Category Archives: Drama

The Conformist-1970

The Conformist-1970

Director Bernardo Bertolucci

Starring Jean-Louis Trintignant, Stefania Sandrelli

Top 100 Films #28

Scott’s Review #212

70054715

Reviewed January 10, 2015

Grade: A

The Conformist, directed by Italian director Bernardo Bertolucci and based on the 1950s novel by Alberto Moravia, is a complex film that tells the story of one man’s complicated life throughout the time of Italian Fascism (the 1920s until 1943).

Due to a traumatic childhood event, he is troubled and strives to “conform” to a “normal”, traditional lifestyle despite his underlying wounds and desires, which he struggles to repress.

The character in question is Marcello Clerici, played by Jean-Louis Trintignant, who works for the secret police supporting the Fascist government.

Marcello yearns for a quiet life that everyone else seems to have. He is set up with a beautiful new wife and is ordered to assassinate his college professor who is a leader of an anti-Fascist party.

Throughout the story, Marcello is tormented, via flashbacks, by his troubled childhood and the film delivers a marvelous, creative use of camera angles, style, and design.

It is a dreamlike film that makes full use of childhood memories from the perspective of the protagonist.

The film is a character study in the highest regard yet is also beautiful to look at making it very multi-faceted. Marcello is troubled as evidenced by his backstory. In many ways he is weak, refusing to accept who he is or admit his deepest desires.

Mixed in with the complexity of his character is a unique character named Anna (Dominique Sanda), the college professor’s gorgeous blonde wife who appears to be bisexual, enticing both Marcello and his wife, Giulia, played by Stefania Sandrelli. Marcello, in particular, becomes transfixed and obsessed with Anna.

A truly heartbreaking moment arrives later in the film and is my favorite scene in The Conformist. As the assassination attempt is made on a lonely and secluded, yet picturesque country road, the result is murder, betrayal, and surprise.

When one character non-verbally speaks to another with mostly facial expressions and emotionally and pathetically pleads for their life through a car window it is as tragic as it is poetic.

The scene is wrought with drama and sadness.

Additionally, Marcello’s troubled childhood involving a homosexual experience involving a chauffeur named Lino resurfaces years later in an unlikely way and leads to the shocking conclusion of the film.

The very last frame of the film leaves the viewer pondering what is to become of Marcello next.

Marcello’s mother and father add mysterious layers to the film. His father is securely an inmate in a mental hospital while his mother is a boozy older woman who sleeps until noon.

While these characters are not explored as completely as they might have been, it does lead one to ponder why Marcello is the way that he is and if his parents have any bearing on his persona.

In a particularly fascinating scene, Anna seductively dances with Marcello’s wife at a crowded dancehall, they do the tango, as amidst her affair with Marcello, she is clearly in love with his wife, making the dynamic confusing yet at the same time fascinating to view.

The Conformist heavily influenced storied directors such as Frances Ford Coppola, Martin Scorsese, and Steven Spielberg. A beautiful scene of leaves blowing in the wind almost mirrors a similar scene contained in Coppola’s The Godfather Part II.

A film that is as captivating as it is filled with influence, The Conformist is an interesting watch for both the style and the mystique that surrounds it.

Oscar Nominations: Best Screenplay Based on Material from Another Medium

Barry Lyndon-1975

Barry Lyndon-1975

Director Stanley Kubrick

Starring Ryan O’Neal

Top 100 Films #34

Scott’s Review #211

284790

Reviewed January 4, 2015

Grade: A

Barry Lyndon (1975) is a sprawling, beautiful film by famed director Stanley Kubrick. The film is set in the 18th century.

Extremely slow-paced, yet mesmerizing, every shot looks like a portrait, and the inventive use of lighting via real candlelight in certain scenes makes this film a spectacle in its subdued beauty, to say nothing of the gorgeous sets and costumes.

The film is nothing short of a marvel to view.

The story centers around Ryan O’Neal, who plays an Irish man named Redmond Barry.

Redmond is a poor Irish man but is an opportunist. The film follows his life travels throughout Ireland, England, and Germany, as he becomes involved in duels, is robbed, impersonates an officer, is reduced to becoming a servant, gambles, marries a rich widow, and feuds with his stepson.

When he woos and marries the wealthy Countess of Lyndon, he settles in England to enjoy a life of wealth and sophistication. He changes his name to Barry Lyndon. His ten-year-old stepson, Lord Bullingdon, becomes a lifelong enemy as their hatred for each other escalates and is the focal point of Act II of the film.

The supporting cast is filled with unique characters and in particular, the three sinister characters (Lord Bullingdon, Mother Barry, and Reverend Runt) are delicious to watch especially when they square off against one another as is the case with Runt and Mother Barry.

Barry’s two love interests (Lady Lyndon and a German war widow) are entertaining to watch and Lady Lyndon’s costumes are exquisite. Furthermore, Chevalier de Balibar, a wealthy gambler who takes Barry under his wing is a delight.

As with many masterpieces, if not for the great casting, the film would not be as wonderful.

My three favorite scenes include the vicious confrontation between Mother Barry and Reverend Runt- an initially polite conversation between two selfish characters gradually spins into viciousness, the duel between Barry Lyndon and Lord Bullingdon- bitter rivals square off in an awkward yet dramatic duel, and when Barry passionately kisses his dying friend- an unexpected homoerotic scene.

Barry Lyndon delves into the issue of class and class distinction and clearly defines the haves and the have-nots and the struggles of the poor to obtain wealth by any means and for the wealthy to retain their good fortunes.

At a running time of over three hours, it may initially turn viewers off, but as time goes on the film will grip hold of the viewer and not let go.

Having now seen Barry Lyndon (1975) four times, each time I enjoy the film more and more as I become more absorbed by and immersed in the masterpiece.

It’s like a fine wine- it gets better with each taste.

Oscar Nominations: 4 wins-Best Picture, Best Director-Stanley Kubrick, Best Screenplay Adapted from Other Material, Best Scoring: Original Song Score and Adaptation or Scoring: Adaptation (won), Best Costume Design (won), Best Art Direction (won), Best Cinematography (won)

Foxcatcher-2014

Foxcatcher-2014

Director Bennett Miller

Starring Steve Carell, Channing Tatum, Mark Ruffalo

Scott’s Review #210

220px-Foxcatcher_First_Teaser_Poster

Reviewed January 2, 2015

Grade: A

Foxcatcher (2014) is a dark, disturbing, psychological thriller that achieves greatness based on its bleak look and great acting.

It is a superb character-driven story, based on true events, led by the talents of actors Steve Carrell, Channing Tatum, and Mark Ruffalo, each of whom is excellent.

It is a sports film, but hardly predictable as many in this genre typically are.

The film is set in 1987. Brothers Mark and Dave Schultz (Tatum and Ruffalo respectively) are former Olympic gold medal-winning wrestlers attempting to compete in the upcoming 1988 Olympic competitions.

