Category Archives: Drama

Mary Queen of Scots-2018

Mary Queen of Scots- 2018

Director Josie Rourke

Starring Saoirse Ronan, Margot Robbie

Scott’s Review #851

Reviewed January 2, 2019

Grade: B+

A period piece with all the trimmings for brilliance (on paper anyway), Mary Queen of Scots (2018) is a very good film, but its pacing misses the mark, preventing it from being a truly great film.

Fantastic acting and wonderful photography are the high points of an otherwise uneven experience, even if most of the components are intact.

This is not so much a total knock as a light critique, as the film is ultimately quite good and just missing the big oomph to take it over the top.

Saoirse Ronan stars as Mary Stuart, the likable Queen of France, who has returned to her native Scotland to reclaim the throne after her husband dies. Only eighteen years of age, she initially refuses pressure to remarry, but conflict ultimately ensues with Queen Elizabeth I (Margot Robbie), who rules neighboring England and Ireland.

The women admire each other from afar but develop a rivalry in power and love. To complicate matters, religious conflict, scandals, and deceit are also present in the story.

The feminist theme is inspiring and makes the film better than merely a soap opera of two rival females sparring over men.

In the mid-sixteenth century, women in control were hardly commonplace and relatively resented by the men forced to serve the “whims of women,” as one male character puts it.

Constantly showcased are males’ attempts at wooing the women in hopes of gaining power and ultimately the throne.

Still, director Josie Rourke (a woman) keeps the power firmly among the women, showing they can be as tough as they are sympathetic.

Furthermore, Mary Queen of Scots continues its progressive agenda with a startling LGBT subplot, which largely enriches Mary’s image.

One young androgynous male friend, presumably a bodyguard, frolics with Mary and other maids and confesses that he feels more like a sister than a brother to her. She accepts him wholeheartedly with an added message of “being your true nature.”

Later, the character suffers a terrible fate that devastates Mary. Regardless of the accuracy, this is a nice addition with an inspiring message.

The acting, particularly among leads Ronan and Robbie, is fantastic. Both young “it” women in Hollywood, the roles of Mary and Elizabeth, showcase their acting talents and chops for handling period piece roles.

Ronan, with flawless pale skin and authentic red locks, is beyond believable as Mary, who exudes strength yet kindness in the role she tackles. She can be stubborn but also fun and light, and Ronan has no trouble making the role her own.

Hot on the heels of playing the trailer trash character of Tonya Harding in I, Tonya (2017), Robbie hits it out of the park and does a one-eighty with the role of Elizabeth. Insecure and barren, afflicted with a skin disorder and a balding head of hair, the actress infuses the character with sensitivity and composure.

Robbie portrays her insecurity and yearning for unconditional love as she wears bawdy wigs and pancake makeup to hide her affliction.

Rourke’s mistake is not including more scenes of Ronan and Robbie together, save for one treasured scene at the end of the film. This is a wasted opportunity, as the treasured actresses could have played off each other’s talents in innumerable ways.

A knock-down, drag-out fight scene would have been a treasure to view.

The male characters do not leave much impact other than perhaps Lord Darnley (Jack Lowden), Mary’s bisexual second husband. As he betrays her on her wedding night with another man, Mary sees little use for him besides producing a child.

The handsome blonde actor adds some pizzazz, but is ultimately unlikable, as are the other similarly written men. Mary’s half-brother and Elizabeth’s advisor (Guy Pearce) are fine but ultimately underdeveloped.

Mary Queen of Scots (2018) is an effort to be commended for its female-driven and pro-LGBT stances. Perhaps unrealistic given the period and questions of historical accuracy looming over the entire film, problems with the production do exist.

The film ebbs and flows with some high moments and some looming blandness, but overall, it is to be respected and thereby recommended.

Oscar Nominations: Best Makeup and Hairstyling, Best Costume Design

Vice-2018

Vice-2018

Director Adam McKay

Starring Christian Bale, Amy Adams, Steve Carell

Scott’s Review #849

Reviewed December 31, 2018

Grade: A

Following 2015’s The Big Short, Adam McKay once again creates an intelligently written, thought-provoking political film based on facts and historical accounts.

With Vice (2018) he focuses on former Vice President Dick Cheney and his rise through the political ranks to second in command.

Brilliant and wise in every way, the film is fair-minded in its approach. Predictably, in this era of “fake news,” it will be embraced by liberals but shunned by conservatives.

In the first seconds of Vice, a disclaimer appears stating that Cheney was a private man with secrets, but the filmmakers did their best to relay accurate information. The salty language in this clip will likely elicit chuckles, but McKay stays the course with his statement.

Immediately, the film flashes to the September 11 attacks with Cheney sitting in crisis mode, about to make an important decision.

Vice then retreats to 1963 Wyoming as a drunken college-aged Dick Cheney (Christian Bale) is pulled over for erratic driving after a barroom brawl. He is nearly dumped by his girlfriend and future wife Lynne Cheney (Amy Adams), who threatens to find another man if Dick does not straighten out.

He manages an internship and an admiration for Donald Rumsfeld (Steve Carell), a staunch Republican and White House Chief of Staff, and begins his political climb.

In clever form, the film is narrated by a character named Kurt (Jesse Plemons), who we do not know is connected to Cheney until the end of the film. This adds an added measure of intrigue to the overall film, as we know a secret will be revealed.

Vice is also unique in direction, with constant back-and-forth timeline scenes and quirky humor throughout. Are the Cheneys portrayed as ridiculous? No, but sardonic humor is directed at them as their ambitions and power-hungry motivations are completely exposed.

The film does a great job of taking the viewer through the political state of Cheney’s administration, roughly the early 1970s until 2008, when Obama took office. The Clinton years are completely skipped, but that is more to do with Cheney being in the private sector rather than an intentional slight.

The Nixon years and the George W. Bush years are given hefty screen time and the latter is portrayed as nearly a buffoon as Rockwell portrays him as a boozy, dumb frat boy.

Bale is startlingly good as Cheney and deservedly steals the show. In addition to the forty-pound weight gain, the actor endured the facial and hair treatments (props to the makeup department!) and became the man.

His body movements, smile, and speech patterns are daringly good. With a sneer and a calculating grin, we see the wheels spinning in Cheney’s head numerous times, and Bale is incredible at portraying these thoughts to the audience.

The film contains many well-known actors in vital supporting roles worth noting. The depictions of the following are examples of excellent casting with spot-on representations: Tyler Perry as Colin Powell, LisaGay Hamilton as Condoleezza Rice, Sam Rockwell as George W. Bush, Alison Pill as Mary Cheney, and Lily Rabe as Liz Cheney.

All portrayals are excellent to watch, especially for viewers who remember the real-life people involved.

Some will undoubtedly complain that the film has a “liberal slant” and portrays Cheney as power-hungry and self-serving. While this is a valid point, and McKay makes left-leaning choices, the director bravely carves the film into an experience that goes both ways.

More than a few scenes (including the final scene) justify Cheney’s actions, in his mind anyway. Claiming to do what is suitable for the people and be a true American, his actions and yearning for power can be understood to some degree, or perhaps by some people.

Vice (2018) is controversial and undoubtedly divisive, which is unsurprising given the current state of American politics. It tells an inspiring and rich story of an elusive politician’s life and policies, daring to be forgotten, that still resonate across the United States.

The more I ponder this film’s importance, the greater it becomes, but stay past the credits for arguably the best moment in the movie and of monumental importance in 2018.

Oscar Nominations: 1 win-Best Picture, Best Director- Adam McKay, Best Actor- Christian Bale, Best Supporting Actor- Sam Rockwell, Best Supporting Actress- Amy Adams, Best Original Screenplay, Best Makeup and Hairstyling (won), Best Film Editing

Double Indemnity-1944

Double Indemnity-1944

Director Billy Wilder

Starring Fred MacMurray, Barbara Stanwyck

Scott’s Review #847

Reviewed December 26, 2018

Grade: A

Double Indemnity (1944) perfectly epitomizes the classic film noir genre. It contains all the necessary elements, from intrigue, suspense, and unpredictable thrills to schemes and dastardly deeds by the major players.

The on-screen chemistry between leads MacMurray and Stanwyck provides enough romantic flair and provocative moments to entertain all as developments progress when a smitten man meets a femme fatale and a devious plot is hatched.

Director Billy Wilder was one of the most influential directors of his day. This picture was his first effort, and it received fabulous critical acclaim.

The accolades put him firmly on the map for years to come, culminating in an Oscar win in 1960 for The Apartment. Wilder uses a clever insurance “double indemnity” clause as its title, making it one of the best and most influential crime dramas of the 1940s, staking ground for other similarly themed films.

The story is told via flashbacks as a wounded Walter Neff (Fred MacMurray) scrambles to record a confession to his colleague and best friend, Barton Keyes (Edward G. Robinson).

The action rewinds to an ordinary day when Neff makes a routine stop to sell insurance and meets flirtatious Phyllis Dietrichson (Barbara Stanwyck). She brazenly inquires how she ought to take out an insurance policy on her husband’s life without his knowledge.

When Neff deduces Phyllis’s intention to kill her husband, he declines any further help but cannot forget the ravishing beauty and her charms. He ultimately succumbs to her whims and aids her in a wicked crime.

The adventure the audience is taking on is the most fun aspect of the film. We already deduce that Neff is involved in shenanigans, but most of the fun occurs after the murder has been committed and Phyllis and Neff’s scheme begins to unravel.

The added component of Neff’s colleague and close friend, Keyes, being involved as he starts to suspect foul play is equally compelling.

Will he finally realize that Neff is involved in the plot? If discovered, will Keyes cover for Neff? Will Phyllis’s history catch up with her and twist events?

These questions make the film a great picture.

A debate among viewers can ensue whether Neff is sympathetic as this point continues to cross my mind with each viewing. One can safely say that he is seduced by the charms of an eager and aggressive woman, but if he is to blame for the crimes, is she not even more to blame?

As events unfold, sides can be drawn, and characters can be more focused, particularly after Double Indemnity’s startling conclusion.

Neff is not a strong, heroic character. She is relatively weak and easily manipulated by the cagey Phyllis. It is interesting how little time it takes for Neff to succumb to her plot and willingly commit the crime.

In the final act, Neff does show some muscle needed, but this is only because his “goose is cooked,” and he finally realizes the dire nature of Phyllis’s character. However, shouldn’t he have discovered this sooner?

MacMurray and Stanwyck have smoldering chemistry and are a significant film success, keeping the audience invested in the plot. The added measure of the murder victim being relatively unknown to the audience adds a macabre rooting value to the pair.

Wilder never presents the plot as a romantic triangle, and Neff and Phyllis have no other romantic entanglements. The only roadblock is the insurance company and its suspicions about Phyllis.

Wilder adapted the screenplay from James M. Cain’s novella of the same name and spins a potent film noir from these pages. Double Indemnity (1944) is intelligent, sexy, and mysterious, mixing in as much sultry poise as witty dialogue.

The film is a measured success and a highly influential cinematic story thanks to the allure of fine actors and a stunning train adventure.

Oscar Nominations: Best Motion Picture, Best Director-Billy Wilder, Best Actress-Barbara Stanwyck, Best Screenplay, Best Scoring of a Dramatic or Comedy Picture, Best Sound Recording, Best Cinematography, Black-and-White

Beatriz at Dinner-2017

Beatriz at Dinner-2017

Director Miguel Arteta

Starring Salma Hayek, John Lithgow, Connie Britton

Scott’s Review #844

Reviewed December 18, 2018

Grade: B+

Thanks to a well-written screenplay and a thought-provoking idea, Beatriz at Dinner (2017) spins an interesting concept about politics and class systems discussed over dinner.

