wins-Best Director-Federico Fellini, Best Story and Screenplay Written Directly for the Screen, Best Foreign Language Film (won), Best Art Direction, Black-and-White, Best Costume Design, Black-and-White (won)

Bombshell-2019

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)

A Passage to India-1984

A Passage to India-1984

Director David Lean

Starring Judy Davis, Peggy Ashcroft

Scott’s Review #971

Reviewed December 24, 2019

Grade: A-

David Lean, famous for his sweeping, masterpiece epics including Lawrence of Arabia (1962) and Doctor Zhivago (1965), returns with his swan song, a grandiose and lavish film, A Passage to India (1984).

Though not quite on the same level as the two other mentions, the brilliant cinematography alone makes this one a winner.

The story is compelling with a mystery and he said/she said rape story that deepens, exploring racism and religion, assuredly switching viewer allegiances between characters.

A Passage to India is based on the famous E.M. Forster novel from 1924. Along with A Room with a View (1908) and Howards End (1910), the three make up a series that examines class differences and hypocrisy among the British.

All three are set at least partially in England and were all adapted to film with immeasurable success. While the film is potent and meaningful, it is the least brilliant of the three, but only by a hair.

Set in the 1920s, the British had control over India causing some tensions in the air. Adela Quested (Judy Davis) sails from England to India with Mrs. Moore (Peggy Ashcroft), the mother of her intended bridegroom, whom they plan to see when they arrive at their destination.

The women have a wonderful relationship and excitedly anticipate their adventure.

After Mrs. Moore meets the kindly Dr. Aziz Ahmed (Victor Banerjee), becoming enamored and enraptured, the women accompany him to an exploration of ancient caves, along with a guide.

When Adela and Ahmed are left alone, she suddenly appears frantic, accusing the Indian Doctor of attempted rape, setting off a blistering scandal that causes public debate and divides the townspeople, culminating in a trial.

The story is naturally the focal point of the film, but not the strongest part. At first left aghast at the accusations hurled at Aziz, by all appearances a wonderful man, the intention is for the viewer to be unclear of what transpires when Aziz and Adela are alone. The events, if any exist, take place off-screen, so we only see a disheveled Adela flee the caves in panic.

The rest is left to the viewer’s imagination and to wonder what happened. As the truth is eventually revealed, we wonder about the intended motivations and the ramifications the accusations will have on the central characters.

The film is successful at interestingly discussing racism and assumptions, leading major characters to disagree. Adela and Mrs. Moore wind up at odds after the events, with Moore refusing to believe Aziz did anything wrong.

This is a bold stance to take as the women are good friends and we would assume one would support the other. While Moore is liberal and open-minded, Adela is conservative and buttoned-up, making the ideological differences clearer.

Did Adela imagine the attack? Did somebody else attack her?

The cinematography is brilliant and the pure excellence of the film is. The plentiful exterior scenes are delectable and simmer with beauty within each frame. Since many of them take place in the grandiose mountains or caves the results are exquisite.

One can easily sit back and revel in the majestic sequences and many scenes are still and quiet which enhances the effects. As with other Lean epics, it advisable is to see this film on the biggest screen known to mankind.

At one-hundred and sixty-four minutes, the film is hardly non-stop action, but rather slightly laborious and lumbering. Some parts are a tad too slow, but the payoff is mighty and there is a measure of intrigue throughout, especially once the cave incident occurs.

I hate to say the film drags, but perhaps fifteen to twenty minutes could have been shaved off. When Lean is at the helm, a hefty running time is a guarantee.

A Passage to India (1984) is a film by a respected director that culminates a lengthy and inspired career boldly. While not his best film, this should not detract from the excellent experience the film provides.

Grandiose sequences and sophisticated style make the film able to be viewed more than once, a marvel for a film released in the lackluster 1980s.