Despite winning a gold medal, Mark (Tatum) lives in squalor and is reduced to giving pep rallies at elementary schools, meant to be done by Dave (Ruffalo), for very little money. Dave is the more successful brother, a family man living a happy existence.

He is more talented than Mark and very driven.

One day Mark is contacted by wealthy philanthropist John du Pont (Carrell) and invited to live with him at his expansive estate in Pennsylvania and train with other aspiring Olympic wrestlers.

John’s attempts at wooing Dave as well initially fail.

From this point in the story, the film delves into psychologically dark territory, mainly the controlling, disturbing behavior of John, as he attempts to control Mark and woo Dave.

John has a damaged relationship with his mother, Jean, wonderfully played by Vanessa Redgrave. Jean feels that John’s obsession with the wrestling world is far beneath him and their relationship is tense and unloving.

The three principal actors involved in the film are worthy of discussion as the film would not be as complex or compelling.

Let’s begin with Channing Tatum- known primarily as a hunky movie star with questionable acting ability, he proves the naysayers wrong.

I cannot help but compare him to a younger Brad Pitt. It took years and many films for him to be recognized as more than a pretty face and abs to die for.

His performance is understated and calm, but nuanced in his laid-back demeanor. Sometimes anger bubbles under the surface.

Carrell is downright creepy as the affluent yet insecure Du Pont.

Throughout the film, the character seems off. Known mostly for silly comedies he is a breakout performance that, I hope, leads to similar meaty roles. Carrell shows he has what it takes to appear in quality films.

Lastly, Mark Ruffalo, who always plays interesting, everyman-type characters, again emits much emotion from his character of Dave Schultz, a successful, driven, athlete who is also a dedicated husband and father.

With lesser casting, Foxcatcher would not have been as interesting.

Questions at the end of the film will arise. What were John du Pont’s motivations? What effect did his mother have on his actions? How could a man with all his power and wealth end up this sad? Were there inappropriate sexual overtures made towards the wrestlers by John?

Foxcatcher (2014) excels at portraying a dark, layered, moody, true story and teaches that wealth does not equate to happiness and in many instances, quite the contrary occurs.

The film is an immense success.

Oscar Nominations: Best Director-Bennett Miller, Best Actor-Steve Carell, Best Supporting Actor-Mark Ruffalo, Best Original Screenplay, Best Makeup and Hairstyling

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

Eastern Promises-2007

Eastern Promises-2007

Director David Cronenberg

Starring Viggo Mortensen, Naomi Watts

Scott’s Review #205

70059994

Reviewed December 15, 2014

Grade: B+

Eastern Promises is a 2007 Russian mafia thriller directed by David Cronenberg (The Fly, A History of Violence) that stars Viggo Mortensen, Naomi Watts, and Vincent Cassel.

The film is an uneven experience, seemingly meshing two stories together- one fascinating, one unnecessary.

Watts plays a British-Russian midwife named Anna, who works at a London hospital. She attempts to find the family of Tatiana, a fourteen-year-old girl who dies during childbirth leaving a diary written in Russian along with her newborn.

Anna struggles to unravel the mystery surrounding the girl which ends up involving the mafia.

Mortensen plays Nikolai, the mysterious chauffeur to crime lord Semyon, and Cassel plays Kirill, the disturbed, alcoholic son of Semyon.

The plot segues into a story of a somewhat relationship between Nikolai and Anna that is not quite romantic and also a much more intriguing relationship between Nikolai and Kirill as a brotherhood of sorts develops between them.

This relationship is complex- Kirill wants Nikolai to prove he is a straight male by having sex with one of several female prisoners he and his father keep as part of a sex trafficking group.

During this scene, and a few others, the two men seem close, almost too close, given the sexual nature of what is happening during the scene, so this relationship is left vague, but intriguing nonetheless.

The latter story holds more interest to me, whereas the former seems contrived and rather uninteresting. Was the intention of the film to imply a romantic interest between Anna and Nikolai?

I found zero chemistry between the two and wondered if the audience was supposed to root for them as a couple or not.

The four principal characters in Eastern Promises are interesting to unravel. I found the characters of Nikolai and Kirill complex and interesting.

Not so much with the character of Anna. Why did I not find her so compelling? Besides a skimmed over the mention of how she lost a baby what vested interest did she have in mixing with the Russian mafia and putting her mother and uncle in harm’s way?

Sure, anyone would want to find an orphaned baby’s family, but why not just call the police? This seems like a large plot hole. Conversely, Nikolai is a fascinating, layered character played wonderfully by Mortensen.

What are his true motivations? Is he a good guy or a bad guy? His attempts at being accepted by Semyon and the family to join the mob family make him seem dangerous- but his kindness towards one of the Ukrainian prostitutes is sweet.

Kirill is a despicable character, but what is his sexuality? Does that make him get so drunk and angry? How does one explain his conflict over the baby shifting his character too sympathetic?

Ultimately, Nikolai and Kirill are complicated- Anna and Semyon are more one-note.

I would have preferred the story solely revolve around the mafia family and the Godfather-type scenes, specifically the two throat-slashing scenes violently done, and perhaps leave out Watts’s character and story altogether.

A gritty scene that takes place in a steam room pits Nikolai against two rival mafia men. The scene is long and intense. Mortensen performs the scene completely naked, which adds to the rawness and the brutality of the fight.

It is one of the most masculine scenes I can remember watching.

At times compelling, but riddled with plot holes and requiring some suspension of disbelief, Eastern Promises (2007) is an entertaining Russian mafia film that remains a decent watch.

Oscar Nominations: Best Actor-Viggo Mortensen

The Greatest Show on Earth-1952

The Greatest Show on Earth-1952

Director Cecil B. DeMille

Starring Charlton Heston, Betty Hutton, James Stewart

Scott’s Review #204

60034703

Reviewed December 14, 2014

Grade: B+

Considered by some critics to be one of the worst Best Picture winners of all time, The Greatest Show on Earth (1952) is quite an impressive Hollywood spectacle and tells the story of the world’s largest railroad circus as they launch a tour and travel throughout the United States, with plenty of drama to experience throughout the film.

The film stars Charlton Heston, Betty Hutton, and James Stewart as the general manager, acrobat, and clown of the show, respectively.

The film used over 1,400 real Ringling Bros. and Barnum & Bailey employees and hundreds of animals in its production, giving it an authentic circus feel.

Unfortunately, the film also has a schmaltzy quality and lacks the best acting, which surprisingly does not bother me and, strangely enough, works in a way.

Various characters have affairs with each other or fall in and out of love rather quickly- it makes for good drama, anyway.

Of course, the main appeal is the extravagant show. While the drama sometimes takes center stage, the lavish production and actual circus events shine through.

My favorite character, and arguably the only interesting character with any depth, in The Greatest Show on Earth is Buttons the Clown, played by James Stewart.

Buttons wears his clown costume, complete with full makeup, at all times. He is kind and mysterious. We learn that he “mercy killed” his dying wife and has joined the circus for protection from the police.