Salma Hayek and John Lithgow give tremendous performances as characters with opposing viewpoints, helping the film succeed, though a flawed ending and cookie-cutter supporting characters detract from the overall enjoyment.

Set in southern California, presumably around Los Angeles, Beatriz (Hayek) is a holistic health practitioner. Moonlighting as a massage therapist, she becomes stranded at the wealthy home of one of her clients, Kathy (Connie Britton), whom she views as a friend.

Kathy invites Beatriz to stay for dinner, where she encounters real-estate mogul Doug Strutt (Lithgow). The two gradually develop a feud based on their differing politics and viewpoints.

The setup and flow of Beatriz at Dinner are commendable and pace the film nicely. The film is sort of a day in Beatriz’s life. It begins as the character awakens to her pet dogs and goat noisily beginning their day and culminates late at night when the dinner party concludes, and the last glass of wine is consumed.

This way, the film has a nice packaged feel that keeps the story confined and structured.

Being an independent film, the budget is small, and most scenes are shot in a spacious modern house overlooking the Pacific Ocean, which works well. Gorgeous and vast, many rooms are used as conversations among the characters occur, many overlapping each other.

Beatriz at Dinner could have been a play, which helps with the good flow.

Hayek and Lithgow are the main draws as their initial guarded pleasantries progress to venom and violence, albeit primarily imagined.

Initially thinking that Beatriz is the household help, Doug is inquisitive about her entry into the United States and makes numerous insulting gestures, mispronouncing her Mexican hometown and mocking her profession.

Beatriz calmly endures his racism and begins discussions about how his business harms animals and people as emotions escalate. The actors play off each other wonderfully and share chemistry.

With each glass of wine, Beatriz becomes brazen and shares how people in her village lost their land to real estate development. She shares a humanistic viewpoint, while Doug sees life as to be lived while you can.

Despite their dislike for each other’s lifestyles, the film shows Beatriz and Doug at least listening to each other and attempting to understand the other’s opinions, which is more than can be said for the supporting players’ motivations or lack thereof.

Besides Kathy, while sympathetic to Beatriz’s calm demeanor and life-rich philosophies, she also realizes that Doug is her family’s meal ticket.

The other party attendees are written as polite yet uninteresting twits with nothing to talk about except a reality star’s nude photos, dinner, or a handful of other nothing topics.

Chloë Sevigny, Jay Duplass, Amy Landecker, and David Warshofsky have little to do other than stand around and react to the meatier written material that Hayek and Lithgow get to play.

Beatriz at Dinner had me in its corner until the film took a jarring turn during the final act. As Beatriz leaves the party and sets about on her way home, she hastily decides to grab a letter opener and bludgeon Doug to death as the dinner guests hysterically realize what is happening.

Instead of leaving things be, the film chooses to make this only Beatriz’s fantasy and then have her go to the ocean and walk into the waves. Does this mean she commits suicide, or is this another fantasy? This final sequence is unclear and unsatisfying.

I am not sure why Beatriz at Dinner is considered a comedy. Perhaps a mild dark comedy, I argue that the film is a straight-ahead drama and lacks the witty humor that made dinner party-themed films such as Who’s Afraid of Virginia Woolf? (1966) and The Boys in the Band (1970) masterpieces.

Beatriz at Dinner (2017) is a valiant attempt at offering social commentary at a time when discussions like these are needed in films, and the project largely succeeds.

Hayek’s impassioned yet subdued performance deservedly earned her a Female Lead Independent Film nomination. The film’s rich writing garnered a Best Screenplay nomination, too, but a big whiff at the end lowers the overall experience a notch.

Independent Spirit Award Nominations: Best Female Lead-Salma Hayek, Best Screenplay

The Favourite-2018

The Favourite-2018

Director Yorgos Lanthimos

Starring Olivia Colman, Emma Stone, Rachel Weisz

Scott’s Review #843 

Reviewed December 17, 2018

Grade: A

The Favourite (2018) is a deliciously wicked comedy about greed, jealousy, and rage during early eighteenth-century England.

The primary rivalry consists of two feuding cousins, each jockeying for position and “favor” with the Queen, both resorting to dire methods to achieve these goals.

With splendid acting and grand designs, director Yorgos Lanthimos adds to his growing collection of odd and compelling works with the dark comedy offering.

The film takes place during the British and French War of 1708, as a physically and mentally ill Queen Anne (Olivia Colman) rules the country through her confidante and secret lover, Sarah, Duchess of Marlborough (Rachel Weisz).

Though deals and modifications must be made with the ruling Parliament, Anne has the final say in all decisions, including doubling the state tax to pay for the war.

When Abigail (Emma Stone), a distant cousin of the Duchess, and former royalty herself, arrives seeking work as a servant, she quickly plots her way to the bedside of the Queen at all costs.

Lanthimos, known for such bizarre treats like Dogtooth (2009), The Lobster (2015), and The Killing of a Sacred Deer (2017), is not afraid to get down and dirty and wrestle with the macabre subject matter.

The Favourite is the director’s most mainstream affair yet and is quickly becoming one of my favorite modern-day films. As he now charts into royal territory, the possibilities are endless in a world of politics and scheming.

Some morose highlights include an abused bunny, naked tomato throwing, and pheasant shooting.

The film is not kind to animals.

Despite being mainstream for Lanthimos, The Favourite is a bizarre and brazen experience. The film’s numerous award nominations are remarkable, given that not all audiences will enjoy it.

Despite being categorized as a comedy (see more below), the film is not an easy watch, and none of the characters are likable. Abigail is initially sympathetic and quite humorous, but her true colors and motivations are exposed as the plot develops.

Conversely, Anne and Sarah are initially despicable, but garner support as the story evolves.

The comic elements are the best, and clever lines come at a deliciously rapid pace. The best dialogue is the sparring between Sarah and Abigail, as the women realize they are bitter enemies and each attempts to one-up the other in a chess game for Anne’s attention.

Anne, known for fits of emotion, stuffing her face with cake and vomiting, and berating the servants, offers her comic wit. The language is salty, bordering on vulgar, but that makes the experience so stellar and morosely enjoyable.

The musical score adds muscle, and the diabolical string arrangements give The Favourite a gruesome, morbid atmosphere.

The feeling of dread is prevalent and downright haunting at times, as the audience knows that some shenanigans will soon occur, but they do not know when or how.

This quality enhances the overall product and gives ambiance to a superior piece.

Finally, the acting in The Favourite is brilliant and worth the price of admission. This is unsurprising with heavyweights like Colman, Stone, and Weisz, but the gravy is in the individual moments.

The chemistry the women share is what works best, as every scene sparkles with exceptional delivery and a sly sense of humor. When the three women appear together, these are the best scenes.

Deserving of all the accolades lauded upon it, The Favourite is an experience that contains all elements of a fine film, though one that is quite an unconventional work.

With glistening art direction, authentic set pieces, and costumes that would make Scarlett O’Hara drool with envy, The Favourite (2018) takes all of its parts and spins a crafty tale that encompasses the entire film.

Oscar Nominations: 1 win-Best Picture, Best Director- Yorgos Lanthimos, Best Actress- Olivia Colman (won), Best Supporting Actress- Emma Stone, Rachel Weisz, Best Original Screenplay, Best Production Design, Best Cinematography, Best Costume Design, Best Film Editing

Independent Spirit Award Nominations: Best International Film

Downsizing-2017

Downsizing-2017

Director Alexander Payne

Starring Matt Damon, Hong Chau

Scott’s Review #842

Reviewed December 14, 2018

Grade: B

Downsizing (2017) appeared on many critics’ top ten lists for the year, but it did not resonate well with the average viewer. Part of this discrepancy could have been the way the film was marketed.

Despite having Kristen Wiig among its cast, the film is NOT a comedy but a social commentary with some science-fiction and dramatic elements.

Downsizing has a wonderful and thought-provoking premise, but it ultimately fails to piece together all its parts in a completely satisfying way, leaving an erratic and disjointed result.

The elements are all there—a charismatic lead actor (Damon), an inventive, socially relevant premise, and a humanistic and beautiful message.

The film also contains some gorgeous cinematic treats of picturesque Norway that will make one melt if watched on the big screen.

The film has enough positives to recommend without it being truly great.

The story begins as a Norwegian scientist discovers a way to solve the world’s overpopulation state and global warming problems with a discovery that shrinks people, causing them to use few resources.

Paul and Audrey Safranek (Damon and Wiig) decide to undergo the procedure and begin a new life in a gorgeous community designed for small people. When Audrey bails at the last minute, leaving Paul alone, he must forge ahead with a lonely life, unable to be transformed from small to large.

He meets Ngoc Lan (Chau), a Vietnamese activist who, through her selflessness, changes his life forever. Paul realizes he does have a purpose after all.

The film’s positives are mostly in its individual components. It is true that the modern world suffers from overpopulation, and director Alexander Payne paints a dire picture of the eventual result. This gives the film a left-leaning environmental opinion that I relish.

I was immediately engaged in Payne’s humanistic approach and the possibilities of a new world with no suffering and riches for all. Of course, this is not sustainable or realistic, as the film shows.

The romantic dynamic is also a significant win.  The first half features Paul and Audrey as the romantic couple, a likable pair who struggle with bills and care for planet Earth.

Suddenly, this changes and Audrey is discounted from the equation in favor of Paul and Ngoc Lan. An unexpected item, their romance is a slow buildup, seemingly opposite types of people. He is laid-back and thoughtful, and she is brash and outspoken, yet they work wonderfully as a couple.

As a viewer, I became wholly invested in them by the closing credits.

Newcomer Huang Chau (Ngoc Lan) stands out and nearly upstages Damon. The young actress garnered a Golden Globe nomination for this role and deservedly so. There are far too few good roles for Asian actors, so Chau hits the jackpot with this part.

Her character is sympathetic yet tough. Once an outspoken advocate, she endured prison only to lose a leg and be reduced to a house cleaner in her new world.

Payne makes the point that a new society does not equate to joy, which is the film’s crux. At first, the community is lavish with luxurious homes and idyllic surroundings, but when Paul meets Ngoc Lan and sees her world of pain, starvation, and neglect, he is dumbfounded.

This sad reality leads him to make rash decisions about himself and his future.

Where Downsizing misses the boat is with the execution. As strong as the premise is, the story meanders. From Paul and Audrey’s mundane life in Nebraska to the new society to the slums to the introduction of the world ceasing to exist and finally, another world is created, there is too much going on.

The dots never connect, leaving the overall experience of Downsizing erratic.

Christoph Walz deserves a better role than Dusan, an aging Serbian party boy. His character is annoying and a weak attempt at portraying spoiled white men with all the advantages. He is unnecessary and does not work.

Downsizing (2017) is quite a brave effort, with an ingenious premise and a worthwhile message. I recommend the film for these reasons as Payne attempts to tell a story never told before, which is to be championed.

The elements do not add up, and the film lacks a solid structure, but as a whole, it is to be admired for what it intends to do.

Mrs. Miniver-1942

Mrs. Miniver-1942

Director William Wyler

Starring Greer Garson, Walter Pidgeon

Scott’s Review #841

Reviewed December 13, 2018

Grade: A-

Released in 1942 amid the horrific World War II, Mrs. Miniver (1942) was a smash hit, winning over audiences concerned with the troubled and uncertain times.