Oscar Nominations: 2 wins-Best Picture, Best Director-David Lean, Best Actress-Judy Davis, Best Supporting Actress-Peggy Ashcroft (won), Best Screenplay Based on Material from Another Medium, Best Original Score (won), Best Sound, Best Art Direction, Best Costume Design, Best Cinematography, Best Film Editing

127 Hours-2010

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)

Toy Story 4-2019

Toy Story 4-2019

Director Josh Cooley

Voices: Tom Hanks, Tim Allen, Annie Potts

Scott’s Review #966

Reviewed December 10, 2019

Grade: B

Toy Story 4 (2019) is the fourth installment in the Pixar/Disney-produced Toy Story series, now nearly twenty-five years old!

The glitter is beginning to fade on a once-endearing franchise, and hopefully, this is the last one- additional segments are not needed unless desperation develops.

After a slow start and too many retread moments, the film shows bombast and familiar heart and tenderness in the finale, presumably wrapping up the long story with a neat bow.

The animation is vivid and colorful, almost astounding, and makes up for an otherwise unnecessary story.

In a flashback sequence, nine years after Toy Story 2, Bo Peep (Annie Potts) is donated to a new owner, and Woody (Tom Hanks) begrudgingly decides to maintain his loyalty to the owner, Andy.

Years later, and now a teenager, Andy donates a forgotten Woody to a young child named Bonnie, who lacks the affection for the toy that Andy had. When Bonnie makes and bonds with Forky, a toy made of plastic, Woody struggles to convince Forky that each is more than garbage.

When Bonnie and her parents embark on a summer road trip to an amusement park, Woody and other familiar faces are along for the ride.

The group meets other forgotten toys, some benevolent and some sinister, at the park and a nearby antique store. Woody’s dear friend and comic relief, Buzz (voiced by Tim Allen), is in the mix and helps all the toys realize that they are not forgotten and that they can still bring joy to children.

The film provides an unwieldy list of celebrities in major and minor roles. The incorporation of characters like Chairol Burnett, Bitey White, and Carl Reineroceros (voiced naturally by Carol Burnett, Betty White, and Carl Reiner) may not be necessary.

Still, it’s fun to watch the credits roll and see who’s who from the cast.

The minor characters are little more than window dressing, but the creativity is admirable.

The main story of abandonment, loyalty, and discarding of one’s toys is ample and pleasant, but has occurred in every segment thus far in the series.

Do we need to see this again? Yes, it is an essential message for both children and adults, but why not simply watch the first three installments of Toy Story, each brilliant in their own right?

Toy Story 4 plays by the numbers with little surprises.

One glaring notice is how almost every single adult is either incompetent or played for laughs.

I understand that the main draw is the toys and outsmarting the adults is half the fun, but when Bonnie’s father assumes his navigation system is on the fritz, rather than catching on to the fact that one of the toys is voicing the system, one must shake one’s head.

Suspension of disbelief is increasingly required in these types of films.

Toy Story 4 picks up steam in the final twenty minutes with a thrilling adventure through the amusement park and a cute romance between Woody and Bo Peep.

When the long-forgotten toy Gabby Gabby (Christina Hendricks) emotionally rescues a lost child, she is rejuvenated and breathes new life into both the child’s life and her own.

In a darling moment, Forky meets another creation named Knifey. Knifey suffers from the same existential crisis as Forky once did, and Forky immediately becomes smitten with her, both realizing that even though they are odd-looking, they still matter.

The nice lesson learned is that even toys from the 1960s and 1970s can provide warmth and comfort to a young child and are more than “of their time”.

This is a clear and bold message that resonates with human beings and acknowledges that advanced age does not come with an expiration date.

Everyone matters and brings importance. The underlying theme is heartwarming and central to the film, bringing it above mediocrity.

What should certainly be the final chapter in a tired franchise that continues to trudge along, the bright message and strong animations remain, but the film feels like a retread.

Given that Toy Story 3 was released in 2010, Toy Story 4 (2019) needs to bring the series to a conclusion before installments 5, 6, 7, or 8 result in a dead-on-arrival sequel.