A wonderful human being, he was once a Doctor and tends to anyone in the circus troupe who needs assistance. Later in the film, he plays a vital role after a tragic accident.

His heartbreaking, tender conversation with his elderly mother, whom he only sees secretly once a year for seconds as she tearfully and discreetly visits him in the audience, is painfully sad to watch and is such a sweet scene.

The Greatest Show on Earth’s best scene by far still impresses today is the massive train wreck close to the conclusion.

Made in 1952, the special effects and direction of Cecil B. DeMille are brilliant. The train derails one night in a perfect way—it crashes into an approaching train and derails, highly effective in its enormity.

The scene does not look silly.

The way that all of the drama comes together in this scene—Harry, the crooked midway concessionaire and vicious elephant trainer, Klaus, who is responsible for the accident, Button’s true identity being revealed, and a significant character in peril—makes this scene top-notch and a satisfying conclusion to the film.

The stories involving Brad, Holly, Sebastian, and Angel are soapy and melodramatic and are the film’s weakest point. As a viewer, I couldn’t care less which character lusted after which or who wound up in bed together, but the movie itself is a spectacle, which is my main enjoyment.

The brightness, the revelry, and the circus performances are all wonderful.

Oscar Nominations: 2 wins-Best Motion Picture (won), Best Director-Cecil B. DeMille, Best Story (won), Best Costume Design, Color, Best Film Editing

Gone With The Wind-1939

Gone With The Wind-1939

Director Victor Fleming/George Cukor

Starring Clark Gable, Vivien Leigh, Olivia de Havilland

Top 100 Films #15

Scott’s Review #201

70020694

Reviewed December 4, 2014

Grade: A

Gone with the Wind (1939) is the grand masterpiece of the sweeping epic drama.

The film is based on Margaret Mitchell’s best-selling novel. Set in the South (Georgia) during the Civil War era, it centers on the life of Scarlett O’Hara, a southern belle who works on the cotton plantation Tara. After the South loses the war, she struggles to keep her plantation alive.

Initially, Scarlett cares little about the war but enjoys her spoiled, narcissistic lifestyle and romances with many men in the town, all vying for her attention. With all eyes on her, she revels in one sunny picnic and ball after another.

As war decimates the South, Scarlett must take over the plantation and survive the ravages of war.

Mixed in with the war theme is a romance between Scarlett and Rhett, one of cinema’s most recognized and enduring couples. Having gone through three directors (Victor Fleming, George Cukor, and Sam Wood), the film is as extravagant and precise in its style, attention to detail, and set design as films come.

At close to four hours, Gone with the Wind is a lavish production that can take an entire afternoon or evening to watch. It is divided into two halves—interestingly, Cukor directs the first half, and Fleming primarily directs the second.

It is a film that can be viewed and analyzed repeatedly, and the set pieces and flawless perfection alone are marveled at. The first half is superior to the second, but that is like comparing prime rib to filet mignon—it’s a preference for goodies.

The first half is brighter, cheery, and fantastic. The excellent Tara and neighboring plantation Twin Oaks host southern balls and parties filled with romance, gossip, and beautiful costumes. War is coming, but it is a delightful time of merriment.

The Southerners embrace going to war, which they assume will last for two weeks and that they will be victorious. They party and celebrate.

The second half has a much darker tone.

By the beginning of the second half, Atlanta has burned, thousands of men have died, Tara is decimated, Scarlett’s mother died, and her father went batty.

The rebuilding of the South is explored, the troubled Rhett and Scarlett marriage commences, their daughter dies, and the world-famous line uttered by Rhett to Scarlett, “Frankly my dear…. I don’t give a damn”.

Having been now directed by a different person (Fleming), the first and second halves almost seem like two separate films.

Vivien Leigh plays a beautiful role. In 1939, women were rarely strong characters in films, so Gone with the Wind is groundbreaking for female characters.

Scarlett is selfish but rises above, is strong, saves her plantation, and succeeds as a successful businesswoman—almost unheard of in cinema in 1939. Her undying love for Ashley Wilkes but her inability to obtain him (he is married to his cousin Melanie) gives her a sympathetic vulnerability.

Clark Gable, already a massive star and the people’s choice to play Rhett, is charismatic and handsome. The fact that he and Leigh did not get along makes their fights and sexual tension electric. They love but hate each other, which is transmitted on screen.

Rhett is his own man—he defines himself as not a Northerner but not a Southerner. He is a vagabond and spends many nights at the local brothel in the company of Belle Watling. Rhett’s character is independent and strong.

The supporting characters are colorful, lively, and humorous. Aunt Pittypat’s dramatic worrying and smelling salts and Prissy’s insistence on expert childbirth when, in reality, she knows nothing is moments meant to lighten the mood.

Mammie, Scarlett’s mother figure, is a moral, kind, yet tough character. Melanie (Olivia de Havilland) is an even sweeter character in her caring and selflessness.

Lesser characters like Dr. Meade, Suellen, Carreen, India, and Frank Kennedy serve their purpose and are no throwaway.

It is bothersome that, over the years, Gone with the Wind has been unfairly “feminized” once it began airing as an alternative to the annual Super Bowl. The assumption was that only women would enjoy it, which is silly.

I do not find this film to be a female film, and frankly, some of the battle scenes are pretty masculine, with epic fires and guns galore. Is Gone with the Wind now considered a racist film?

Perhaps so, and time has made the political incorrectness much more glaring- this point can be debated endlessly. Ashley participates in a hooded Klan organization and is a hero of the film!

Indeed, throughout the film, the enslaved people are portrayed as happy, kindly, and comfortable with their place in life, vastly different from what transpired. However, Hattie McDaniel (Mammie) won the first-ever Oscar for a black actress, which was monumental progress and influence.

Using seemingly thousands of extras, the war-torn Atlanta scene where the camera rises up and up and up, panning down on hundreds of wounded and dead Union soldiers as Scarlett defeatedly walks among them, is still heartbreaking to watch and is a reminder of the power and destruction that war is.

Gone with the Wind is an epic masterpiece from long ago that still holds up amazingly well. The sets, the rich characters, and the costumes can be admired and still inspire today.

Oscar Nominations: 8 wins-Outstanding Production (won), Best Director-Victor Fleming (won), Best Actor-Clark Cable, Best Actress-Vivien Leigh (won), Best Supporting Actress-Hattie McDaniel (won), Olivia de Havilland, Best Screenplay (won), Best Original Score, Best Sound Recording, Best Art Direction (won), Best Cinematography, Color (won), Best Film Editing (won), Best Special Effects

Who’s Afraid of Virginia Woolf?-1966

Who’s Afraid of Virginia Woolf? -1966

Director Mike Nichols

Starring Elizabeth Taylor, Richard Burton

Top 100 Films #41

Scott’s Review #200

1120753

Reviewed December 3, 2014

Grade: A

Who’s Afraid of Virginia Woolf? This dark film is directed by Mike Nichols (The Graduate), based on the play from the early 1960s.

