Category Archives: Drama

The Tin Drum-1979

The Tin Drum-1979

Director Volker Schlöndorff

Starring David Bennent, Angela Winkler

Scott’s Review #1,047

Reviewed July 31, 2020

Grade: A

A fantastic and mesmerizing film experience that goes deeper than most films do, The Tin Drum (1979) takes a brutal moment in world history and turns it into a layered production.

The film brings humor morphing into tragedy and back again in the most original of ways, seen through the eyes of a young boy named Oskar (David Bennent), who decides to physically grow no further than three years old in an allegory of political turmoil amid World War II.

The film is riddled with thought-provoking themes and historical significance, resulting in brilliance.

The film begins in 1899 and ends in the early 1940s. The story hilariously opens in the Polish lands, where Oskar’s grandfather meets his grandmother while fleeing the police.

Their tryst in a potato field produces Oskar’s mother, Agnes (Angela Winkler). She is then later torn between two men, her cousin Jan (Daniel Olbrychski) and Alfred Matzerath (Mario Adorf), whom she marries.

Oskar is born into a situation where his parentage is in question, as Agnes continues to have an affair with Jan throughout the years. Oskar’s grandfather flees to America and becomes rich without family.

When Oskar turns three, he is given a tin drum as a present that he adores and refuses to part with. He throws himself down the cellar stairs, much to his family’s chagrin, and develops the uncanny ability to shatter glass by screaming at a high pitch.

As the 1930s become the 1940s, Oskar witnesses his mother’s affair, her tragic death, his father’s and uncle’s deaths, and a beloved Jewish man committing suicide rather than being caught by the Nazis.

He finds love with a sixteen-year-old shop girl named Maria and may or may not father her baby.

The Tin Drum is not always an easy watch and teeters between fun and frightening. Oskar is not the lovable kid next door that everyone adores. He is creepy-looking and unattractive at first glance, almost demonic.

Actor David Bennent is perfectly cast and has a way of offering moments where he stands transfixed, mouth dropped open, taking in the action and making gazing observations.

Oskar goes from three years old at the beginning of the film to a grown man by the end, but never changes his appearance.

Some viewers may be bothered by certain scenes. Bennent was only eleven years old and suffered from a growth defect in real life. More prudish viewers may find the youngster’s intimacy a bit shocking since he appears nude and beds a woman in full view.

I found it in no way gratuitous or exploitative and would argue that it is vital to show the growth and maturation of little Oskar.

International films typically get away with more sex and nudity than American films, but the scenes are artistic and beautiful.

The pacing in The Tin Drum is terrific. At two hours and forty-three minutes, there is plenty of time to explore relevant scenes and sequences, slowly letting them brew and marinate.

The comedy of Oskar’s grandparents’ sexual appetites beneath her big dress is hilarious and reminiscent of Federico Fellini’s best films.

The intriguing dwarf characters that Oskar meets and befriends bring life and zest to the film as they embrace their peculiarities and profit from them, encouraging them to do the same.

The second half of The Tin Drum turns dark.

Agnes, now pregnant, vomits after witnessing an eel being collected on the beach. When they are prepared for dinner, she at first resists, then embarks on a fish-eating obsession, resulting in her untimely death.

Is this an example of showing Germans stuffing themselves with Nazism? The deaths of Jan, Alfred, and others follow in rapid succession as clips of the Nazi occupation are featured.

A valuable history lesson is offered when The Tin Drum incorporates real-life footage of Adolph Hitler. Most frightening is a clip of him outside the Eiffel Tower in Paris. How he overtook this magical city and almost destroyed it is unfathomable.

This perfectly counterbalances the fairy-tale ridiculousness of other scenes, bringing home the terrible message that much of what the film explores is based on true events.

The greatness that oozes from The Tin Drum (1979) is layered and dynamic. The filming is mostly in West Germany, with some shots in Poland, which lends authenticity to the experience. Other offerings are surrealistic, sometimes child-like in innocence, sometimes tragic, and too realistic.

The picture drizzles with life, energy, synergy, and multi-faceted character relationships. One of the greats to watch more than once to grasp the numerous things going on.

The film is adapted from the novel of the same name by Günter Grass.