Oscar Nominations: 1 win-Best Animated Feature Film (won), Best Original Song-“I Can’t Let You Throw Yourself Away”

A Beautiful Day in the Neighborhood-2019

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

Shoplifters-2018

Shoplifters-2018

Director Hirokazu Kore-eda

Starring Lily Franky, Sakura Ando

Scott’s Review #962

Reviewed November 26, 2019

Grade: A-

Shoplifters (2018) is a fabulous Japanese offering directed, written, and edited by Hirokazu Kore-Eda. The film is slow-moving and understated, but it provides a moving and poignant message about family, by blood or not, and the robust ties that bind individuals compassionately and emotionally.

The film is character-driven and humanistic, offering sentiment and emotion without ever feeling overwrought or manipulative. It is not to be missed.

A dysfunctional group of outsiders lives together in a dingy basement establishment in Tokyo, Japan. They escape their poverty by shoplifting and embarking on mild adventures to pass the time. They share a deep bond and look out for each other.

The audience assumes they are family, which they are, but not in the biological sense. The family rescues an abused young girl and takes her into their home, showering her with love and affection.

Eventually, trouble comes when one of them is caught shoplifting, which leads to a domino effect of terrible events.

The group consists of Osamu (Lily Franky), a day laborer forced to leave his job after twisting his ankle; his “wife” Nobuyo (Sakura Ando), who works for industrial laundry service; Aki (Mayu Matsuoka), who works at a hostess club; Shota (Kairi Jo), a young boy; and Hatsue (Kirin Kiki), an elderly woman who owns the home and supports the group with her deceased husband’s pension.

The film showcases most of the characters equally as they work, drink, and hang out together. The abused girl, named Yuri, is given a haircut and renamed Lin and is central to the plot. Nobuyo and Shota take a shine to her. She teaches Lin that parents who love their children hug them and do not hit them, while Shota teaches her the ins and outs of stealing groceries.

Though the watch is slow, the audience inevitably falls in love with the characters, and the connection becomes powerful before the viewer knows it. We know Osamu and Nobuyo should leave Yuri where she is when they see her unattended and shivering on a cold balcony, but they cannot help themselves.

Their actions immediately make the audience realize that they are good, kind people who have been handed bad life circumstances to deal with.

The film is a strict watch and will never be defined as edge-of-your-seat. Many scenes involve characters walking around the streets, almost aimlessly, commenting that the weather is cold or other trivial conversational bits.

The scenes could be described as dull or bleak, but eventually, something magical happens, the characters become favorites, and the viewer is immersed in their world unflinchingly.

The character of Yuri is a tough one to observe. With bruises on her arms and a burn from a hot iron, tearful is the imagining of the terror the little girl has already been through at the hands of blood relatives, especially since her parents assume she has run off and are thrilled she is out of their lives.

The conclusion of the film is cold and harsh, hitting home that the justice system is flawed and cruel, as Yuri ultimately is returned to her parents, sure to face more abuse and eventual death. Doesn’t child abuse usually turn out like this?

Director Kore-eda could have spun a feel-good story with the family parading onto the beach in the sunshine, but he chooses not to. We wonder how Yuri’s life might have turned out under better circumstances and had the courts not gotten involved.

Kore-eda instead paints a stark picture of reality, not the fictional happily-ever-after films too often rush to craft.

Shoplifters (2018) offers a look at humanity at its best and its worst with a story about joy and pain. The film is quiet and careful and ultimately keeps one in its grips. It sticks with the viewer and makes one question what a family is and what it is defined as in the court of law.

Who decides who is family and who is not? The film will make one ponder many things, which is a treasured quality of good cinema.

Oscar Nominations: Best Foreign Language Film

Independent Spirit Award Nominations: Best International Film

The Irishman-2019

The Irishman-2019

Director Martin Scorsese

Starring Robert De Niro, Al Pacino, Joe Pesci

Scott’s Review #960

Reviewed November 20, 2019

Grade: A

Any film created by legendary director Martin Scorsese is sure to impress legions of adoring followers and most critics.

Every project he touches results in something fantastic, and it’s easy to revel in, with good analysis and discussion about the movie moments after the closing credits have rolled.