Thankfully, the Production Code had been lifted by 1966, allowing edgier, darker films to be made—think The Wild Bunch or Bonnie and Clyde from the same period.

Who’s Afraid of Virginia Woolf? is dreary, bleak, and with damn good acting by all four principles.

George and Martha (Richard Burton and Elizabeth Taylor) are associate history professors and the college president’s daughter, respectively. They live in a small town in New England.

They have a bitter love/hate relationship.

One night, they invite young newlyweds Nick (George Segal) and Honey (Sandy Dennis), a new professor and his wife, over for drinks at 2:00 a.m.

From this point, a destructive night of verbal assaults and psychological games ensues with damaging and sad results for all parties involved, as their personal lives are exposed and dissected.

At the forefront are George and Martha, who have a relationship based on insults, neediness, secrets, and booze. After an evening out, they return home and have a vicious fight.

When their young friends arrive, the tension is thick.

Eventually, the young couple becomes sucked into the older couple’s web of dysfunction, aided by endless drinks throughout the night.

The film is shot in black and white, like a play, which I found highly effective. Most scenes occur in George and Martha’s house.

While all four actors are great (and were all Oscar-nominated), my standouts are Taylor and Dennis.

In my opinion, this role is Taylor’s finest acting performance. She is overweight, bitter, angry, frustrated, drunk, and, at times, vicious to her husband. This performance is different from many of her other film roles and just dynamite.

As her anger flares up, the heat and intensity oozing from the screen can be felt. She goes from vulnerable and soft one moment to a grizzled, bitter woman the next.

Conversely, Dennis is pure, innocent—kind, vulnerable, impressionable, and somewhat of a ninny. Having had too much brandy and spent more than one occasion in the bathroom, Dennis successfully plays giddiness and innocence to the hilt.

Both Martha and Honey harbor dark secrets, which eventually are revealed.

The ambiance is just amazing. The black-and-white cinematography gives the film a hot, suffocating feel. It feels like a quiet little college hamlet, and the setting of the eerily quiet wee hours of the morning is conveyed successfully.

Each story told- mainly by George and Martha- is captivating in its viciousness (both usually belittling the other) that the film becomes mesmerizing in its shock value at the insults hurled.

What will they say or do next?

I loved the scene where Honey awkwardly dances at a late-night bar the four go to. Also, the shotgun scene where George obtains the gun from the garage during one of Martha’s insulting tales is disturbing- what will he do with the gun?

The stories involving George and Martha’s son are sad and mysterious- the viewer wonders what is happening.

The final reveal still gives me chills.

Who’s Afraid of Virginia Woolf? (1966) is one of the greatest film adaptations of a play I have ever seen.

Oscar Nominations: 5 wins-Best Picture, Best Director-Mike Nichols, Best Actor-Richard Burton, Best Actress-Elizabeth Taylor (won), Best Supporting Actor-George Segal, Best Supporting Actress-Sandy Dennis (won), Best Screenplay Based on Material from Another Medium, Best Original Music Score, Best Sound, Best Art Direction, Black-and-White (won), Best Cinematography, Black-and-White (won), Best Costume Design, Black-and-White (won), Best Film Editing

The Theory of Everything-2014

The Theory of Everything-2014

Director James Marsh

Starring Eddie Redmayne, Felicity Jones

Scott’s Review #199

80000644

Reviewed December 2, 2014

Grade: A-

The Theory of Everything (2014) tells the uplifting true story of renowned theoretical physicist Stephen Hawking (played by Eddie Redmayne) and his lifelong battle with a debilitating illness- motor neuron disease, which he was diagnosed with in college.

He and his future wife, literature student Jane Wilde (played by Felicity Jones), meet in 1963 at the prestigious Cambridge University in England and fall madly in love.

From this point, the film focuses on their life-long love affair and Stephen’s subsequent health battles.

Redmayne is wonderful in the lead role.

Portraying a character with both speech and mobility deterioration is not an easy task, especially as the problems become worse and worse over time forcing the actor to express varying levels of disability.

Redmayne rises to the occasion with both believability and conviction making his portrayal as real as possible.

The performance fondly reminded me of another great physical performance, Daniel Day-Lewis in My Left Foot from 1989.

Redmayne is a rising star in Hollywood.

Felicity Jones is also good, though I feel many actresses could have handled the role and there is not as much meat in her part as Redmayne’s.

The remainder of the cast is British actors making the film an authentic feeling. Emily Watson, who plays Jane’s mother, shamefully receives only one scene. Was this talented actress’s role cut?

I get the sense that the filmmakers had Oscar on their minds as the film is geared towards mainstream audiences with a wholesome slant.

The film skims past the complex theories and mathematical aspects and focuses more on the inspirational tale of a person overcoming an immense challenge.

Furthermore, the subsequent quadrangle between Hawking, Jane, Jane’s choir leader (Jonathan), and Hawking’s nurse (Elaine) are toned down and safe from what transpired. Hawking’s family accused his nurse of abusing him which is never mentioned in the film.

The film presents their relationship as wonderful, so clearly, some facts have been softened or omitted altogether, an example of how the film goes for a moral feel.

The situation involving the four real-life characters is messy, but the film makes it seem sweet. Presumably, this is because all the characters are still alive.

This is an interesting aspect of the film and is not necessarily a criticism as much as a perception. Many films embellish reality for entertainment value.

The pairing of Jane and Jonathan seemed inevitable from the moment they met. They had much in common (religion), whereas Stephen and Jane were complete opposites- she was catholic, he was atheist.

The sexual chemistry between Stephen and Elaine was evident when they met. Elaine’s energetic sexiness perfectly contrasts with Jane’s at that point in the film- haggardness and weariness.

The film is not designed to be a downer as it could have been. The focus might have been more sadder than it was. Rather, it is sentimental and empowering.

The Theory of Everything (2014) is a heartwarming, conventional, human story about a man rising above adversity, and at the center of the film is one dynamic performance by Eddie Redmayne.

Oscar Nominations: 1 win-Best Picture, Best Actor-Eddie Redmayne (won), Best Actress-Felicity Jones, Best Adapted Screenplay, Best Original Score

The Normal Heart-2014

The Normal Heart-2014

Director Ryan Murphy

Starring Mark Ruffalo, Matt Bomer

Scott’s Review #198

70302186

Reviewed December 1, 2014

Grade: B+

The Normal Heart is a 2014 HBO television movie based on the true story of Ned Weeks, an openly gay AIDS activist/writer, played by Mark Ruffalo.

The film is set during the period when the epidemic first surfaced, from 1981-1984, and the challenges and frustrations faced, mostly within the gay community, to bring exposure and assistance to the disease.

Weeks was famous for establishing a group of passionate members who banded together to attempt to hurdle these struggles.

The film was produced by Brad Pitt.

This is wonderful to know as films with this content (AIDS) are often tough to produce. It’s wonderful that Pitt’s wealth and influence were used effectively.