Decades later, the film does not age as well as other similarly themed films, but still entertains and tells a good story with an important theme.

The film is nestled in the war drama genre with romance. The film won numerous Oscars the year of its release, including Best Picture and star Greer Garson won for Best Actress.

The story is told from the perspective of an affluent British family and the struggles they face to keep things together during growing peril. The focus primarily remains on an unassuming housewife, Kay Miniver (Garson).

The supporting players do much to flesh out the film with fantastic performances by Walter Pidgeon, Teresa Wright, and Henry Travers as Clem Miniver, Carol Beldon, and Mr. Ballard, respectively.

The direction by William Wyler is astounding and adds to the perfectly crafted ambiance and homey details.

The family lives a comfortable life in a whimsical village outside of London. Quite idealized, they own a large garden and a motorboat on the River Thames.

Along with Kay and Clem, their three children of varying ages and their housekeeper and cook reside with them. Besides the parents, the central couple is son Vin (Richard Ney) and the prominent Carol (Wright); the pair initially disagree on politics but finally fall madly in love.

As the soap opera-style family situations continue, the war grows closer and closer to their house.

As Mrs. Miniver progresses, Vin enlists in the army to assist with war efforts, a German Nazi breaks into the Miniver house, a central character dies, and bombs and planes crash.

Through it all, Kay remains stoic and takes the family through challenging situations, adding melodrama to the film. The woman’s journey and resolve to keep everything and everyone intact is at the core.

The film is mainly a family drama with the Minivers and the townspeople experiencing trials and tribulations. In this way, Mrs. Miniver risks being a one-trick pony, albeit an emotional and teary-eyed one.

The film’s rich characteristics and polished nature make it more than it ought to be, and the superlative cast, production values, and timely release undoubtedly made it what it was in 1942.

In present times, however, Mrs. Miniver seems diminished in importance and relevance with a sappy and overly sentimental feel, World War II in the distant past, and several other wars come and gone.

Wyler carefully packaged the film to hit every emotion, from the bombastic musical score to the proper English characters to the comic relief housekeeper.

The film is a giant Hollywood production, but perhaps a bit too perfect to age with any zest or reason to watch more than once.

The film might be better remembered for its strong female lead. Told from Kay’s perspective, it was unusual in 1942 for a movie (especially with a war theme) not to have the story from the male point of view. Still refreshing in 2018, this quality was downright groundbreaking at the time.

Kay stays strong and proud through the ravages of war that are closing in on her family with unbridled boldness and nary a simpering quality. Wright’s Carol is an early champion for strong, female-driven characters, and, in a more minor way, she is also a muscled female role model.

Mrs. Miniver (1942) is a well-crafted film of its time that displays lavish production values and strong characters worthy of admiration.

The film is a significant win for a glimpse of the 1940s, especially for fans of good, solid drama. There are no significant flaws to harp on, but the overall piece has not aged exceptionally well, and other similar films (Casablanca, 1942) are more memorable.

Oscar Nominations: 6 wins-Outstanding Motion Picture (won), Best Director-William Wyler (won), Best Actor-Walter Pidgeon, Best Actress-Greer Garson (won), Best Supporting Actor-Henry Travers, Best Supporting Actress-Teresa Wright (won), Dame May Whitty, Best Screenplay (won), Best Sound Recording, Best Cinematography, Black-and-White (won), Best Film Editing, Best Special Effects

Film Stars Don’t Die in Liverpool-2017

Film Stars Don’t Die in Liverpool-2017

Director Paul McGuigan

Starring Annette Bening, Jamie Bell

Scott’s Review #840

Reviewed December 11, 2018

Grade: B+

Film Stars Don’t Die in Liverpool (2017) showcases a compelling performance by stalwart actress Annette Bening as she plays faded, insecure Hollywood glamour girl Gloria Grahame.

The film focuses only on Grahame’s final two years of life as she battles breast cancer and begins a relationship with a much younger man, Peter Turner (Jamie Bell).

The film is a sad yet poignant dedication to the star, featuring enough performance gusto from its actors to compensate for a limited period. However, there is too much back-and-forth within the timeline, which complicates the film too much.

As a result, Film Stars Don’t Die in Liverpool is endearing but does not hit it out of the park.

The entire film takes place between 1979 and 1981. In 1979, actress Gloria Grahame, with her best days behind her, resides in a rented Liverpool room. She finds some success in local theater and befriends her much younger male neighbor.

The pair become romantic partners and experience trials and tribulations as the film teeters back and forth between Grahame’s ailing final days in 1981 to happier times in Los Angeles and New York. Gloria also befriends and finally lives with Peter’s parents, who care for her unflinchingly.

The story is enveloped in sadness but is not a downer either.

The film begins towards the end of Gloria’s illness, though the audience is not yet aware of her disease’s seriousness. Insisting she has painful gas, the tender relationship between the actress and Peter is explored.

The story begins in 1979 when Peter and Gloria first met. He is an aspiring actor who is unaware of who she is until a bartender makes the connection.

In this way, the film makes it clear that this is not a story about a young man seeking the fortunes of a presumably wealthy woman. I like this point, as the story is about romance, not money-grubbing.

Film Stars Don’t Die in Liverpool belongs to Bening.

The supporting roles are well cast, and they do not diminish Bell’s performance or Julie Walters’s nice turn as Peter’s mum.

However, Bening does wonders emulating Grahame’s mannerisms with an innocent, damsel-in-distress nature (mirroring the roles she made famously).

Bening was amazing at revealing the actress’s insecurities, fear of aging, and older appearance. During a fight, Peter cruelly refers to her as an “old lady,” and we see the comment strike a deadly blow as if she had been physically slapped.

Bening is so good at portraying a myriad of emotions throughout the film.

Another high point comes towards the end of the film. I love how the film connects Gloria and Peter’s earlier argument (and breakup) with a later sequence.

Peter assumes she is carrying on with another man when he learns she has lied about her whereabouts. The haunting reality is later revealed, changing the audience’s perception of the events.

This is good writing by the screenwriters.

To counter the above point, the constant back and forth from 1981 to 1979 and everywhere in between detracts from my enjoyment of the overall film.

Although the film spans only two years, it spends way too much time in multiple locations without enough explanation. Suddenly, G, Loria, and Peter are in Los Angeles having dinner at Gloria’s modest house, and they are in New York City in her lavish Park Avenue apartment.

The film would have been better suited with a straightforward approach chronicling events from 1979 to 1981 in sequence.

Another negative is the omission of any scenes before 1979.

The actress’s career thrived during the 1940s and 1950s, so capturing those earlier days would have been interesting. If the fear was that Bening was too old to pass for a younger Grahame, another actress could have been used for those scenes.

While a clip of the real Grahame winning the Oscar and a few clips of her starring in films are nice, way more time could have been spent on more stories.

Thanks to a brilliant performance by Bening and an emotional story that in large part succeeds, Film Stars Don’t Die in Liverpool (2017) is a win.

The film was not recognized during awards season as initially anticipated. This could have been due to the overly complex timeline, which produced a limiting feeling. The production and writing are excellent but lack greatness.

Green Book-2018

Green Book-2018

Director Peter Farrelly

Starring Viggo Mortensen, Mahershala Ali

Scott’s Review #839

Reviewed December 10, 2018

Grade: A

To be candid, it was not originally on my radar to see Green Book (2018) despite the high regard and the bevy of award nominations reaped upon the film.

From the trailers, and admittedly my assumptions, the production looked somewhat like a Driving Miss Daisy (1989) role reversal with the standard over-saturation and glossy view of racism.

I confess to being wrong in my initial assessment. Green Book is a wonderful film with a multitude of worthy efforts. It successfully crosses the drama and comedy barriers and delivers an astounding message of compassion and benevolence.

Viggo Mortensen and Mahershala Ali exhibit tremendous flair and fine chemistry as an Italian blue-collar driver and an astute African-American classical pianist.

The men travel together in the Deep South circa 1962 on a concert tour requested by the renowned musician despite the dangers of southern racism and prejudice.

Mortensen’s Tony Lip is a struggling New York City bouncer who needs any gig for two months while the club he works for is closed for renovations. Ali plays a sophisticated musician who needs a driver with a measure of toughness, and Tony comes highly recommended.

The two men initially are strangers but form a close-knit bond and a deep understanding of each other as they become better acquainted during their journey.

The first half of the film focuses on Tony.

As viewers, we experience his Italian lifestyle. He possesses a strong family unit and a dedicated wife, Dolores (Linda Cardellini). He loves to eat and won a hot dog eating contest for $50 to pay the rent. He thinks nothing of beating an unsavory character to a bloody pulp if they are out of line and have more than one link to the mafia.

Still, he is a decent man, with a salt-of-the-earth mentality, and loves his family.

“Doc” Don Shirley (Ali) is the opposite of Tony. Raised as a highly gifted musical prodigy, he surrounds himself with high culture, is well-versed in many languages, and is of affluent means. Nonetheless, he is a wounded soul and drinks himself into oblivion each night, frequently deep in thought, pondering life and its problems.

Despite being black, he knows nothing about black culture.

Don is highly uncomfortable in his skin, while Tony is happy with who he is, a significant point that the film hits home on as the men have conflict. Don feels Tony can do much better to educate himself, while Tony sees nothing wrong with being who he is. The men forge a middle ground as they come to respect each other.

Ferrelli does a fantastic job in showing Tony as Don’s protector as he is accosted by rednecks or is caught with another man at the YMCA.

In turn, Don helps Tony write warm love letters to Dolores.

Green Book is a film about friendship and how different backgrounds can result in closeness and respect.

The film is humanistic in its approach to an overall message and is the feel-good film of 2018 without the slightest thread of sappiness or contrived situations. It is best about two real-life men who remained friends until their deaths.

Director Peter Farrelly, known chiefly for silly films such as Dumb and Dumber (1994), finds breakthrough success with Green Book.

The film is mainstream material, but of a sort that can be appreciated for the good it exudes. Don exhibits racism on more than one occasion- Birmingham and Mississippi specifically- but also experiences kindness from other folks.

Worth noting is that Don experiences discrimination and abuse not only from whites but also from blacks. Farrelly avoids the usual stereotypes or elicits humor from them as in the scene where Tony teaches Don to enjoy fried chicken, a foreign food to Don.

A key point of the film occurs early on when Dolores graciously invites two black workers to repair, thinking nothing of treating the men to a refreshing lemonade.

Seeing the empty glasses in the sink, Tony throws them in the trash, not wanting to drink from the same glasses. Is Tony, along with his family, racist or uncomfortable with blacks? Regardless of the answer, they think very differently after the film, which is monumental.

The final sequence of Green Book is teary, heartfelt, and provides a feeling of incredible warmth.

In the tumultuous times of current American history, Green Book (2018) is sentimental and inspirational in a day when racism once again reared its ugly head, thanks to the chaotic political environment.

The film is a lesson in how far we have come as a society, but also in how things have not changed so much and how much further we need to go to create equality for all.

Farrelly creates a timely and wonderful film that everyone can appreciate.