The Irishman (2019) is a film that demands repeated viewings and thoughtful consideration to appreciate the rich and diverse cast of characters fully.

The picture may not be on the same level as Goodfellas (1990) or The Godfather (1972), which it seems patterned after, but the work is awe-inspiring and should stand the test of time, resulting in a fine wine analogy.

The years will likely be kind to the film and enrich the experience- it’s that kind of film.

With stars like Robert De Niro, Al Pacino, Joe Pesci, and Harvey Keitel on board, the viewer expects a plethora of riches, and that is precisely what is delivered.

The film spans the period from the 1950s to the 1970s.

It follows the life of Frank Sheeran (De Niro), a truck driver who becomes a hitman and becomes involved with mobster Russell Bufalino (Pesci) and his crime family, including his time working for the powerful Teamster Jimmy Hoffa (Pacino). Sheeran is dubbed “the Irishman”.

He narrates much of the story, now quite elderly and residing in a nursing home, of his time in the mafia and the mystery surrounding the death of Hoffa.

The only negatives to the film are the suspension of disbelief that De Niro is Irish – was there ever a more quintessential Italian New Yorker? However, this film is directed by Scorsese and produced by De Niro, so they could tell me the sky is green, and I would readily nod in agreement.

At three hours and twenty-nine minutes, the film is a long haul, and towards the middle, the film meanders a bit. Perhaps twenty or thirty minutes could have been sliced to the cutting room floor.

The rest of the experience The Irishman serves up is brilliance, with rich characters and a fantastic atmosphere. Have I mentioned that Scorsese directed this film? The cast of characters is endless and drips with zest, speaking volumes for what The Godfather did with casting.

Many recognizable actors appear in minor roles, like Ray Romano as attorney Bill Bufalino, Bobby Cannavale as “Skinny Razor”, and Anna Paquin as Frank’s estranged daughter, Peggy.

An endless supply of character actors fleshes out the remaining cast.

Excellent is the plethora of food references that would impress notable food director Alfred Hitchcock, known for incorporating meals into many of his scenes. The delectable early scenes, when Frank delivers meat to grocers and gets into a discussion with a gangster over a good steak, will leave viewers mouth-watering for a tender sirloin.

The conversations between characters are interesting, slowly building and adding robust grit to a packed film. They engage in good, thoughtful dialogue exchanges and discuss life and experiences matter-of-factly.

Characters are given a chance to develop and grow, and even minor characters, such as a nurse or a wife, add a comforting aura. It is evident what treasured films look like when a director can create and develop without outside interference.

The standouts in the acting department are Pacino and De Niro, the former of whom I’m crossing my fingers will receive an Oscar nomination.

The pairing is flawless, and eagle-eyed fans will recall that both actors appeared together in The Godfather Part II (1974) yet never shared a scene.

In The Irishman, they appear together in pivotal scenes. Pacino infuses Hoffa with humor and poise, as only Pacino can, in a character. He is my favorite character and is tough to look away from.

Both actors, along with Pesci, are treated to a recent marvel in cinema —the de-aging process. Each actor, well into his seventies, is transformed to appear in his mid-forties in many scenes and then aged to appear elderly later in life.

While each has a strange, unnatural look as a younger man, the process is impressive and an innovative technique that will surely become more common in film, subsequently offering limitless possibilities.

The Irishman (2019) is a cinematic gem by a storied director advancing in years, but still offering grandiose films. With stalwarts like De Niro, Pesci, and Pacino, the players are well cast, and nuanced touches add dimensions to the finished product.

Offering a gangster film with grace and style, the story is poignant and crisp, and a thoughtful approach to one of the legendary mysteries- what happened to Jimmy Hoffa?