At a vastly different time in the country to be gay, the government did very little to assist with financing funding for treatment or researching a cure for it, which is the main point of the story.

The talented cast makes this film what it is.

Matt Bomer plays Ned’s closeted gay lover, Felix Turner, one of the many casualties of the deadly disease. Bomer lost forty pounds in preparation for the role.

Julia Roberts plays polio-stricken doctor, Emma Brookner, who was instrumental in helping the sick when few others within the medical community wanted to.

Other actors providing support are Alfred Molina, who plays Ned’s supportive, powerful, attorney and brother, and Joe Mantello, who has a terrific meltdown scene as his anger and anguish over the disease not being taken seriously by the government finally bubble to the surface.

Finally, Mark Ruffalo plays Ned competently, but why the slight feminization of the character? The real Ned Weeks was masculine. A needless stereotype the film (or Ruffalo) chose to pursue.

The film shows the discrimination faced by AIDS victims, from an airline pilot refusing to fly a plane carrying a sick patient, to an electrician refusing to enter a patient’s hospital room to fix a television set.

This is sad when one realizes how ridiculous these unfounded fears proved to be.

According to the film’s statistics, a major point of the film is how the United States Government, specifically President Reagan, did very little in the way of funding or even wanting to discuss the issue for years following the initial outbreak, resulting in thousands of lost lives.

And why exactly is Reagan considered a great President?

It makes one ponder. It was only due to beloved Hollywood star Rock Hudson acquiring and dying from the disease and Elizabeth Taylor using her star power to get people involved that finally led to the topic being discussed and action taken on a federal level.

My slight criticism of the film is that it looks and feels like a television movie similar in texture to Behind the Candelabra (2013), another HBO film.

The colors are bright and vivid and look television-like. could have used darker lighting and perhaps a gloomier more dower feel, especially given the subject matter involved in the story.

Otherwise, thumbs up and respect for bringing this story to millions of viewers and hopefully educating those who were not there.

The Godfather: Part II-1974

The Godfather: Part II-1974

Director Frances Ford Coppola

Starring Al Pacino, Robert DeNiro

Top 100 Films #3

Scott’s Review #197

60011663

Reviewed: November 25, 2014

Grade: A

Frances Ford Coppola’s sequel (and technically also a prequel) to the highly regarded and successful The Godfather (1972) is one of the rare sequels to equal and even surpass the original in its greatness, creativity, and structure.

The Godfather Part II (1974) feels deeper, more complex, and ultimately richer than The Godfather- and that film itself is a masterpiece. Part II is much darker in tone. Ford Coppola had complete freedom to write and direct as he saw fit with no studio interference.

The results are immeasurable in creating a film masterpiece.

The film is sectioned into two parts, which is a highly interesting and effective decision.

The story alternates between the early twentieth century following Don Corleone’s life, now played by Robert DeNiro, as his story is explained- left without a family and on the run from a crime lord, Don escapes to the United States as a young boy and struggles to survive in the Little Italy neighborhood of New York City.

He obtains a modest job as a grocery stockboy and finally celebrates his eventual rise to power in the mafia.

The other part of the film is set in 1958 as Michael Corleone is faced with a crumbling empire, through both rivals and the FBI- investigating him and holding Senate committee hearings in Washington D.C., and a failing marriage to Kay (Diane Keaton).

Betrayal is a common theme of the film from Michael’s wife, brother, and mobster allies revealed to be cagey enemies. Michael grows uncertain and mistrustful of almost everyone surrounding him. Is Kay a friend or foe? Is Fredo plotting against him? He even begins lashing out at Tom Hagen on occasion.

What makes The Godfather Part II so brilliant, and in my opinion richer than The Godfather, is that it is tougher to watch- and that is to its credit. Now, instead of being a warm, respected member of a powerful family, Michael is questioned, analyzed, and betrayed.

New, interesting characters are introduced- Hyman Roth, played by Lee Strasburg, a former ally of Don’s, and Frankie Pentangeli, played by Michael V. Gazzo are intriguing characters and their allegiances are unknown throughout most of the film- are they loyal to the Corleone’s or deadly enemies?

The character of Michael goes from conflicted to all-out revenge-minded, including revenge sought on members of his own family. Michael is now a dark, angry character- gone is the nice, decorated war hero with his whole life ahead of him. He is much older and a changed man.

Similar to the original Godfather, the opening scene is a large celebration- this time Anthony Corleone’s first communion celebration. Also in comparison, the finale of the film involves major character deaths one after the other.

Unique to this film are the multiple location scenes- New York, Nevada, Italy, Florida, and Cuba are all featured making for an enjoyable segue throughout and a bigger budget.

The blow-up confrontation between Michael and Kay is devastating and shocking in its climax. When Michael punches Kay in a sudden rage, the audience also feels punched.

The wonderful scene at the end of the film with the entire family gathered around for Don’s fiftieth birthday in 1942 is a special treat for viewers; familiar faces make cameo appearances.

I love these aspects of the film.

The rich history of Don is the greatest aspect of The Godfather Part II simply known as “Godfather” and patriarch of the family, his life as a boy and young father are explained so we see how he became one of the most powerful men in the crime world.

I love how he remains a decent man and helps the poor and the victims of ruthless Don Fanucci, his predecessor. He loves his wife and children, but also loves his neighbors, and helps them, believing in fairness.

Ultimately, the characters of Don and Michael are worlds apart.

The Godfather Part II (1974) is one of the most complex and well-written films in movie history- studied in film school, discussed, imitated, and championed. It remains vital and should be viewed and analyzed again and again and again.

Oscar Nominations: 5 wins-Best Picture (won), Best Director-Francis Ford Coppola, Best Actor-Al Pacino, Best Supporting Actor-Robert De Niro (won), Michael V. Gazzo, Lee Strasberg, Best Supporting Actress-Talia Shire, Best Screenplay Adapted from Other Material (won), Best Original Dramatic Score (won), Best Costume Design, Best Art Direction (won)

The Godfather-1972

The Godfather-1972

Director Frances Ford Coppola

Starring Marlon Brando, Al Pacino, James Caan

Top 100 Films #10

Scott’s Review #196

60011152

Reviewed November 24, 2014

Grade: A

The Godfather (1972) is one of the most identifiable and brilliant film masterpieces of all time. It is so ingrained in pop culture and film history and was such a blueprint of 1970s cinema that its legend deservedly lives on.

The film has not aged poorly nor been soured by over-exposure. It is as much a marvel today as it must have been when originally released in theaters.

The film revolves around the Corleone family- a mob family living in New York. They are high-powered, wealthy, and influential with politicians and law enforcement alike. They are the cream of the crop of organized crime families.

The patriarch of the family is known as “The Godfather”, the real name is Don Corleone, played by Marlon Brando.

The eldest son is hot-headed Sonny, played by James Caan. Middle son Fredo, played by John Cazale, is dim-witted and immature and the weak link in the family.