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

Pain and Glory-2019

Pain and Glory-2019

Director Pedro Almodovar

Starring Antonio Banderas, Penélope Cruz

Scott’s Review #1,042

Reviewed July 20, 2020

Grade: A-

Thought to be director Pedro Almodóvar’s most personal effort to date, Pain and Glory (2019) showcases the talents of actor Antonio Banderas, who has been appearing in Almodóvar’s films since 1982.

A character study, the film poetically reflects on the life of an aging filmmaker (Banderas) who yearns to rediscover his lost creative spirit while reminiscing about his first love.

The triumphant film could have been faster-paced, but above all, it celebrates life, regret, and pain, and is thus inspiring.

Salvador Mallo (Banderas) is a once well-known filmmaker who is now personally and professionally on the decline. He suffers from health maladies, leaving him in chronic pain, and has lost his knack for crafting good projects.

When he runs into an old friend and actress, Zulema (Cecilia Roth), who barely acts anymore and is reduced to accepting any roles offered to her, he decides to visit the lead actor from his best-known film, Sabor.

Salvador hasn’t spoken to Alberto (Asier Etxeandia) in thirty years, and both ruminate over the film as it is to be remastered and celebrated.

Once a subject of contention, Salvador and Alberto begin to smoke heroin, prompting Salvador to revisit his childhood memories, rediscovering life. His most prominent memory is when he, his father, and his mother, Jacinta (played by Penélope Cruz), move to a whitewashed cave to live.

There he meets and befriends an older laborer, whom he teaches to read. Salvador discovers his sexuality through this young man after seeing him naked.

Years later, during the 1980s, Salvador falls madly in love with Federico (Leonardo Sbaraglia), and the pair share a passionate love affair that deteriorates at the end of the decade.

In the present day, Federico reemerges and tracks down Salvador. They reconnect, sharing drinks and memories, nearly reigniting their passion. Federico is now married to a woman and raising kids in Argentina, but the powerful memories resurface, and the men flirt and gaze at one another longingly.

The film utterly belongs to Banderas. The actor has charisma in many other roles, but Salvador might be his crowning achievement.

It’s such a personal role and was written specifically for the actor by Almodóvar. He possesses the ability to grasp the viewer in his clutches and never let go.

From the agonizing pain he experiences daily, causing him to choke for no reason, to his inability to fulfill his now elderly mother’s dying wish to die in her village after accusing him of never loving her, we empathize with him every step of the way.

His sexuality was discovered and revealed at a young age. Salvador’s longing and unfulfilled passion are the most intricate and nuanced aspects of the film.

As the laborer draws a picture of Salvador, which he later rediscovered, an unspoken passion develops between the youngsters.

In later years, his assistant nudges him to look the laborer up via Google, to see where he is, perhaps reconnecting. Salvador refuses, sinking into regret of what might have been.

To build on this, his fling with Federico as a young man, shown via flashbacks, is powerful. The scene, in which a teary Federico, in present times, sits in a theater weeping while watching Salvador’s play, is a testament to his love for the man.

The unknown is why the relationship failed, and Federico gave up on men and succumbed to a traditional relationship. However, we can only guess that Salvador might not have been able to commit.

When the men spend an evening together, capped off with a passionate kiss but nothing more, we realize how they could have built a wonderful life together.

Props to Sbaraglia for a tremendous performance in a small role.

Assuredly, Pain and Glory were patterned after 8 1/2, a 1963 masterpiece penned and directed by Federico Fellini.

The themes of regret, writer’s block, and memories come into play throughout both films. Almodóvar even names Salvador’s lover Federico, an obvious tribute to the famous director, known for infusing stylistic touches and non-linear stories.

Like most of Almodóvar’s other projects, Pain and Glory explores themes of vibrant colors, sexuality, and passion. Set in Madrid, the film boasts a zesty, cultured Spanish flair, characterized by blues, greens, and oranges.

Even though the overarching theme is loss, pain, and missed opportunities, the film remains rich in energy and pizzazz. For those with a fondness for acting, cinema, or creativity, there is enough to satisfy.

After decades in the spotlight, crafting film after film with resounding results, Pain and Glory (2019) may be the cream of the crop for the Spanish director.

Thanks in large part to the tremendous efforts of a legendary actor, the experience will please fans of the directors and anyone with a taste for a film about zest for life, unfulfilled pleasures, and new experiences.