Oscar Nominations: Best Picture, Best Director-Martin Scorsese, Best Supporting Actor-Al Pacino, Joe Pesci, Best Adapted Screenplay, Best Production Design, Best Cinematography, Best Costume Design, Best Film Editing, Best Visual Effects

Marriage Story-2019

Marriage Story-2019

Director Noah Baumbach

Starring Adam Driver, Scarlett Johansson

Scott’s Review #959

Reviewed November 14, 2019

Grade: A

Marriage Story (2019) is a film that could have been generic, melodramatic, or contrived. Before its release, it was described as an excellent” version of Kramer vs. Kramer (1979) or Terms of Endearment (1983).

Those are excellent films, but marginally sappy and overwrought. Marriage Story excels at being a brilliant, powerful, and realistic portrayal of a marriage disintegrating, painting a picture of how good people can turn ugly under certain circumstances.

Believe the hype of how good this film is.

Taking place in both New York City and Los Angeles, we meet Charlie and Nicole Barber (Adam Driver and Scarlett Johansson), a theater director and his wife, an actress who stars in his plays.

They fill notebook paper with what they love most about each other, and the list is lengthy.

Appearing to be madly in love, the audience soon realizes that the couple is amid an amicable separation, the writings a result of an assignment by a “separations counselor”, hired to make things easier.

Charlie and Nicole share an eight-year-old son named Henry. Nicole returns to Los Angeles to resume her acting career and spend time with her mother (Julie Hagerty) and sister (Merritt Wever). Adam, successful in New York City, plans to stay and reside with his son.

Nicole hires a tough lawyer, Nora (Laura Dern), while Charlie begrudgingly hires semi-retired attorney Bert Spitz (Alan Alda), and later Jay (Ray Liotta). Nicole and Charlie are sensible, planning to work things out on their own, only needing representation for formalities, or so they think.

The situation escalates, spinning out of control as their divorce becomes increasingly hostile, as custody of their young son ups the ante. Qualities they once loved about each other become hate-filled arguments as the couple fights and feuds, as their attorneys scramble for a leg up.

Can the couple save themselves as secrets bubble to the surface, and situations be used against each other?

The film is a lengthy two hours and sixteen minutes, so the plot takes time to capture its viewer. When it eventually takes hold, it never lets go, forcefully enrapturing the watcher.

We care for both Charlie and Nicole, and while sympathizing with each other at different times, both characters are written as benevolent.

There is no villain except the divorce itself.

The key to success is in the writing. Director, Noah Baumbach, known for The Squid and the Whale (2005), and Frances Ha (2012) knows how to craft witty and clever dialogue, weaving comedy and drama intricately together.

He can make the viewer laugh and cry within the same scene.

The screenplay is the best part of the film because it is laden with crackling words and interesting situations.

Marriage Story reminds me of a Woody Allen film. Feeling improvised, unsure if any of the dialogue is, the characters speak lengthy soliloquies and engage in endless chatter with each other or themselves.

This results in a powerful medium of self-expression and a “talkie” movie.

The banter between characters is not drivel nor gibberish but contains significant, emotionally rich meaning and flavor.

The film belongs to Driver and Johansson, each delivering a home run. Driver is the stronger of the two, but not by much, and this is only because his emotional scenes feel rawer than hers do.

When the actors engage in a knock-down, drag-out fight, the scene is lengthy and exceptionally well-acted, with each taking turns verbally attacking the other. Vicious rage and emotional fury come to the forefront.

This is the best scene in the film.

Dern, Alda, and Liotta are terrific, bringing respect to the film. Each has been on the Hollywood scene for a long time, and each plays an attorney. While Dern’s and Liotta’s characters are sharks, Alda is a reasonable and realistic older man who has seen it all.

Burt lays down the facts for Charlie, making him realize how much is at stake. Dern shines as the sexy blonde attorney who wears revealing clothes and legs for miles. Grizzled Liotta plans to win at all costs. What a delight to see these veterans bring electricity to each scene.

Lastly, I adore the bi-coastal locales of New York City and Los Angeles. The big cities burst with meaning and are as different as day and night, as the film explains.

Charlie is a New Yorker, and Nicole is a California girl at heart. The numerous scenes shot on location in both cities lend the film richness and texture.