Finally, the youngest son is the central character in the film. Michael, played by a very youthful Al Pacino, has just returned home from World War II, a decorated and Ivy League-educated hero.

Throughout the film, Michael wrestles with either steering the Corleone family business toward the straight and narrow or continuing the death, blood, and corruption that currently encompasses the family.

Rounding out the Corleone family is Tom Hagen, an Irish surrogate son of sorts, who serves as the family attorney. Connie- the temperamental and emotional sister, and Mama Corleone, the passive wife of Don complete the main family.

The various supporting characters are immense, from family friends, relatives, corrupt mob figures, and characters introduced when Michael lives in Italy.

The brilliance of The Godfather is the richness of the enormous amount of characters on the canvas and the structure and pacing of the film.

Even small characters are vital to the film and every scene is important and effortlessly paced so that they neither seem rushed nor dragged, and the film is immeasurably character-driven.

My favorite character is Michael Corleone as he is the most troubled and complex. Pacino plays him to the hilt as, initially, a nice guy trying to do the right thing, going against the grain, and non-traditional- he proposes to a waspy woman who has no Italian heritage.

When events develop in a particular way, Michael suddenly becomes the leader of the family, despite being the youngest son, and the complexities of the character deepen from this point.

Specifically, the revenge killing sequence is brilliant as the viewer is kept on the edge of their seat through a car ride, a meal in a restaurant, and a men’s room scene, until finally, all hell breaks loose, all the while Michael is conflicted, unsure, and intense.

Has he veered too far from being a nice guy? Can he salvage the family business without being ruthless? Michael faces a battle of good vs. evil.

The scenes are brilliantly structured- the grand opening scene alone is beautiful as the audience is introduced to the entire family- cheerfully dancing and frolicking during a bright and sunny outdoor wedding (Connie’s) at the Corleone estate, while inside a dark interior study, a man begs Don Corleone to help avenge his raped and beaten daughter by having her attackers killed.

Several scenes in The Godfather are my personal favorites- the aforementioned restaurant scene, where Michael is faced with a dilemma involving a corrupt policeman and a high-powered figure, one can feel the tension in this extended scene.

The scene in a Hollywood mansion where poor, innocent, horse Khartoum meets his fate in the most gruesome way imaginable.

Later, Michael’s beautiful Italian wife, Apollonia, has an explosive send-off.

Towards the end of the film, the improvised tomato garden scene with an elderly Don Corleone playing with his young grandson.

Finally, the brutal scene involving Corleone’s son Sonny at the toll booth is mesmerizing, brutal, and flawlessly executed.

The lack of any strong female characters and how women are treated (either beaten or passively following their husbands) is bothersome, but unfortunately, circa 1940s mafia, this is the way things were.

One could make the argument that Kay Adams, played by Diane Keaton, is the strongest female character as she questions the Corleone family’s motives and attempts to keep Michael honest and trustworthy. She has little in common with the other female characters.

Lines such as “I’m gonna make him an offer he can’t refuse” and “Don’t forget the cannolis” are unforgettable and quote-worthy.

The finale of the film is breathtaking- a combination of bloody kills mixed in with a peaceful scene of Michael accepting the honor of becoming his nephew’s godfather. As he pledges his devotion to God and denounces Satan, the murders he orchestrated are simultaneously being executed.

The character, while complex, suddenly becomes a hypocrite.

Some view Michael as strictly a hero whose choices should not be questioned or analyzed- others view Michael as not a hero, but rather a complex, tortured, bad guy.

One simply must watch The Godfather and The Godfather Part II (1974) as companion pieces, as Part I is slightly more straightforward and easier to follow than the more complex and layered sequel.

The Godfather (1972) is storytelling and filmmaking at its absolute best and continues to influence films to this day.

Oscar Nominations: 3 wins-Best Picture (won), Best Director-Francis Ford Coppola, Best Actor-Marlon Brando (won), Best Supporting Actor-James Caan, Robert Duvall, Al Pacino, Best Screenplay Based on Material from Another Medium (won), Best Costume Design, Best Sound, Best Film Editing

Mommie Dearest-1981

Mommie Dearest-1981

Director Frank Perry

Starring Faye Dunaway

Top 100 Films #44

Scott’s Review #195

60020629

Reviewed November 20, 2014

Grade: A

Camp, camp, camp!

By this point in film history, Mommie Dearest and this description go hand in hand, but when made in 1981, it was meant to be a much more serious film than it turned out to be.

Sadly, due to a few very over-the-top lines, it is forever inducted into the halls of cult classic memory.

Based on the scandalous tell-all book written by Christina Crawford (Joan’s adopted daughter), Mommie Dearest tells the story of Joan Crawford, a Hollywood screen legend, from her heyday in the 1930s, until she died in 1977, and mostly focuses on the tumultuous relationship with Christina- played as an adult by Diana Scarwid.

Convinced a baby was missing from her life and unable to conceive after several miscarriages with a former flame, Crawford’s beau at the time, an attorney, wrangles a way for her to adopt both Christina and later, Christopher Crawford.

Dealing with her mother’s demands and abuse, Christina goes from a happy little girl to a rebellious teen sent to live in a convent and later struggling to find her way as an actress in New York City with no financial support from Mom.

The film also wonderfully describes the career of Crawford- from highs (winning the Academy Award for Mildred Pierce) to lows (being cut from MGM and reduced to screen tests). The film also recounts Joan Crawford’s continuing battles with booze and neuroses.

From start to finish the film belongs to Dunaway as she simply becomes Crawford- the eyelashes, the mannerisms, every detail is spot on.

Unfortunately for Dunaway, due to the unintentional comedic view of this film, she was robbed of an Oscar nomination, shamefully so. The film was awarded several Razzies- a derogatory honor given to the year’s worst films. Dunaway must have put her heart and soul into this performance.

During the infamous wire hanger scene, Dunaway looks frightening as her face, caked with cold cream, reveals a grotesque mask- reminiscent of Batman character The Joker- as she shrieks at her daughter in the middle of the night, during a drunken tirade, after finding beautiful clothes on wire hangers.

She then trashes her daughter’s bathroom insisting it is already filthy.

One will shriek with gales of laughter as Crawford berates her maid Helga for not scrubbing beneath a potted plant, only to insist, “I’m not mad at you Helga, I’m mad at the dirt”.

In another haunting scene, Joan throws a birthday party for Christina complete with a merry-go-round, balloons, presents, and the paparazzi. Joan’s attire is a little girl dress matching young Christina’s- a morbid foreshadowing of the competition that is to exist between them as the years go by.

The secondary characters are merely an extension of Dunaway’s character and do their best to support her- her harried live-in assistant, Carol Ann, played by Rutanya Alda, both of her love interests, lawyer, Greg Savitt, played by Steve Forrest, and later, Pepsi-Cola mogul Alfred Steele, played by Harry Goz.