Oscar Nominations: 3 wins- Best Picture (won), Best Actor- Viggo Mortensen, Best Supporting Actor- Mahershala Ali (won), Best Original Screenplay (won), Best Film Editing

Casablanca-1943

Casablanca-1943

Director Michael Curtiz

Starring Humphrey Bogart, Ingrid Bergman

Scott’s Review #838

Reviewed December 7, 2018

Grade: A

Casablanca (1943) is a classic style Hollywood film made during a decade when big studio productions were all the rage. The film may very well be in the top ten creations of its day and a movie that nearly everyone has either seen or is aware of.

A grand romantic World War II drama released at the perfect time, the film contains legendary stars Humphrey Bogart and Ingrid Bergman. It is flawless in nearly every way, as a lavish production should be.

Bogart stars as Rick Blaine, an expatriate who owns a lavish nightclub in Casablanca, Morocco. The film takes place in December 1941, before the United States entered the vicious World War II.

His clientele ranges from French and German officials to refugees attempting to flee the country, fearful of being stuck in a foreign land. Mixed in with the melee of varied characters is Ilsa (Bergman), a former flame of Rick’s, who appears with a new husband, Victor, a Czech leader.

Ilsa begs Rick for help escaping the country, and their romance begins to blossom again.

Through scenes, we see Rick and Ilsa living perfectly in pre-war Paris. They happily co-exist, sharing a happy life, unaware of the conflict and secrets that will emerge in Casablanca two years later.

Victor is initially presumed dead, which leads to Ilsa’s initial freedom and romance with Rick.

Back in Casablanca, Rick has essential letters that will allow the holder to escape the city and be bound for safety in another country. While Ilsa is desperate for these letters, she is also madly in love with Rick, and vice versa, adding a strong romantic element to the film.

Supporting characters are mixed into the plot as desperation and impending doom interplay.

Casablanca is a film with things happening simultaneously, which is a significant part of its draw. From the apparent romance of Rick and Ilsa- the focal point of the story part of the draw are the sub-plots weaved within.

The nasty Nazi Major Heinrich Strasser encompasses the future Third Reich and the devastation this group would ultimately cause. A multitude of supporting characters and extras perfectly flesh out both the cast and the look and feel of the film.

The most interesting character is Rick.

Once idealistic and moral, he has changed, becoming cynical and broken. In this way, the film nearly becomes a character study. The audience sees the change in Rick and slowly realizes he has given the war the culprit.

The final sequence reveals Rick and Ilsa’s fate. Their doomed romance is assuredly no surprise, true to the message. An “unhappily ever after” result was rare in a big studio production and is a testament to the well-written story.

The featured piano number and Casablanca’s “theme song” is the lovely yet melancholy “As Time Goes By.” Beautifully played by Sam (Dooley Wilson), the house pianist and close friend of Rick, the number is instrumental to the plot and specifically to Rick and Ilsa’s romance.

The song is a painful memory of the once-idyllic life the pair shared.

The film’s timing, made in 1941 and released in 1943, is the key to its unrelenting success. American audiences undoubtedly found it identifiable, and the uncertainties of the impending war threatened their current freedoms.

Casablanca was wonderfully marketed in this way, and its compelling nature resonated. Audiences shared Rick’s conflict and “for the greater good” perspective.

Casablanca (1943) is a film that educates, entertains, and romances without exhibiting a shred of pretension. The crisp black-and-white filming and the unique use of light and shadows to reflect the characters’ thoughts make the film lovely and has a lofty budget.

Immersed in the richness are sadness and a timely message about a changed man, a failed romance, and the ravages of war that still resonate decades later.

Oscar Nominations: 3 wins-Outstanding Motion Picture (won), Best Director-Michael Curtiz (won), Best Actor-Humphrey Bogart, Best Supporting Actor-Claude Rains, Best Screenplay (won), Best Scoring of a Dramatic or Comedy Picture, Best Cinematography, Black-and-White, Best Film Editing

Beautiful Boy-2018

Beautiful Boy-2018

Director Felix Van Groeningen

Starring Steve Carell, Timothée Chalamet

Scott’s Review #835

Reviewed November 23, 2018

Grade: A-

Beautiful Boy (2018) tells a humanistic and vital story about the ravages of drug addiction and how the issue affects not only the person with an addiction but the entire family unit. Nestled within the powerful writing is a lovely father/son relationship and the duo’s trials and tribulations over the years.

The film feels pure and honest, with rich storytelling and many good acting performances.

Beginning in the present, David Sheff (Steve Carell) realizes that his son Nic (Timothée Chalamet) has been missing for two days. When Nic finally arrives at the Sheff household, he is strung out and sick.

David suspects Nic has been abusing drugs, and all parties agree that Nic needs professional help and a stint in a rehab facility. However, nobody realizes the depths of Nic’s addiction.

When Nic checks out early and goes on a bender, the film begins to segue back and forth between periods of Nic’s recovery and his many relapses. It also presents scenes of David and Nic’s relationship during their childhood years.

The best parts are the conversations and moments between father and son, and their enduring love. David’s second wife, Karen (Maura Tierney), and Nic’s mother, Vicki (Amy Ryan), are also in the mix.

The screenplay is based on memoirs written by David and Nic Sheff. The chronicles of their journey include triumph and heartbreak over many years as recovery and relapse become frequent parts of their lives, threatening to tear them apart or result in Nic’s ultimate death.

The road to recovery is not an easy path.

Carell and Chalamet wonderfully portray the primary characters, David and Nic. The fact that the actors do not resemble each other is quickly forgotten as their dynamic is emotional and palpable, and they share easy chemistry.

Carell is a strong actor, capable of infusing his character with strength and calm while slowly falling apart at the seams.

He loves his son and wants him to recover, but he finally accepts that he needs to let him go. This moving realization is Carell’s best scene.

Chalamet, boyish and innocent-looking, is perfectly cast. With kind blue eyes and a mop of raven hair, the actor could easily pass for twelve years old. This only enhances the tragedy of youth ravaged by drug abuse.

These qualities are mirrored by those of his girlfriend Lauren (Kaitlyn Dever). She also possesses a fresh-faced, clean look, which strengthens the message.

Ryan’s and Tierney’s performances in what could easily be throwaway “wife roles” must be mentioned.

For a while, I thought Tierney was in a marginal role until she finally had a wonderful scene in which her frustration reached a boiling point. Fuming with rage, she attempts a car chase with Nic, only to finally crumble into tears, realizing how the mess has changed her as a person.

Ryan also sinks her teeth into a teary role, almost blaming herself for Nic’s problems.

The film wisely presents statistics to hit home further, mainly the low percentage recovery rate of most crystal meth users. A single-digit success rate on this note is frightening; the user requires more and more substance to feel anything close to the first high they experienced.

A pivotal scene occurs at the film’s end as David and Karen attend a support group. As they tearfully listen to a woman’s story of the recent death of her addict sister, we are left to wonder if Nic has also died.

Kudos to a powerful cameo performance by actress Lisa Gay Hamilton.

The sunny California setting benefits the film and starkly contrasts the darkness of New York City, where Nic attends school. With multiple exterior shots of San Francisco and Los Angeles, the metropolitan scope is vast and cruel for drug users.

Easily accessible to anyone with the motivation to obtain drugs, the streets of San Francisco are portrayed as hard and drug-infused, mainly when David drives around desperately looking for Nic.

Featuring a story told before but rarely from the family perspective, Beautiful Boy (2018) does what it sets out to do and does it splendidly.

Careful not to soften the challenges and sufferings of the person with an addiction, the devastation they bring to their loved ones is also showcased. The sound and emotional father/son relationship may be the film’s best part.

Boy Erased-2018

Boy Erased-2018

Director Joel Edgerton

Starring Lucas Hedges, Nicole Kidman, Russell Crowe

Scott’s Review #834

Reviewed November 22, 2018

Grade: A

Before I ventured to the movie theater to view Boy Erased (2018), I heard from more than a few folks who decided not to see the film due to the complicated subject matter.

While parts of the film are challenging and the true story stifling, the overall message is poignant and hopeful. The central character is one to be championed.

In other words, while the subject is serious, director Joel Edgerton (who also co-stars) is careful not to make the overall experience dour or wholly downtrodden.

The setting is rural Arkansas, based on Garrard Conley’s 2016 memoir of the same name and taking place as frighteningly recently as 2004.

Our main character is a handsome, popular young man, renamed Jared (Lucas Hedges) for the film.  Interspersed with numerous flashbacks, then back to present times, we see Jared as a high school kid and blossoming as a first-year college student, interested in writing.

He is expected to follow the word of god since his father, Marshall (Russell Crowe), is a respected preacher at their local church, and his mother, Nancy (Nicole Kidman), is a housewife.

Jared’s college experiences are both good and bad. He befriends fellow runner Henry, who ultimately rapes him, and embarks on an enlightening friendship with Xavier, who challenges Jared’s belief in god.

These scenes are preceded by the point of the film, in which Jared admits his thoughts about men to his parents and is sent to a Love In Action gay conversion therapy program. His experiences there are chronicled.

Many scenes involve the treatment the school provides the students (or instead makes the students endure), and Jared’s realization that he is gay and cannot change.

He ultimately questions and challenges the school. The chief therapist, Victor Sykes (Edgerton), teaches that God will not love anyone who is homosexual. In a bit of rich irony, the film reveals that Victor finally denounced his teachings and married a man.

Fellow students’ lives are featured, one suffers a terrible fate as he cannot come to terms with his sexuality, nor can he change.

A comparison to the popular film Love, Simon (2018) is fun to draw.

Both were released during the same year, and both feature a young, popular coming-of-age character who struggles with the repercussions of revealing their sexual preference.

Boy Erased is the heavier of the two, as Love, Simon has many comic elements, but it is worth noting that both are mainstream films garnering large audiences- a win for the LGBT community.

The acting in Boy Erased is flawless and perfectly cast all around.

With Hedges, Kidman, and Crowe in the mix, we know the performances will be outstanding, and all three characters possess their share of empathy.

Jared is the most important character to be concerned about, and Marshall and Nancy are support players. However, the film does not portray either as bad people, which is interesting. They are nurturing towards Jared and want him to be happy.

While Nancy is more instrumental in rescuing Jared, Marshall also comes around in the end, as his son’s sexuality is tougher for him to accept.

The main song used in the film is appropriately named “Revelation” by Troye Sivan. The singer also appears in the film as Gary, a student made to be “cleansed” of his sexuality.  The tune is sentimental, smoky, and acoustic, perfect for the southern setting.

Heartfelt and fraught with meaning, it encompasses Jared’s struggles and strong will to question the school’s motivations, powering through the school’s toxic approach.

As with many recent biographical films telling stories of real-life people, Boy Erased features a young Jared in homemade video clips as the movie begins. This immediately triggers a rooting value for the character as we see the child, cute, happy, and full of life, without a care.

Additionally, the conclusion shows the real adult Jared, Marshall, and Nancy.

Boy Erased (2018) is an important film firmly nestled in a crucial time period for the LGBT community. As LGBT awareness is now commonplace in cinema, this film does not necessarily share a gay character’s “coming out” story but rather depicts a brilliant story of how perilous and repressive being gay can still be for some people.

Jared is the main character who will undoubtedly be a hero to many young people wrestling with their identity.

Isle of Dogs-2018

Isle of Dogs-2018

Director Wes Anderson

Voices: Bryan Cranston, Edward Norton

Scott’s Review #831

Reviewed November 15, 2018

Grade: B+

Anybody familiar with a Wes Anderson production knows what they are in store for, and Isle of Dogs (2018) is par for the course.