Oscar Nominations: Best Actor-Antonio Banderas, Best International Feature Film

Ford v Ferrari-2019

Ford v Ferrari-2019

Director James Mangold

Starring Matt Damon, Christian Bale

Scott’s Review #1,041

Reviewed July 18, 2020

Grade: B-

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Let’s talk Oscar nominations.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Richard Jewell-2019

Richard Jewell-2019

Director Clint Eastwood

Starring Paul Walter Hauser, Sam Rockwell, Kathy Bates

Scott’s Review #1,035

Reviewed June 19, 2020

Grade: B

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

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

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

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

But I digress.

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

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

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

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

They bond over video games and become fast friends.

The time is 1986.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Let’s discuss Kathy Bates’s performance.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Oscar Nominations: Best Supporting Actress- Kathy Bates

Harriet-2019

Harriet-2019

Director Kasi Lemmons

Starring Cynthia Erivo, Leslie Odom Jr.

Scott’s Review #1,031

Reviewed June 10, 2020

Grade: B

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

She lost.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Law of Desire-1987

Law of Desire-1987

Director Pedro Almodovar

Starring Eusebio Poncela, Carmen Maura

Scott’s Review #1,021

Reviewed May 8, 2020

Grade: B+

Law of Desire or La ley del Deseo (as translated in original Spanish) is a 1987 film written and directed by Pedro Almodóvar.

Quite groundbreaking for its time and penned by a respected director, the film was rich in offering what was rarely presented in films during the 1980s- a complex love triangle between two men and a trans woman.

The fact that the trans woman is the sister of one of the men is a bonus for the soap opera premise.

In 2020, when LGBTQ+ films are more plentiful in cinemas (at least at the indie level), Law of Desire suffers slightly from a dated feel, and parts drag.

It’s tough to criticize a piece this brazen when it was released in arthouse and musty metropolitan theaters.

As groundbreaking as the film must be given credit for, the story now feels sillier than it should, and more outlandish than it probably intended to be over thirty years ago.

The fabulous setting of Madrid, Spain, is the backdrop for the luscious tale of love, obsession, jealousy, and revenge, think the prime-time television series Dynasty on steroids.

Cocky Pablo (Eusebio Poncela), a successful gay film director with his pick from a bevy of young, good-looking gay males, is madly in love with Juan (Miguel Molina), though he has a roving eye.

Suave Antonio (Antonio Banderas), who comes from a conservative family, is new to the gay scene and falls madly in love with Pablo when Juan goes to find himself.

Tina (Carmen Maura), who likes men and women, has just been dumped and is vulnerable.

Besides the obvious daring gender-bending, this story could be a simple one told many times across many genres.

Almodóvar spins things into a frenzy as the plot unfolds, adding manipulations, subplots, and bizarre characters into the mix.

For example, Ada is Tina’s surrogate daughter and is a precocious ten-year-old girl in love with Pablo. Ada refuses to go back with her mother (Bibi Andersen/Bibiana Fernández) when her mother returns to whisk her off to Milan to meet a man she has just met.

The gay subtext is what is center stage here. Back in the 1980s, the term LGBTQ+ was on nobody’s radar, and having any representation at all in cinema was still a territory barely scratching the surface.

This point kept returning to me throughout the film, and I imagined how fresh the experience would have been to any gay man or gay woman fortunate enough to have seen it. I am not sure any of the characters would serve as great role models, but the representation is nice.

Almodóvar adds a good deal of naked flesh for an added treat.

Several comic scenes arise with gusto. Antonio, who lives at home with a religious zealot of a mother, convinces Pablo to sign his letters from “Laura P”, a character from his latest play, to trick Antonio’s nosy mama.

Tina, not much of an actress, is cast in Pablo’s one-woman theatrical productions. She thinks her performance is great, but Pablo thinks she stinks. The comical moments are the ones that work best, giving the plentiful offbeat characters a chance to let loose and shine.

Towards the conclusion, Law of Desire takes a tragic and Shakespearean turn. A drunken Juan is thrown off a cliff to his death, prompting an investigation with Antonio and Pablo both prime suspects.

Finally, a kidnapping and police stand-off ensues with a murder/suicide providing the film’s final moments.

I am not a fan of the title that Almodóvar chose. Preferably, a title that is a bit more titillating. Even Lust of Desire or Object of My Desire would have been better choices.

Law of Desire screams of a tepid episode of television’s Law & Order.