The actors do their best with the material given and are neither exceptional nor flawed. None of these supporting characters have any backstory other than to react to Crawford’s drama and, if written better, may have given the film a bit more depth.

The look of the film is pleasing- Crawford’s house is beautifully decorated with lavish furniture and the colors throughout the film are both bright and vivid. The now-legendary lines of “No wire hangers ever!”, “Christina! Bring me the ax!”, and “Don’t fuck with me fellas, this ain’t my first time at the rodeo” are hysterical in their melodrama and effect.

Crawford is portrayed as an obsessive-compulsive, demanding, control freak. One may debate the authenticity of the claims Christina made against Joan Crawford until the end of time.

Not the masterpiece it was intended to be, Mommie Dearest (1981) can be enjoyed viewing after viewing for some campy silliness, with one hell of a great performance by Dunaway mixed in.

Whiplash-2014

Whiplash-2014

Director Damien Chazelle

Starring Miles Teller, J.K. Simmons

Scott’s Review #192

70299275

Reviewed November 13, 2014

Grade: A

Whiplash (2014) is a film about an aspiring nineteen-year-old Jazz drummer, Andrew Neyman, played by rising star Miles Teller (known for 2013’s indie teen drama The Spectacular Now), who is attending one of the most revered musical schools in the country, the Schaffer Conservatory in New York.

He is mentored and terrorized by his intense and sometimes sadistic conductor, Terence Fletcher, portrayed by J.K. Simmons.

Andrew aspires to be the best drummer and worships Buddy Rich, a famous Jazz drummer from the 1930s and 1940s, who he constantly listens to and emulates.

While Andrew aspires to make the school orchestra that desperately needs a new drummer, he meets a cute girl, Nicole, at the concession stand of his favorite movie theater, and they bond.

Also in the mix is Andrew’s father, played by Paul Reiser. Once an aspiring writer, who never made it big, he struggles as a high school teacher. Andrew’s mother left the family when Andrew was just a toddler leaving just father and son.

The film mainly centers on the tumultuous relationship between Andrew and Terence and Andrew’s determination to be the best drummer in the world.

J.K. Simmons is mesmerizing in his role of Terence and is wonderful to see as Simmons has struggled as a character actor for years.

He gives a powerhouse performance and plows full steam ahead in his viciousness and extreme brutality towards the students, and on more than one occasion reduces a student to tears. If the tempo is not to his liking he shakes his clenched fist in disapproval.

The audience wonders if Terence is mean and sadistic or is tough on the students to make them work harder and achieve great things.

Throughout the film, I wondered if I should hate this character or sympathize with him for wanting the students to excel.

The sexuality of Fletcher is ambiguous.

He belittles and ridicules the students with fat jokes. He hatefully taunts an overweight student about Mars bars and happy meals, uses Irish digs, and inevitably gay slurs on other students, but is he hiding something in his personal life? Is he a closet case? His private life remains a mystery.

As brutal as Terence can be, there are moments of sensitivity that the character exhibits. He tearfully tells the orchestra a heartbreaking story of a former student, whom he admired, who recently died in a car accident.

In another scene, he warmly bonds with a friend’s young daughter.

As brilliant as Simmons is we must not forget to recognize the immense talent of Teller. The young actor does a fantastic job of portraying determination, drive, anger, and vengeance.

Andrew has a wonderful relationship with his dedicated father, a love/hate relationship with Terence, (are they bitter enemies or do they have the respect of a mentor/student?), and a sweet yet uneven relationship with Nicole.

He successfully portrays a myriad of different emotions throughout the film.

Paul Reiser is wonderful in an overlooked and thankless role as Andrew’s unsuccessful, yet forever faithful father.

Thankfully the film chose to center on the conductor/student dynamic. The romantic relationship with Nicole did not take center stage and usurp the main story, as I felt that the dynamic between the two was of lesser importance to the whole.

The finale, an intense concert performance scene focusing on the intensity between Terence and Andrew, is superbly done. The close-up camera shots of the two add much to the climax.

In fact, throughout Whiplash, extreme close-up shots of sweat and blood and intensity during performances and practices add to the overall rawness of the film.

Whiplash (2014) is an intense, sometimes brutal, assaulting experience, but an amazing film.

Oscar Nominations: 3 wins-Best Picture, Best Supporting Actor-J.K. Simmons (won), Best Adapted Screenplay, Best Sound Mixing (won), Best Film Editing (won)

Independent Spirit Award Nominations: 2 wins-Best Feature, Best Director-Damien Chazelle, Best Supporting Male-J.K. Simmons (won), Best Editing (won)

Birdman-2014

Birdman-2014

Director Alejandro G. Iñárritu

Starring Michael Keaton, Edward Norton, Emma Stone

Scott’s Review #190

80000643

Reviewed November 6, 2014

Grade: A

Birdman (2014) is a unique art film that, happily, has garnered major exposure and publicity because a movie like this runs the risk of receiving praise and notice only from the art-house crowd itself.

The film’s star, Michael Keaton, portrays Riggan Thomson, a former action hero superstar from the 1990s, who was made famous for the “Birdman” character he created.

Having made sequels to the film, his career has since dried up and he hopes to establish credibility and prove himself a real actor by writing, directing, and starring in his play.

The film is set in and around the Broadway theater in New York City.

As opening night approaches, he struggles to pull everything together and emit a successful production while faced with an injured terrible actor, a difficult actor, his insecurities, and a miserable theatre critic destined to ruin his big chance.

To make matters worse, his daughter Sam, played by Emma Stone is a recovering drug addict who hangs around the theatre distracting actors with her charm and good looks.

Naomi Watts and Edward Norton play Leslie and Mike, other cast members in the production. Watts is sympathetic as the emotional actress with a heart of gold who finally has her dream of performing on Broadway realized.

Norton, outstanding as Mike, is blunt yet socially awkward and can only perform truthfully on stage.

Keaton is simply a marvel as he plays a dark and vulnerable man. He hates and wishes to shed his ridiculous movie persona of yesteryear and secretly cringes when recognized by fans. He uses it with a voice inside his head when he played “Birdman” years earlier.

The uniqueness of the film is the use of what seems like one long take as the action rarely stops and is ongoing. The film belongs to Keaton, who wonderfully relays vulnerability, pain, and fear within with an outward persona of bravery and masculinity.

Throughout the film I wondered, is Riggan suicidal? What is real and what is imagined? Are certain scenes foreshadowing later events?

The film has much depth.

One marvels at how art imitates life, is Keaton portraying himself? He was the original Batman in the successful superhero franchise beginning in 1989 and his career tanked shortly after.

Birdman is a comeback film for him and he is devastatingly good.

Norton’s character Mike impressed me. He is blunt flawed, scared, and addicted to the stage.

Stone has one particularly brilliant scene as she lambasts her father and with regret, later on, tells him that the world has moved on without him and that he is irrelevant just like everyone else. It is a powerful scene.