With zany narratives and fantastic art direction, the film has a familiar stamp. Most resembling his other notable stop-motion film, Fantastic Mr. Fox (2009), Isle of Dogs offers what is to be expected- an intelligent and odd project by a visionary creative mind.

Anderson provides the film with a timely, corrupt government-type message that strongly resonates in 2018. In this way, Isle of Dogs, while animated, is so much more than a cookie-cutter story or a wholesome film for kids.

The director shows bravery in focusing on the corruption prevalent in today’s world and the fight for justice by ordinary people living under authoritarian control.

Set in dystopian Japan, a recent outbreak of canine flu causes corrupt Mayor Kobayashi to banish all dogs from society to the vast wasteland of Trash Island, where they will live out their days with other ostracized canines.

A brave twelve-year-old boy named Atari, who happens to be the mayor’s nephew, steals a plane and crash-lands on the island to rescue his beloved dog, Spots.

With help from a pack of dogs led by a former stray named Chief, the group sets out to find Spots and ultimately expose the government conspiracy. Obstacles abound as the mayor has sent a robot dog to return Atari and make mincemeat of any dog in its path.

Meanwhile, a professor, Tracy Walker, is on the cusp of discovering a serum as an outspoken American exchange student investigating the conspiracy.

Isle of Dogs is incredibly original and offers bravura visuals. From the lush and bright Japanese culture to the tired and haggard look of many dogs living on the island, the film is a treat for the eyes. The shimmering richness of the city is elegant and feels alive and powerful.

What I admire most about the film is its creativity and the blast of left-of-center storytelling, which blows away most animated offerings of today.

Many contain a robust helping of “cute”, which can turn off a mature viewer. With a target audience of the tween age, what is in it for adults? To sit there with a youngster and pretend to be jovial?

Isle of Dogs is not a crowd-pleaser; it is better than that. Anderson crafts a serious and timely message that begs to be absorbed by the careful viewer.

Assuredly, Anderson cannot escape providing a subtle allegory on an evil leader stirring the pot against the most helpless in our society. This point is timely and well thought out, especially in the tumultuous United States.
Could this be why an American character (Tracy) was added?

As dynamic as Anderson’s creativity is, the story in Isle of Dogs does not always embrace the viewer, and the jarring dialogue is tough to follow.

Standard in his films, the pacing is strange, the conversations between characters are odd, and the film lacks a truly welcoming or warm quality.

Therefore, the film is not an easy watch. And the dogs all speaking English rather than Japanese, with American accents, must be overlooked.

Critics and detractors of Wes Anderson need not see Isle of Dogs (2018) as they will be in store for typical Anderson fare. In addition, those seeking a standard mainstream animated feature will be disappointed.

Those with a more open-minded approach to cinema will revel in the film’s stunning look and the powerful message bubbling under the surface.

Oscar Nominations: Best Animated Feature Film, Best Original Score

Can You Ever Forgive Me?-2018

Can You Ever Forgive Me? -2018

Director Marielle Heller

Starring Melissa McCarthy, Richard E. Grant

Scott’s Review #829

Reviewed November 13, 2018

Grade: A

Can You Ever Forgive Me? (2018) is a biographical drama that successfully provides its audience with sly writing and fruitful chemistry among the lead actors.

A rare dramatic turn for star Melissa McCarthy, she proves that she has the chops as she immerses herself in a role that showcases her acting talent when she is provided a good script. Grizzled, angry, and sometimes depressed, she infuses a character we should hate with gusts of humor and sarcasm, so much so that we fall in love with her.

That is a testament to an outstanding performance.

The film begins in the 1990s in Manhattan, where we meet a once successful but now down-on-her-luck author, Lee Israel (McCarthy). Famous for works now deemed dated, she is angry, boozy, and brazen, certainly not afraid to tell someone off for not holding the door for her or prank-calling a vicious bookstore owner.

We quickly learn that Lee is three months behind on her rent and cannot afford to take her sick, elderly cat to the vet. She fights with her publisher, Marjorie (Jane Curtin), who refuses to advance her $10,000.

As she sits in a bar contemplating her future, she reconnects with an acquaintance, Jack Hock (Richard E. Grant), a flamboyant gay man who once caused a stir at a party for urinating on rich women’s furs.

Lee and Jack are in stitches over the past incident and immediately form a deep bond, though Jack’s unreliability and dishonesty challenge Lee’s patience.

When Lee concocts a scheme to forge letters supposedly written by famous deceased literary people, Jack quickly becomes her accomplice as the two begin to profit.

The film belongs to McCarthy in a challenging role. By all accounts, we should dislike Lee—she attends Marjorie’s parties for the free booze and steals a new jacket from the coat check on her way out.

She distances herself from relationship commitments and alienates most people. But despite these flaws, we adore her and root for her.

When she embarks on a cautious date with quiet bookstore owner Anna (Dolly Wells), she gets through her meal with trepidation, unsure whether to open herself up to another potential suitor.

In McCarthy’s best and most emotionally raw scene, we see her raw collapse in tears when she finds her beloved cat under the couch, dead.

Viewing the feline as her only true friend, she is devastated beyond belief, and McCarthy will pull at the heartstrings in this poignant scene.

Grant is equally as impressive as McCarthy in the central support role. An aging party-boy in a city that can embrace the young and discard the old, he still dazzles with his dashing smile, but his best years are behind him as he still lives a young man’s life.

He flirts with a handsome waiter and still has the charm and humor that have aided him through the past few decades. However, he is also ravaged by decades of abuse, and his luster has become tarnished.

A health secret revealed at the film’s end adds further layers to the character’s complexity and richness.

Beyond the great acting performances, the screenplay, written by Nicole Holofcener and Jeff Whitty, crackles with rich dialogue and fantastic aplomb.

The writers write with confidence and smarts and provide the goods in spades. The proof is in the proverbial pudding as Lee cackles with glee as she types her latest Dorothy Parker forgery in the words of the deceased satirist, writing what she imagines the famous author would write.

These added intelligence touches and quick-witted dialogue make the film fantastic to view.

Can You Ever Forgive Me? (2018) is a fabulous undertaking made spectacular by two actors with bold chemistry. Combined with intelligent writing, a grand yet gritty New York City setting, and an authenticity unrivaled, the film succeeds on all levels.

Heart, drama, compelling situations, and dark, sardonic humor make this a dynamic film.

Oscar Nominations: Best Actress- Melissa McCarthy, Best Supporting Actor- Richard E. Grant, Best Adapted Screenplay

Independent Spirit Award Nominations: 2 wins- Best Supporting Male- Richard E. Grant (won), Best Screenplay (won)

The Grapes of Wrath-1940

The Grapes of Wrath-1940

Director John Ford

Starring Henry Fonda, Jane Darwell

Scott’s Review #828

Reviewed November 8, 2018

Grade: A

Based on the famous novel written by John Steinbeck and released only one year before the film, The Grapes of Wrath (1940) is a superlative offering by director John Ford, known chiefly for Westerns.

The work accurately depicts life for the struggling American family during the Great Depression of the 1930s.

With gorgeous cinematography and a sad yet poignant story, the film is a must-see and a timeless depiction of the perils of life for working-class people in the United States.

Set on the vast plains of Oklahoma, the Joad family has run a successful farm and lived as a thriving family unit for decades- an extended group enjoying their lives.

When the United States suffers from Depression, the Joads’ lives are turned upside down, and they are forced to sell their farm. They decide to traverse the countryside in hopes of the promise of profitable jobs and wealth in faraway California. The Grapes of Wrath depicts the family’s journey as hardship and deaths occur.

When the film was released in 1940, many studios were not interested in bringing the story to the big screen, as some aspects were deemed too left-leaning for conservatives.

The social issues the film delves into are still incredibly relevant today, and Ford wisely dissects not only the poverty that the Joad family suffers but also the psychological trauma and ruination they must endure. What a devastating effect this must have had on families.

The casting is spot-on. A young Henry Fonda was merely an upstart actor in 1940 and successfully exuded a rich, passionate performance as Tom.

Plenty of close-up shots reveal the young man’s quiet pain and desperation and the humiliation of having lost his livelihood. Fonda shares poignant chemistry with the preacher character, Jim Casy (John Carradine), who once was filled with glory but has now lost his spirit and belief in goodness.

Jane Darwell, a famous character-actress, gives a treasured performance as the family matriarch, Ma Joad. The actress won the Academy Award for Best Supporting Actress, deservedly so, as she relays a haggard woman wanting only the best for her family and attempting to hold them together.

Her determined final speech at the film’s conclusion is teary and meaningful. She says, “We’re the people… We’ll go on forever.” Speaking of Oscars, Ford also won Best Director.

The film sees no age but endures as a timeless journey alongside the Joad family. Although it stays very close to Steinbeck’s novel, the story is modified significantly. Perhaps to please studio financiers or provide a more hopeful message, the Joads are left with a positive future thanks to a government-run camp where they finally live.

In the novel, they reside at the camp first but are later reduced to starvation wages.

A monumental scene is when the family drives their battered vehicle to a squatter’s camp for needed shelter. The scene is shot documentary style, with the camera focusing both on the Joads and on the faces of the occupants of the run-down and filthy shacks that they are forced to live in.

We wonder with sadness what the lives of these unfortunate people were like before the Depression.

The Grapes of Wrath (1940) was a humanistic cinematic masterpiece. As a terrible war and otherworldly problems plagued the new decade, the film reminisced about a previous decade fraught with different issues.

The film is one for the ages and should be appreciated by all.

Oscar Nominations: 2 wins-Outstanding Production, Best Director-John Ford (won), Best Actor-Henry Ford, Best Supporting Actress-Jane Darwell (won), Best Screenplay, Best Sound Recording, Best Film Editing

Heidi-1937

Heidi-1937

Director Allan Dwan

Starring Shirley Temple, Jean Hersholt

Scott’s Review #826

Reviewed November 2, 2018

Grade: A-

During the 1930s and 1940s, Shirley Temple was the most prominent and profitable child star around, starring in dozens of films deemed “wholesome” and “cute.”

Heidi (1937) is one of her most popular and best-regarded treasures of earnest and sentimental riches.

The film is forever known in pop culture as the ruination of the 1968 Super Bowl when the Oakland Raiders and New York Jets game was interrupted at a crucial moment due to the film’s scheduled airing.

An interesting side note is that, amazingly, Temple relinquished her Hollywood title with dignity and without scars. She left the scene entirely and became a successful world diplomat.

In an era in American cinema when child stars were treated as property and sometimes like cattle, her relatively healthy exit was a remarkable feat.

The story of Heidi is based on the 1880 Swiss story of the same name. In the title role, Temple plays an orphan living in the cold mountains with her grizzled grandfather, Adolf (Jean Hersholt). At first bitter for being saddled with raising a child, Adolf finally accepts the girl, and he and Heidi become fast friends, exhibiting a warm and tender bond.

Heidi’s self-absorbed aunt ruins the dynamic and whisks the child away to live with a wealthy family. The little girl will be a companion for their disabled daughter, Klara, as Heidi and Adolf are determined to find each other.

Adding drama to the story is Klara’s evil housekeeper and her jealousy of Heidi, leading to attempts to sell Heidi off to gypsies for profit.

By 1937, Temple was beginning to be deemed “too old” for cute roles, but Heidi is one of her best-remembered films, and the actress is in top form.

As one might expect from any Shirley Temple film, musical numbers are included- a dream sequence in Holland culminates with Temple belting out the charming “In My Little Wooden Shoes.”