For a director with such an outlandish approach and such bizarre characters, the title is bland, banal, and tough to remember.

Those seeking a kinky and provocative late-night affair will find Law of Desire (1987) a good old time. It lacks a clear message, instead offering a sexy romp and a dreary ending.

Running the gamut of adding musical score pieces as unique as the 1970s The Conformist, a film also shrouded in same-sex desire, to cheesy 1980s synth-laden beats, adds some confusion.

Nonetheless, diversity and inclusiveness are good recipes to chow down on and celebrate.

The Last Black Man in San Francisco-2019

The Last Black Man in San Francisco- 2019

Director Joe Talbot

Starring Jimmie Fails, Jonathan Majors

Scott’s Review #1,018

Reviewed May 1, 2020

Grade: A

The brilliance of The Last Black Man in San Francisco (2019) is multi-fold. The immediate call-out is that the work is the creation of up-and-coming director Joe Talbot, an artist with an excellent eye for both the visual and humanistic aspects of cinema.

Whoever influenced this young man deserves props, for he has a great future ahead of him. Given that this is his film debut and he also co-wrote it, the future is indeed bright. The film is loosely based on the life of Jimmie Fails, his childhood best friend, who also stars.

A24 is arguably the new “it” film studio for independent entertainment offerings, and this is to be celebrated.

Indie films provide creative artists with the means and time to develop their products and tell stories that are fraught with meaning, and in many cases, dare to go where other films have not ventured, at the risk of turning off a mainstream audience.

This is to be celebrated and championed, and has resulted in many fantastic and unique films. Hereditary (2018), Midsommar (2019), and The Lighthouse (2019) immediately spring to mind.

The Last Black Man in San Francisco gets off to an interesting start as two young black men, Jimmie (Fails) and Mont (Jonathan Majors), wait for the bus as men clad in protective gear appear to clean polluted waters.

The implication is clear that residents are not protected while the men are. Protesters chant while images of the changes San Francisco has experienced over the years are shown.

The two then skateboard to a Victorian house in the city’s Fillmore District, where Jimmie grew up and says it was built by his grandfather in 1946.

Their skateboard trip is cerebral and surrealistic and has ten glorious cinematic moments.

It is evident that Talbot is channeling either an autobiographic story or one of a friend- it proves to be the latter. Unclear is if Mont is supposed to be Talbot, but my guess would be in the affirmative.

Jimmie and Mont are inseparable, residing both at Mont’s grandfather’s house (played by a startlingly elderly Danny Glover) and the house that Jimmie’s grandfather built.

The friends trudge along with their daily lives by enduring insults hurled at them by a neighborhood gang and fixing up the Victorian house whose owners neglect it, only to be subsequently evicted.

Jimmie and Mont are fantastically nuanced, rich characters, each for different reasons. Jimmie is pained that his city has forgotten his grandfather and his legacy, which have been cast aside for progress and wealth.

His father (Rob Morgan) is angry, his mother, a recovering drug addict, is barely in his life, as they run into each other by chance on the city bus. Jimmie’s Aunt (Tichina Arnold) resides outside the city and serves as his confidante.

Mont is creative, yearning to write a play based on the local gang, but struggles to create the words or authentically express his voice. He works in a fish shop and frequently acts out his thoughts about others down by the water. Considered odd, he is a good guy and loyal to his grandfather.

Since a female love interest is never mentioned (another high point of the film), neither Jimmie’s nor Mont’s sexuality is ever discussed, nor is a potential relationship between the two ever mentioned.

The ambiguity works remarkably well and evokes comparisons to the groundbreaking Moonlight (2016).

When a sudden death erupts, the proceedings, Mont finally finds his voice and composes an improvised stage play which he stars in as a dedication to the fallen victim.

He elicits responses from the people in attendance (including all principal cast members) as a shocking secret erupts, resulting in disarray. This takes the already layered film in a new direction as all Jimmie thought to be true is suddenly shattered.

In a word, the film feels fresh, both visually and from a story perspective.

Fails and Majors are a top young talent with bright futures who add a patient climb to their characters amid a film that paces slowly but steadily, letting the events unfold in a thought-provoking way.

I eagerly await the next project by the talented Talbot.

In a film industry hungry for new ideas, the creator of The Last Black Man in San Francisco (2019) offers a journey into the minds of two black men, written not as stereotypes, but as interesting and intelligent individuals, who are not looking forward, but looking backward.