With Marriage Story (2019), Baumbach creates his best and most personal film.  Rumored to be partly autobiographical, he takes a subject matter that most assume has already been exhausted and spins the story in a different direction, making it feel fresh.

The aspects all come together in an experience that is emotional, powerful, and intelligent. The film is a treasure and a shining example to young filmmakers that good writing always prevails.

Oscar Nominations: 1 win-Best Picture, Best Actor-Adam Driver, Best Actress-Scarlett Johansson, Best Supporting Actress-Laura Dern (won), Best Original Screenplay, Best Original Score

Independent Spirit Award Nominations: 2 wins-Best Feature, Best Screenplay (won), Robert Altman Award (won)

Love Story-1970

Love Story-1970

Director Arthur Hiller

Starring Ryan O’Neal, Ali MacGraw

Scott’s Review #950

Reviewed October 23, 2019

Grade: B+

Love Story (1970) was an enormous blockbuster hit at the time of release, with two good-looking stars of the day immersed in a tragic romance. Almost fifty years later, the story feels contrived and watered down with a “been there, seen that” result.

While reviewing the film, one must be mindful of the period in which the film was made (before similar films hit the circuit), and the chemistry between the leads holds up quite well.

Perhaps the film works best when seen decades ago, as it now feels dated.

Handsome Oliver Barrett IV (Ryan O’Neal) is a star ice hockey player attending Harvard University in Cambridge, Massachusetts. He is heir to the wealthy Barrett family, led by father Oliver Barrett III (Ray Milland).

While at school, he meets the blue-collar Jenny Cavilleri (Ali MacGraw), who attends Radcliffe College, a neighboring college, and studies classical music. The couple falls madly in love and becomes inseparable.

Oliver is met with anger after he proposes to Jenny. She accepts, and they travel to the Barrett mansion so that she can meet Oliver’s parents. They are judgmental and unimpressed with her, thinking she is nice, but hardly a companion for their son.

Later, Oliver’s father tells him that he will cut off his financial support if he marries Jenny. After graduation, Oliver and Jenny marry nonetheless and begin a life of economic struggle, but filled with happiness. When they attempt to conceive, they learn that Jenny is terminally ill and has weeks to live.

The film’s primary appeal is the romance between Oliver and Jenny, which feels primal and honest. They are the cliched rich boy and poor girl equation, but in this film, the dynamic works.

O’Neal and MacGraw are good-looking and were on the cusp of Hollywood A-list classification, so the stars aligned in the casting. They ebb and flow at the beginning of the film with Jenny’s sarcasm and Oliver’s quiet arrogance, but there is never a doubt that the pair will fall madly in love, and we, the audience, are hooked from the start.

On an atmospheric level, the icy northeastern climate and the myriad of exterior scenes throughout Massachusetts give the film a proper ambiance.

For anyone who has studied at a university in this area or has an interest, the film succeeds, and it adds a robust flavor to the surrounding events. The youthful wonder and the promise of a bright future are of paramount importance to the story being told, and the foreshadowing is effective.

The film lacks guts in its pacing, though. Most of Love Story is spent focusing on the newness of Oliver and Jenny’s romance and their hurdles surrounding family members, and a brief nod to class and societal roles.

At a brief one hour and thirty-five minutes, there is very little time left for the shocking turn of events surrounding Jenny’s illness. Coming out of nowhere, the character is alive and well, has a brief fainting spell, and is then seen lying on a gurney before dying off-screen.

There is no bedside death scene, no suffering or deteriorating health, and the entire tragedy is glossed over. Hence the title, the focus is on the “love story,” but this seems like a scam.

So much is invested in the couple that the loss seems skimmed over. How can one die from leukemia (blood cancer) within a few days anyway?

The filmmaker’s clear attempts to play it safe come at the expense of the overall film experience.

Love Story (1970) deserves praise for being one of the first of its kind- the romantic tearjerker. The genre would soon be overrun with imitators so cliched that they bring the original down a notch, making it feel trite.

The ‘chick flick’ contains good acting and lovely scenery, but lacks the emotional depth I was hoping for. Melodramatic to a fault, the appeal of the leads surges the overall effort way more than it should.