There are millions of Shirley Temple fans worldwide, but there are also her detractors. Some feel her films are completely dated and that the young star was not as talented as they thought she was.

Admittedly, watching her films approaching the one-hundred-year mark can be peculiar. On the surface, they seem a bit hammy and overly sentimental, but my personal experience elicits a return to childhood days.

Despite being decades before my existence, Shirley Temple films were commonplace in my childhood household.

Heidi is not a groundbreaking cinematic experience or all that deep. What the film does provide, though, is comfort. The audience assuredly must know a film like Heidi has a happy ending, as the child provides warmth and spirit to every person she meets, making their lives better.

Even during peril, the girl has an “awe-shucks” manner of being and makes the best of her lousy situation.

The strongest appeal of Heidi comes from her friendship with Klara, a disabled woman. Klara is kind and naive, unaware of her servant’s jealousy and rage. Helpless, she comes to depend on Heidi, and we root for Heidi to rescue Klara and bring her to a better life.

The film has sappily written all over it but somehow works simultaneously.

Films such as Heidi, the best of all the Temple films, can be watched and enjoyed as an ode to days gone by or a tribute to someone’s grandmother’s favorite film.

Despite being irrelevant and too sappy in today’s modern world, they undoubtedly provide comfort and support to some, which cannot be such a bad thing.

Heidi (1937) can easily be enjoyed because of the film’s popularity and its warm message.

The Insult-2017

The Insult-2017

Director Ziad Doueiri

Starring Adel Karam, Kamel El Basha

Scott’s Review #815

Reviewed October 1, 2018

Grade: B

A Lebanese film nominated for the Best Foreign Language Film Academy award, The Insult (2017) offers its audience what I would categorize as a message film.

A battle of cultures and religions leads to chaos and controversy, culminating in an embattled court case as we also get to know supporting characters.

While the film is above average, it is also too glossy and sometimes plays out more like a television series- with dramatic effects and plot developments for miles.

Still, the film is a worthy watch.

The main character, Tony Hanna (Adel Karam), lives with his pregnant wife, Shirine, in a small Lebanese village. Tony works as an automobile mechanic but is a proud member of the Christian community, attending rallies and events.

His village employs Palestinian refugees to perform maintenance repairs, which irritates Tony. When a verbal altercation with middle-aged refugee Yasser (Kamel El Basha) occurs over a broken gutter, a failed apology results in physical violence as the situation rapidly escalates.

The courtroom drama, while compelling, seems a very familiar story.

Other recent foreign-language films, such as A Separation (2011) and Gett: The Trial of Vivian Amsalem (2014), use similar plot devices of family conflict that end up in the courtroom.

Those films are better written and feel more authentic and raw than The Insult. Throughout the film, I kept telling myself I was not watching a Middle Eastern version of Law & Order, but that is what it felt like.

I felt little sympathy for Tony, and I was unsure if we were supposed to feel anything for him. With his brooding nature and populist attitude, he is initially written as downright unlikeable.

I assume the intent was to soften the character over the film’s length when he briefly comes to Yasser’s aid and helps start the man’s car. However, Tony soon reverts to his original stubborn nature.

Yasser is a much more likable fellow, albeit with a temper. Hurling curse words at Tony is why the tension between the two men begins in the first place, and attempted apologies only lead to miscommunication between everyone.

But Yasser gets my vote for the most compassionate character.

In the supporting roles, an interesting (though perhaps not completely necessary) side story exists as the embattled lawyers are revealed to be father and daughter.

The major problem with The Insult is that the entire story seems plot-driven, and each step is created to create a way to build or add tension.

For example, a speeding motorcycle angrily side-swipes Tony and his wife.  The partners are then in peril because their daughter is born prematurely due to stress.

Situations and tensions could have been quickly resolved or smoothed under different circumstances. Therefore, despite some good drama, the tone of the films feels less than authentic and manipulative.

Still, the writing team introduces the audience to the turbulent world of Middle Eastern politics in a way that undoubtedly results in thought-provoking views and exposure to opposing ideas.

The film also provides a distinct hopeful slant at the conclusion to avoid sending a dour message. The direction is that people can come together as one peaceful group, but it will not be easy.

The Insult (2017) is not a bad watch. It compels the viewer to witness a fascinating story of differing cultures and warring religious beliefs churning two men inside out when faced with conflict.

The film also does a fine job of emitting a peaceful message of coming together as human beings.

An overall rating of “B” is a nice score. Still, given the dozens of potential Best Foreign Language finalists, I am not sure the film entirely “cuts the mustard” for me- indeed, there were superior entries.

But then, this Oscar category’s nominating process has always been a mystery.

Oscar Nominations: Best Foreign Language Film

The Square-2017

The Square-2017

Director Ruben Östlund

Starring Claes Bang, Elisabeth Moss

Scott’s Review #814

Reviewed September 28, 2018

Grade: B+

The Square (2017) is an eccentric, highly interpretive Swedish-language film that does not always make perfect sense, as a more mainstream film would.

This is both a positive and a negative, as the film’s ultimate message is admirable, though some parts are perplexing and downright bizarre.

The film was undoubtedly commended for its bravery and cutting-edge approach and received an Oscar nomination for Best Foreign Language Film—subsequently, it lost to A Fantastic Woman (2017).

The film’s primary setting is the X-Royal Art Museum in Stockholm, Sweden. The action centers mainly around the museum’s new creative director, Christian (Claes Bang), attempting to introduce a new installation called “The Square.”

A misunderstanding with a youthful public relations firm hired to make the exhibit as accessible as possible leads to controversy.

The film also interjects various subplots that are generally interesting but do not always make logical sense.

Bang is quite compelling in the lead role and the film’s best part for me. He is charismatic and a good father to his two daughters. He helps people experiencing homelessness- even going so far as to help a young woman when nobody else will, only to find his wallet stolen- an unfortunate victim of a scam.

Furthermore, Christian’s desire to create “The Square” is humane and admirable- a safe zone for trust and compassion. The character is a good guy but is also concerned with his status.

Common themes of satire and human beings’ natural hypocritical nature abound. For example, in one scene, Christian, proud to drive his flashy Tesla car and give money to the homeless, is afraid to be seen in a run-down apartment house.

Later, a man with Tourettes syndrome disrupts an interview at the museum and is looked down on by “open-minded people” as a result. The latter scene is quite amusing as the man erupts with various expletives at the most inopportune times.

My favorite sequence occurs approximately midway through the film. As bizarre as the scene, it is riveting in its momentum and bravery.

When a group of well-dressed museum members gathers for a lavish dinner to watch a human art show, a bare-chested man who only grunts emerges and slowly antagonizes guests.

He begins pulling one woman’s hair while chasing an angry man from the hall. This scene is shocking, intense, and thought-provoking.

But what the scene means is perplexing.

A treat for me was viewing the famous Stockholm museum’s frequent interior and exterior scenes- which I was privy to have visited in 2016.

This experience was so fresh that it brought back wonderful memories of not only the museum but also the gorgeous city of Stockholm itself.

The chemistry between Christian (who is Swedish) and an American reporter, Anne (Elisabeth Moss), does nothing for the film. It feels wholly disjointed and unnecessary, and there is little connection between the two characters.

Engaging in a one-night stand, the duo has a dispute about a used condom. Does Christian think that Anne is desperate enough to use his sperm and impregnate herself? The resulting spat between the two seems meaningless.

The Square (2017) is a very tough film to review.

Oftentimes disjointed and impossible to make heads or tails of, one would be wise to simply “experience” the film on its own merits. I am not sure.

I mainly need to view it again and try to figure out the plot because I am uncertain if that was the intent of director Ruben Oslund.

Having directed the wonderful Force Majeure (2014), a more straightforward and superior film, The Square is worth a watch in its own right.

Oscar Nominations: Best Foreign Language Film

The Wife-2018

The Wife-2018

Director Bjorn Runge

Starring Glenn Close, Jonathan Pryce

Scott’s Review #809

Reviewed September 8, 2018

Grade: A

Swedish director Bjorn Runge crafts a nearly flawless film in The Wife (2018), which elicits a perfect performance from its star, Glenn Close.

The film may be a standard drama, but the performances are the star attraction here. Along with Close, Jonathan Pryce, along with many of the supporting players, deserves his share of kudos.

But the film unquestionably belongs to Close as she plays an overlooked wife with subtle intelligence and enough simmering fury and resentment to astound and compel audiences.

Professor Joe Castleman (Pryce) and his wife, Joan (Close), live charmingly in upscale Connecticut. Joe is an acclaimed author and has just been notified that he will soon be awarded the Nobel Prize in Literature.

As Joe and Joan excitedly jump up and down on the bed in celebration, there is something not altogether joyous about Joan.

Parties are thrown, and Joe and Joan, along with their son David (Max Irons), an aspiring author himself, fly to Stockholm, Sweden, for the coveted ceremony. Joe is flocked with attention while Joan is cast on the sidelines—secrets eventually bubbling to the surface through a nosy reporter, Nathaniel Bone (Christian Slater), who digs into Joe and Joan’s past.

The prime setting of Stockholm is a great plus, adding a cultural and cold vibe to the story. The snowy and blustery Scandinavian locale, with some characters of European descent, brings richness to the film.

The scenes of characters sipping brandy or other warming spirits while a bristling fireplace erupts in the background add good texture.

Close is one of the finest actresses of our time and portrays Joan with refined restraint at every turn. Yes, we know that something is bothering Joan, but we do not know what that is. Close is one of those talents whose face tells so much while she can utter so little, and for a good one-third of the film, this is all we have.

What is wrong with her? Why does she act happy for her husband and do her tasks seamlessly, but harbor rage bubbling beneath the surface?

Slowly, with the help of numerous flashback scenes, we learn how Joe and Joan met- he a young professor in the early 1960s, and she a naive student with delusions of grandeur of becoming a female novelist. She quickly learns how difficult this will be to achieve as she babysits Joe’s young kids, slowly falling in love with the married man.

From flashbacks, we learn more about Joe and Joan’s emotions, aspirations, and limitations. We also learn that Joe has always had a wandering eye for other women—after all, wasn’t Joan “the other woman”?

Back in the present day, a restless Joan needs a day to herself in the bustling city before she explodes at Joe. Before she can head out, she is talked into a drink by Nathaniel, who cagily reveals much of what he knows to Joan.

The scenes between Close and Slater crackle with passion. Is he flirting with her or attempting to get her to buckle under from compliments and booze? Close is purely in control of Joan’s emotions here, but so much is written on the actress’s face.

It is mesmerizing to watch her calm demeanor border on cold and calculated in her responses to Nathaniel’s questions.

Joe and Joan’s son David play key roles in all of this. As with Joan, David harbors resentments towards his father, but his rage is more blatant. He yearns for his father’s approval of a newly written story and is angry with every comment his father makes.

Is he simply experiencing jealousy over his father’s talents?

When David learns a secret, events get good, culminating in a fantastic blowup scene between the three characters in a hotel room, at simply the worst possible time.

Pryce must be given props for playing Joe with much complexity. Partially sympathetic and partially unforgivable, he elicited a mixed reaction from me. Not one to mistreat Joan, he sings her praises from one toast to another.

A cad, he is also a narcissist, yet he does adore and think the world of Joan, so they share a complex love.

The Wife (2018) is an excellent film that appreciates the talents of its cast.