The film provides characters who are not standard but are so much more than that.

Independent Spirit Award Nominations: Best First Feature, Best Supporting Male-Jonathan Majors

A Few Good Men-1992

A Few Good Men-1992

Director Rob Reiner

Starring Tom Cruise, Jack Nicholson, Demi Moore

Scott’s Review #1,012

Reviewed April 15, 2020

Grade: B+

A Few Good Men (1992) is a film firmly ensconced in the mainstream Hollywood courtroom drama genre.

If all the necessary elements had not been well-woven, the results might have been trite or even cringeworthy.

Nonetheless, with big stars and excellent acting, director Rob Reiner (yes, “Meathead” from All in the Family) lucks out with a predictable screenplay that is compelling and made better by the sum of its parts.

The film will never bore and is a standard edge-of-your-seat thrill ride.

The drama was rewarded with several year-end niceties, including nominations for the upper-crust Academy Awards. Best Supporting Actor, Best Film Editing, Best Sound Mixing, and, surprisingly, the lofty Best Picture statuette.

With no shame for the embarrassment of riches, deserved or undeserved is the real question; the film walked away empty-handed on Oscar night.

When cocky and handsome military lawyer Lieutenant Daniel Kaffee (Tom Cruise) and his co-counsel, Lieutenant Commander JoAnne Galloway (Demi Moore), are assigned to a murder case, their investigation uncovers a hazing ritual that could implicate high-ranking officials.

U.S. Marines Lance Corporal Harold Dawson (Wolfgang Bodison) and Private First Class Louden Downey (James Marshall) are facing a general court-martial, accused of murdering fellow Marine William Santiago at the Guantanamo Bay Naval Base in Cuba.

Kaffee and Galloway are to determine if higher-ranking officers orchestrated and forced the lower-ranking men to carry out a “code red” order: a violent extrajudicial punishment, and their form of justice, to kill the young victim, thus silencing him forever.

The questionable part of the plot is whether Base Camp Commander Jessup (Jack Nicholson) administered the order or instead ordered Santiago’s commanding officer, Lieutenant Jonathan James Kendrick (Kiefer Sutherland), to merely “train” Santiago to become a better Marine.

This is where the courtroom drama takes center stage with gusto.

As good as Moore, Sutherland, and Marshall are in offering compelling roles, the film belongs to Cruise and Nicholson, the veterans of the group.

The best scenes come at the end of the film as Cruise and Nicholson spar in the courtroom with bombast and trickery.

Nicholson as Jessup is brooding and traditional, a lifelong military man channeling honor and dedication at any cost. Cruise as Kaffee has something to prove and wants to win at any cost. So, they tangle in a fierce machismo way.

When he catches Jessup in a lie, just as a spider captures a fly, the scenes crackle with grit and energy.

The unforgettable line, “You can’t handle the truth!” is uttered by Nicholson.

A Few Good Men will both satisfy and dissatisfy those with a connection or a penchant for the military. On the one hand, the military is celebrated in the film as a model of efficiency in the world, and its decorated appeal is to be admired.

But the film also stands up and questions the hypocrisy of one of the oldest establishments and its male domination and bullying methods, not so different from a classic college fraternity.

The courtroom trial of a patriotic group is serious business.

While not a revolutionary film, sticking to a tried-and-true courtroom drama script seen in television drama series since the beginning of time, A Few Good Men (1992) provides a hefty two hours and twenty minutes of pure entertainment.

Powerful acting across the board makes the film a superior experience and a thought-provoking message of whether unthinkingly following orders without thought is still a relevant approach, not just in the military, but anywhere.

Oscar Nominations: Best Picture, Best Supporting Actor-Jack Nicholson, Best Sound, Best Film Editing

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 story depicts the British controlling India, creating tension 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) and becomes enamored and enraptured, the women accompany him on an exploration of ancient caves 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 successfully and interestingly explores racism and assumptions, leading major characters to disagree. Adela and Mrs. Moore end up at odds after the events, with Mrs. Moore refusing to believe that 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 so is the film’s pure excellence. 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 is advisable to see this film on the largest screen available.

At 164 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 boldly concludes a lengthy and inspired career. While not his best film, it should not detract from the excellent experience it provides.

Grandiose sequences and a sophisticated style make the film worth viewing 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