Oscar Nominations: 1 win-Best Picture, Best Director-Arthur Hiller, Best Actor-Ryan O’Neal, Best Actress-Ali MacGraw, Best Supporting Actor-John Marley, Best Story or Screenplay Based on Factual Material or Material Not Previously Published or Produced, Best Original Score (won)

Downton Abbey-2019

Downton Abbey-2019

Director Michael Engler

Starring Hugh Bonneville, Michelle Dockery, Maggie Smith

Scott’s Review #947

Reviewed October 16, 2019

Grade: B+

Capitalizing on the tremendous success of the television series, which ended in 2015, Downton Abbey (2019) is a British historical period drama film written by Julian Fellowes, creator and writer of the series.

Beloved fans will devour the film, as the familiar formula and characters are brought to the big screen, giving it an even grander feel.

The film plays more like a two-hour episode arc over reinventing the wheel, but the result is a resounding crowd-pleasing affair with drama, scandals, and a good dose of nostalgia.

The Crawleys and their servants reside in the lavish fictional estate of Downton Abbey during the year 1927, a year and a half after the series ended.

Little has changed, and most of the characters are in similar situations, enjoying their daily lives.

Robert (Hugh Bonneville) and Cora Crawley (Elizabeth McGovern), the Earl and Countess of Grantham, are notified that King George V and Queen Mary will visit their home as part of a royal tour throughout the country.

The family and staff are excited yet skittish as they prepare to ensure the lavish event goes off without a hitch.

Situations arise such as the Downton Abbey servants feuding with the Buckingham Palace staff, Violet Crawley’s (Maggie Smith) dismay at Robert’s cousin Maud (Imelda Staunton) being in attendance, and attempted plot to kill the King which is thwarted by Tom (Allen Leach).

A new job offer for Edith’s (Laura Carmichael) husband, Mary’s (Michelle Dockery) frustration with maintaining the vast estate, and potential romances for several characters, including a scandalous same-sex relationship.

A few contemporary issues are created – among them, women’s rights and the plight of gay men. And though welcome, neither changes the overall blueprint of what the series is about, which is just what the series fans ordered.

Smith is the main attraction as she chews up the scenery with her insults, sarcasm, and blunt honesty. But the best scene, coming late in the film, gives Smith a chance to burst with sentimentality and limit the hamminess for at least one treasured scene.

The costumes and art direction are lovely, with luscious gowns, tuxedos, suits, jackets, hats, and shoes found in every scene.

The sprawling grounds of Downton Abbey and the ravishing interiors are front and center.

The film ventures to the neighboring city of York to offer a more progressive and metropolitan vibe, but each scene looks perfect, which is what fans have come to expect.

Not every character is front and center, but with an unwieldy cast of close to thirty principals, some are destined to accept back-burner status.

Surprisingly, yet agreeably, is the toned-down story for “super-couple” Bates (Brendan Coyle) and Anna (Joanne Froggatt), having enjoyed their share of trials and tribulations during the original run.

Wonderful moments feature supporting characters like Carson (Jim Carter), Thomas (Robert James-Collier), and Molesley (Kevin Doyle), who nearly steals the show with his hysterical fascination with royalty.

The balance and pace of the film are nearly perfect, and every character has at least something to do.

This characteristic has always helped huge ensemble casts succeed, and Fellowes wisely balances humor with drama but avoids tragedy or dark situations, hoping for mainstream success with his move to the big screen, opting to play it safe.

The attempt succeeds as the film adopts the “if it ain’t broke, don’t fix it” approach.

Downton Abbey (2019) is a splendid winner, primarily due to its impressive production values and costumes.

For fans of the television series, the film is a must-see and offers no more or no less than expected, providing more than enough to please those who want what the popular stories initially offered.

Despite the drama, the film does not feel “soapy” or contrived, and the tender moments may evoke a need for a hankie.

If the writing can remain fresh, I see no reason for another offering not to be green-lit, primarily due to the significant box-office returns.