Stalwarts such as Pryce, Slater, and newcomer Max Irons flesh out the supporting roles, which only enhances Queen Bee Close’s bravura performance.

I have always thought there would never be any way Close could rival her breathtaking portrayal of dastardly Alex in Fatal Attraction (1987), but she sure comes close in The Wife.

Oscar Nominations: Best Actress-Glenn Close

Independent Spirit Award Nominations: 1 win- Best Female Lead-Glenn Close (won)

BlacKkKlansman-2018

BlacKkKlansman-2018

Director Spike Lee

Starring John David Washington, Adam Driver

Scott’s Review #802

Reviewed August 14, 2018

Grade: A

Spike Lee’s latest offering, BlacKkKlansman (2018), is a brilliant effort and oh so timely given the tumultuous political climate in the United States in 2018.

Despite the film being set in the early 1970s, the racial issues and tensions that Lee examines are sadly still an enormous problem today. Lee infuses some humor and even romance into the drama, so the film is not too preachy or heavy.

A grand and relevant effort that all should watch.

As the film commences, we are treated to a clip from the 1939 classic Gone With the Wind, and BlacKkKlansman concludes with prominent clips of racial tensions circa 2017.

The timeline is crucial and influential, as the film clearly demonstrates that racism is still alive and well.

Lee, a known liberal, clearly puts a left spin on his work. BlacKkKlansman will likely not be seen by conservative filmgoers, which is sad, as valuable lessons can be learned by viewing this piece.

The story is based on a true story memoir written by Ron Stallworth, the first black police officer to be hired by the Colorado Springs police department. He successfully infiltrates the local chapter of the Ku Klux Klan with startling results.

The film begins with a speech by a doctor (Alec Baldwin) offering a “scientific explanation” of white superiority in 1957. Fast-forward to the early 1970s, where the rest of the film occurs.

Ron is initially hired by the police force as part of a progressive initiative for diversity, but he quickly moves into a detective role. He manages to pose as a KKK member via telephone while another detective, Flip Zimmerman (Adam Driver), goes to meetings in person.

Lee’s focus is clearly on the overall content and message of the film, and therefore, little character development is achieved. I admittedly did yearn to know the “hows ” and ” whys” of many of the characters, but the film is not really about the characters individually, and I am okay with this.

Why did Ron desire so much to become a police officer? What was his childhood like? How did Patrice become President of the black student union? What was her childhood like? What upbringings did some of the KKK members have?

Indeed, not enough time would have been allowed to answer these questions—minor gripe.

Lead actor John David Washington, son of Denzel Washington, was unknown to me before watching this film. He is tremendous in his role, as is Driver in his supporting role of Zimmerman, but again, these are not character-driven roles.

Washington has tremendous chemistry with his love interest, played by Laura Harrier. Ron and Patrice discuss politics and dance the night away, but she is an activist and a cop, making their chances of a happily ever after tough to imagine. Their romance is atypical of most films as it is based on intelligence and not silly, melodramatic aspects.

On the acting front, Topher Grace as the racist David Duke is tremendous. With a kindly demeanor mixed with a bubbling under the hatred of blacks and Jewish people, Lee makes sure he is the foil.

A delicious scene towards the end of the film, when Duke gets his comeuppance of sorts, is well done and received a thunderous roar from the theater audience.

Lee is careful to ensure the bad guys get their just due and are all portrayed as complete fools. With a false sense of nationalism, many hate minorities simply because they feel they are taking over their beloved country.

Not to harp on this, but BlacKkKlansman will attract those who already agree with Lee’s beliefs and politics. If only those who disagree would give the film a chance. Unlikely.

The final five minutes of BlacKkKlansman arguably are the most pivotal experience of the entire film, but they have nothing to do with the actual story portrayed in the rest of the production.

Lee concludes the 1970s portion of the film satisfyingly, then fast forwards to the horrific events that took place in Charlottesville, Virginia, in 2017 when protesters clashed with a racist group, resulting in an innocent woman’s death.

The controversial remarks of President Trump, refusing to cast blame on the racist group, are shown. Sitting in a crowded movie theater, these clips had the most significant reaction from the audience, with some flipping Trump the finger, while others sobbed in anguish and disbelief that we have achieved so little as a nation.

Rarely has a more pertinent or meaningful film been made for the current political climate in the United States. BlacKkKlansman (2018) brilliantly ties racism spanning one hundred and fifty years together and shows how it still exists.

Amid this message, however, lies a great drama containing humor and importance.

Oscar Nominations: 1 win-Best Picture, Best Director-Spike Lee, Best Supporting Actor-Adam Driver, Best Adapted Screenplay (won), Best Original Score, Best Film Editing

Mystic River-2003

Mystic River-2003

Director Clint Eastwood

Starring Sean Penn, Tim Robbins

Scott’s Review #801

Reviewed August 10, 2018

Grade: A

Mystic River (2003) is a film that I consider to be the second-best offering directed by Clint Eastwood.

Along with Million Dollar Baby (2004), Eastwood successfully creates two compelling back-to-back dramas, not too dissimilar from each other.

He was unquestionably the “it” director of the early 2000s, and with Mystic River, helms a gritty, mystery drama with a stellar cast, nuts-and-bolts storytelling, and enough twists and turns to keep the audience guessing and ultimately shocked.

All of these pieces result in a memorable experience.

The film is based on the novel of the same name, written by Dennis Lehane. A tremendous element is a locale of Boston, and an Irish, blue-collar/working-class theme, prevalent throughout the story.

Thanks to the cinematography, illuminating a grey and stormy look, enhances the rest of the film. I adore films shot in and around Boston as so much culture and flavor are provided.

Eastwood hardly misses a beat with some cold and grizzled touches that play into the hardships and struggles of the character’s everyday lives.

The story itself begins as we meet the central characters (Jimmy, Dave, and Sean) as young boys, a three musketeers-type scenario where they are like blood brothers. After an incident occurs where Dave is accosted by men and sexually abused, he is ultimately rescued after four torturous days, but his life is never the same.

Fast forward twenty-five years and the boys are now men, still living in a working-class Boston neighborhood. Each is now married, their lives have moved on, drifted away from each other, and contain vastly different personality types.

They reunite after a tragedy occurs.

For starters, a major win by Eastwood is the casting of each of the male characters. Sean Penn plays Jimmy, the volatile ex-con, who runs a small store, while Sean, played by Kevin Bacon, has become a Massachusetts State Police officer, putting him directly at odds with Jimmy.

Sadly, Dave (Tim Robbins), now lives a quiet life, still harboring trauma, shame, and guilt from his childhood experience. When Jimmy’s daughter (Emmy Rossum) is brutally murdered, the three friends’ lives are intertwined as they search for the killer taking the viewers down a dark path filled with secrets, some from the past.

Laura Linney and Marcia Gay Harden give tremendous performances as Jimmy’s and Dave’s wives, respectively.

Mystic River is a film where all of the great elements come together perfectly. From the acting to the components of the story to the whodunit involved, to the exciting twist and conclusion to the overall film are truly exceptional.

But what sets it apart from a standard drama or thriller are the characterizations and relationships among these characters.

Childhood memories can last a lifetime in their monumental importance and this is evidenced many times between Jimmy, Dave, and Sean. Blood brothers, yes, but when tragedy strikes, old wounds and fresh wounds together run deep.

The themes of violence and revenge are firm staples of this film, and these are commonalities for many Eastwood films. Viewers may also find themselves conflicted with whom to sympathize with or where their allegiances should lie.

Jimmy, the anti-hero, will garner sympathy for the vicious loss of his daughter- pain that can never be fully healed.

Did Dave, the obvious prime suspect, kill the girl? If so, was it on purpose or by accident? Are others, specifically his wife, involved in a cover-up? Eastwood carves the setup spectacularly, but is it a simple red herring? These events make the film unbelievably compelling.

Fabulous is the performances all around, but especially by Penn and Robbins, both awarded with Oscar wins for Best Actor and Best Supporting Actor, respectively.

Penn never delivers poor performance, but Jimmy is one of his best characters yet. As for Robbins, he fills the character of Dave with empathy- a wounded bird left damaged through no fault of his own, suffering a terrible fate due to circumstances, misunderstandings, and ultimately tragedy.

Mystic River (2003) watched alongside Million Dollar Baby (2004) would make for an excellent Saturday night for fans of Clint Eastwood’s directorial talents. These two are the best of the best with great character development and rich writing.

The direction, however, enhances the spectacular elements and takes it a bit further providing appropriate texture and a wonderful atmosphere.

Oscar Nominations: 2 wins-Best Picture, Best Director-Clint Eastwood, Best Actor-Sean Penn (won), Best Supporting Actor-Tim Robbins (won), Best Supporting Actress-Marcia Gay Harden, Best Adapted Screenplay

Crash-2005

Crash-2005

Director Paul Haggis

Starring Matt Dillon, Thandie Newton, Don Cheadle

Scott’s Review #799

Reviewed August 3, 2018

Grade: A-

A superior film that has unfortunately suffered greatly after controversy, Crash (2005) is a story of intersecting vignettes all interrelated.

The controversy stems from the film’s very surprising Oscar win over the heavily favored Brokeback Mountain. Many thought the latter was a shoo-in, poised to set the LGBT genre ahead of the game.

Sadly, now when Crash is discussed by film lovers, it’s usually in tandem with Brokeback, and usually on the heels of its having stolen the Oscar crown.

On its own merits, the film excels as a social story exploring the many facets of race, racism, and bigotry.

The events in Crash take place within one thirty-six-hour day in metropolitan Los Angeles. Featuring a slew of characters that would even impress Robert Altman, the audience witnesses situations involving many races and backgrounds.

We meet Rick and Jean Cabot (Brendan Fraser and Sandra Bullock), a white affluent couple who are carjacked when driving home from dinner. The black men who carjack the couple then strike a Korean man and bring him to the hospital.

A racist police officer, John Ryan (Matt Dillon), cares for his troubled father who cannot afford insurance. A Persian father and daughter wish to buy a gun for protection, and a Hispanic father (Michael Pena) worries about a rash of drive-by shootings.

The stories go on and on as a myriad of the characters come into situations involving other characters.

The interconnecting stories all cascade into overlapping situations of interest. The point of Haggis’s film is racism but with a creative twist.

The director points out and shows that those who are racist have good qualities too and those who are discriminated against in turn discriminate against others themselves.

The most interesting character is Dillon’s, John Ryan. On the surface a racist, wise-ass, who in one scene embarrasses an affluent light-skinned black woman (Thandie Newton), simply because he carries a gun, then ends up saving her life in a horrific car accident.

But is he redeemed? Does he see the world as black people getting ahead and he is left behind? What about the Persian man, discriminated against, but then vowing revenge on a Hispanic man after a misunderstanding?

The black men who carjack the white couple then release a group of immigrants who will surely be sold, perhaps even for sex trafficking. Does this act make the men good?

The point that Haggis makes is that each character is neither all good nor all bad, but rather complicated and nuanced with emotions based on past experiences and discrimination themselves.

Crash is highly similar to Traffic (2000) and Babel (2006) in terms of pace, style, and the way the stories align. The film is different, however, in that the location is strictly confined to Los Angeles, making the setting of monumental importance.

How would events be different in a setting like Middle America? Or in a different country? These possibilities are worth contemplating based on the perception that Los Angeles is one of the most diverse cities in the United States. If racism occurs there it can occur anywhere.

Now more about that pesky Oscar controversy! In later years critics would largely agree that the inferior film had won that year and Brokeback Mountain lost due to a level of homophobia on the part of the voting academy.

Since the academy is filled with Hollywood liberals, albeit of an older generation, an alternative way of thinking is that perhaps Crash won because it was the “safer” film.

Everyone seems to have forgotten the other three nominated films that year. Alas, Crash is permanently marred for winning Best Picture. It would undoubtedly have more supporters had it lost.

Ranked as one of the lowest-scoring Best Picture winners, I still believe Crash has some worth- though I agree that it should not have won over Brokeback Mountain.

Taken on its own merits the film is quite good. A message film with great atmosphere, it succeeds in making the viewer think and ponder perhaps their discrimination, whether conscious or subconscious.

The ensemble acting and character representations are all very good and worthy of a second watch.

Oscar Nominations: 3 wins-Best Picture (won), Best Director-Paul Haggis, Best Supporting Actor-Matt Dillon, Best Original Screenplay (won), Best Original Song-“In the Deep”, Best Film Editing (won)

Independent Spirit Award Nominations: 2 wins-Best Supporting Male-Matt Dillon (won), Best First Feature (won)

Million Dollar Baby-2004

Million Dollar Baby-2004

Director Clint Eastwood

Starring Clint Eastwood, Hilary Swank, Morgan Freeman

Scott’s Review #798

Reviewed August 2, 2018

Grade: A

Million Dollar Baby (2004) is arguably Clint Eastwood’s best-directed film of his career.

Rivaling Mystic River (2003) by a hair, the film has a raw emotional appeal, empathetic and richly carved characters and mainstream sensibility.

These combined elements resulted in huge box office success and Oscar wins for Picture, Director, Actress, and Supporting Actor in the year of its release.

Frankie Dunn (Clint Eastwood) is a hardened boxing coach who owns a run-down Los Angeles gym. He works with his best friend and assistant, Eddie (Morgan Freeman). When an aspiring female boxer, Maggie (Hilary Swank), arrives and begs Frankie to train her, he initially declines, but at Eddie’s urging, eventually relents and leads her to great success as a top female boxer.

Frankie and Maggie forge a close-knit, father/daughter relationship, a substitute for the damaged one he has with his daughter.

The final portion of Million Dollar Baby takes a very dark turn, as Maggie is illegally punched during a fight by a fellow boxer, causing her to become a quadriplegic. These events are what change the tone of the film from a very good sports drama to a great tale of morality.

Many emotions and debates transpired after this film was released and the common question of, “What would you have done?” engulfed viewers for months, all through awards season.

The heartbreaking effects of the story events raise the film head and shoulders above most typical sports films.

Too often Eastwood creates films that are palpable, but in a way generic, and very Hollywood. Grand Torino (2008) and Invictus (2009) are good examples of this- especially Invictus given the sports drama element.

Some assumed that Million Dollar Baby was to be a female Rocky (1976) and the film was indeed marketed as such. For this reason, some felt robbed or duped, but I celebrate this film as leaning a firm left of center with a refreshing, progressive approach.

The performances are amazing all around, even by Eastwood- never known for his acting talent. The characters are written as character-driven, but not caricatures. Wounded, grizzled, and flawed, in his senior years, Frankie sees his life has passed him by, having achieved nothing.

Never has Eastwood portrayed a character as complex and reserved as Frankie.

Swank deserved her second Oscar (1999’s Boys Don’t Cry was her first) for simply becoming a boxer- her pre-filming prep schedule reportedly was insane. More than the muscle and toning she achieved, are the raw acting talent and wounded emotions she possesses.

The character is written as pained and vulnerable, but also very strong. She has achieved little in her life- working as a waitress in Missouri and stealing scraps of leftovers to survive. Her family is trash through and through, only wanting her eventual riches for themselves.

The character is inevitably championed as we empathize with her plight emotionally.

Finally, Freeman deserves recognition for being the ultimate supporting actor. Eddie Dupris, a former fighter blind in one eye, is the center point of the story and frequently narrates the actions of others, oftentimes offering a glimpse into the psyche of individuals.

The voice of reason, he is observant and analytical, almost knowing Freddie better than Freddie knows himself. They quarrel and disagree, but are forever friends and loyal to a fault. Freeman possesses quite a reserve as the audience becomes curious about his past life.

Million Dollar Baby (2004) is Eastwood’s best film- Mystic River comes a close second, however. A seemingly formulaic story and genre are weaved into a web of humanism, emotions, and power.

The film is about the characters, which makes it succeed.

Eastwood has not been able to quite surpass this beautiful story, but thankfully received dripping praise and accolades for a film not soon forgotten.

Oscar Nominations: 4 wins-Best Picture (won), Best Director-Clint Eastwood (won), Best Actor-Clint Eastwood, Best Actress-Hilary Swank (won), Best Supporting Actor-Morgan Freeman (won), Best Adapted Screenplay, Best Film Editing

Babette’s Feast-1987

Babette’s Feast-1987

Director Gabriel Axel

Starring Stéphane Audran

Scott’s Review #796

Reviewed July 27, 2018

Grade: A

Babette’s Feast (1987) is a pure delight for any viewer who is a foodie, particularly of stylish French cuisine.

In fact, during the final thirty minutes or so I was salivating with pleasure as a final multiple-course meal was presented before me. The film is rich with “flavor” and tells a wonderful tale of self-sacrifice, benevolence, and good human nature.

The film won the Oscar for Best Foreign Language Film- the very first Danish film to do so.

Adapted from a 1958 short story, Babette’s Feast tells of two elderly and deeply religious Protestant sisters, Martine (Birgitte Federspiel) and Phillipa (Bodil Kjer), who exist in a small village in Denmark.

The sisters have lived there all their lives and, through flashbacks, it is revealed that each had an opportunity for romance with men decades earlier, as young and fresh young ladies. Each resisted the temptation due to the deeply religious beliefs of their disapproving father.

When a delightful French woman, Babette (Stephane Audran), appears on their doorstep with a note from Phillipa’s potential beau, the kindly women take her in.

Babette is a refugee fleeing Paris and offers to serve as the sister’s housekeeper. Babette is filled with life and a passion for cooking and art- largely contrasting the townspeople, who frequently shun pleasures and harbor reserved and repressed feelings for joy.

When Babette wins the lottery and is assumed to depart back to Paris, she instead offers to make the town a lavish, classic french meal.

The film is a pure treat, especially in the final act when Babette decides to prepare an exquisite meal. This is the true highlight of the film and the menu simply must be listed below to wholly appreciate the film.

As each course is served, the film depicts the cooking process, as spices, salts, wines, and reductions are featured, so much so that we wonder, who made such a gorgeous meal when filming transpired? Audran, known to be a gourmet, must have adored this fabulous and creative role!

In order, Babette’s delicious feast consists of turtle soup served with Amontillado sherry, buckwheat pancakes with caviar and sour cream served with Veuve Cliquot Champagne, quail in a puff pastry shell with foie gras and truffle sauce served with Clos de Vougeot Pinot Noir, an endive salad, rum sponge cake with figs and candied cherries served with Champagne, assorted cheeses and fruits served with Sauternes, coffee with Vieux marc Grande Champagne Cognac.

My mouth is watering and my stomach growling as I write this!

Wisely and poignantly, the film heralds the return of Martine’s longtime admirer, Swedish officer Lorens, who escorts his elderly aunt to the dinner. The other dozen or so dinner guests agree not to fuss or voice any reactions to the meal, but Lorens is different.

With each serving, he comments in explicit detail the pleasures of the tastes and fondly recollects an experience with each course. He speaks for the rest of the guests as we see their reactions and the pleasures they exhibit non-verbally.

Tenderly, Lorens confessed that he had never forgotten Martine, and she the same for him. Despite not having seen nor heard from each other in decades, their connection has never wavered, and thus have spent their lives as one.

What a lovely and powerful scene this is and adds romanticism and elegance to the overall film.

The lighting is effective as many scenes seem to bask in an illuminating glow. The whimsical village is well lit with many soft or muted scenes exuding elegance and grace in the tiny living community.

The costumes and styles are meaningful and make the period of the 1800’s realistic. This adds a tremendous amount to the look and texture of Babette’s Feast.

The overall themes of Babette’s Feast (1987) are ones of kindness, forgiveness, enjoyment, and honesty. The characteristics are brought to life by the characters in the film, rich with flavor and taste, and all experienced through the importance and pleasures of food.

What a magnificent piece of film making this work is and the enormity of riches through good dining.

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

Transamerica-2005

Transamerica-2005

Director Duncan Tucker

Starring Felicity Huffman, Kevin Zegers

Scott’s Review #795

Reviewed July 25, 2018

Grade: A

Transamerica (2005) is a brave and topical independent drama effort. By 2005 the LGBT genre was in full force with a multitude of similarly themed films gracing silver screens everywhere.

One prominent mainstream production (Brokeback Mountain-2005) was in theaters everywhere. So in a year celebrating diversity, how wonderful and touching to witness a film focused on a transgender woman come into play.

Mixing drama with some needed humor, the film succeeds in large part because it does not take itself too seriously, never becoming too preachy, it merely tells a story. The film’s brilliant casting of Felicity Huffman in the role of a pre-op male to a female transsexual is a success as the decision to cast a female rather than a male in the important role pays off in spades.

The premise allows for a story of both adventure and humor as the film mixes an important issue.

A transgender woman, Bree (Huffman) decides to go on a road trip with her long-lost son, Toby (Kevin Zegers). The intrigue is that Toby is unaware that Bree is both transgender and his father, the fun coming by way of the relationship between the individuals. Adding to the setup is that a week before Bree’s scheduled operation, she has no idea who Toby is.

Encouraged by her therapist, Bree decides to throw caution to the wind and travel to pick up her son- however, does not realize that Bree (being transgender) is his real father. Talk about complicated material!

I love the overall message of the film; the theme being one of self-discovery and a personal journey toward happiness. These qualities do not only apply to Bree but also to Toby. Being a teenage boy, abused and neglected, he has his share of issues, which the film does not skirt over.

The areas of male prostitution and gay porn are featured and the film does its best not to shy away from these sensitive matters.

Therefore, even though the tone of the film is light and more of a coming-of-age story, there are underlying painful emotions suffered by the characters. This makes their bonding easier and more fulfilling.

Without a doubt, the film belongs to Huffman, who was honored with a Best Actress Oscar nomination. No offense to that year’s winner (Reese Witherspoon for Walk the Line (2005), but the rightful owner of the statuette should be Huffman.

The actress simply comes out of nowhere and slays this role. Known for playing a different type of role on the hit television series, ABC’s Desperate Housewives, Bree is in a different league entirely.

Huffman possesses strength, vulnerability, and sarcasm, while physically undertaking a transformation that makes her both feminine and masculine while not becoming a “joke.” All of this she pours into the character.

Transamerica (2005) is an unconventional film that on the surface feels mainstream, like many other road trip films made over the years. With a twist and thus a breath of fresh air considering the importance and relevance of the time-released, the film should be championed.

When combined with the tremendous performance by Huffman, the film is a heavyweight and should be viewed and celebrated for its influence.

Oscar Nominations: Best Actress-Felicity Huffman, Best Original Song-“Travelin’ Thru”

Independent Spirit Award Nominations: 2 wins-Best Female Lead-Felicity Huffman (won), Best First Screenplay (won), Best First Feature