In another, Riggan is locked outside the theater during the performance, clad only in his underwear. How on earth will he return to the stage and complete the show? The quick slights at current Hollywood superstars playing superheroes, specifically Robert Downey Jr. are deliciously naughty.

It is impossible to predict what will come next and the film is very New York theater style. Keaton’s run-in with a theater critic in a cocktail bar is the best scene in the film as the critic’s vicious critique of “You’re a celebrity, not an actor” resonates with both pain and tremendous anger for Riggan.

Riggan is a sensitive, struggling man and Keaton so wonderfully shows his vulnerability in every scene.

Oscar Nominations: 4 wins-Best Picture (won), Best Director-Alejandro G. Iñárritu (won), Best Actor-Michael Keaton, Best Supporting Actor-Edward Norton, Best Supporting Actress-Emma Stone, Best Original Screenplay (won), Best Sound Editing, Best Sound Mixing, Best Cinematography (won)

Independent Spirit Award Nominations: 3 wins-Best Feature (won), Best Director-Alejandro G. Inarritu, Best Male Lead-Michael Keaton (won), Best Supporting Male-Edward Norton, Best Supporting Female-Emma Stone, Best Cinematography (won)

Kiss of the Spider Woman-1985

Kiss of the Spider Woman-1985

Director Hector Babenco

Starring William Hurt, Raul Julia

Scott’s Review #187

60010547

Reviewed October 24, 2014

Grade: B+

1985 was not the best year for film nor was much of the 1980s, as I think about it, but unique standouts do exist and Kiss of the Spider Woman is an unusual and artistic film.

Set in present-day South America (Brazil) two men are imprisoned for very different reasons and are cellmates in the prison where they are captives.

Complete opposites, they form an unlikely bond, centering on friendship, but also skirting toward romance, flirtation, and at times, love.

Luis Molina is outwardly homosexual and extremely flamboyant and perhaps out of touch with reality as he fantasizes and describes romantic Nazi films. He is imprisoned for not only being homosexual but for having sex with an underage male.

The other man, Valentin Arregui, is a liberal, political activist, who has been beaten, tortured, and interrogated due to his revolutionary-leaning politics. He has a rough, macho edge to him.

On the surface, the two men have nothing in common, but due to proximity, forge a close bond and mutual respect as their lives pre-imprisonment are explained to each other as well as to the audience.

The true strength of this film is the performance, very against type, of William Hurt- the best performance of his career by a mile. He completely embodies the character of Luis in his effeminacy, yearning, pain, and obsession with escaping reality through film.

Raul Julia has the same effect, though in a completely different way, as he portrays Valentin. Luis tenderly comforts Valentin, who is being poisoned by prison officials, by incorporating his stories of films into Valentin’s real life, as he yearns for his separated lover, Marta.

As Luis begins falling in love with Valentin, and one is seemingly double-crossed by the other, it leads to a test of courage and dedication to each other.

The ending of the film is a sad one, dark, yet thought-provoking, and shows love, tenderness, and bravery.

My only negative from Kiss of the Spider Woman (1985) is at moments, using the flashback series or through the film that Luis explains, it is tough to follow and surmise what is exactly going on in the story, but the performances of Hurt and Julia, and the chemistry between them, are the films major strengths.

Oscar Nominations: 1 win-Best Picture, Best Director-Hector Babenco, Best Actor-William Hurt (won), Best Screenplay Based on Material from Another Medium

Independent Spirit Award Nominations: 1 win-Best International Film (won)

Dog Day Afternoon-1975

Dog Day Afternoon-1975

Director Sidney Lumet

Starring Al Pacino, Chris Sarandon

Scott’s Review #185

450423

Reviewed October 13, 2014

Grade: A-

Director Sidney Lumet successfully sets the smoldering hot summer afternoon in New York City for his 1975 film Dog Day Afternoon, as Al Pacino plays Sonny, an unemployed, desperate man who, while married with two kids, has a gay lover, Leon, (brilliantly played by Chris Sarandon) who he is attempting to help finance a sex change operation.

Based on a true story, Sonny, along with his dimwitted friend Sal- played by John Cazale, decides to rob First Brooklyn Savings Bank.

Predictably, their plans go awry when Sonny burns a ledger during the robbery attempt and a pedestrian sees the smoke and alerts the police.

As the police become aware of the attempted heist, a standoff ensues between Sonny and the cops, led by Detective Moretti, played by Charles Durning, and the robbery receives media coverage.

Most of the action is set inside the stifling hot bank and directly outside on the street and gradually the supporting characters come into play- the hostages, Sonny’s mother, wife, and lover all make contact with Sonny in some way or another and his motivations become clearer to the audience.

Dog Day Afternoon is a somewhat message movie that is anti-establishment, in this case, anti-police and questioning of the government and the financial establishment, (Lumet also directed Network, challenging establishment).

This is evidenced when after a standoff with police, the crowd sides with Sonny as he chants Attica! Attica!, which is a direct reference to a recent prison riot.

Sonny speaks for the working class- the poor, struggling, underpaid workers who cannot afford to feed or adequately take care of their families.

The heat and humidity compare perfectly to the pressure felt by most middle-class people that still resonates today and leaves the viewer contemplating his or her life.

Sonny relates to the bank tellers who do not make much money. Besides, Sonny is sympathetic to the audience in another way. Leon, recently hospitalized at Bellevue Hospital, is emotionally dependent on Sonny. He would be lost without him.

They share a lengthy and heartfelt phone conversation that is the heart of the film- gay romance had not been explored this way by 1975 in cinema, and the romance was neither shoved down the audience’s throat nor was it looked past entirely.

Their relationship is tender and deep, yet still somewhat ambiguous.

Would they stay together? What would become of Sonny’s wife and two children? Would he leave them for Leon in a world that was not ready to accept two homosexual men together? Is that the reason for Leon’s desire for a sex change operation?

Chris Sarandon, in too small a part, is wonderful as the gay lover, struggling with a sexual identity crisis. Al Pacino gives, per usual, a brilliant portrayal as he takes on a complex character who is far from one-dimensional.

Perhaps not a masterpiece, Dog Day Afternoon, is a very good film, but neither is it strictly a gay-themed movie nor an action/thriller- it’s more complex than that.

Ironically, Sonny is portrayed as the hero of the film as it is not a standard good police versus bad bank robber type of film- quite the contrary. It is much, much more than that.

Oscar Nominations: 1 win-Best Picture, Best Director-Sidney Lumet, Best Actor-Al Pacino, Best Supporting Actor-Chris Sarandon, Best Original Screenplay (won), Best Film Editing

Go for Sisters-2013

Go for Sisters-2013

Director John Sayles

Starring Edward James Olmos

Scott’s Review #177

70272916

Reviewed September 27, 2014

Grade: B-

Go for Sisters is a 2013 independent feature film about a female parole officer (Lisa Gay Hamilton) with a troubled, missing son named Rodney, feared to be mixed up with the murder of a drug dealer.

The film takes place in California and Mexico.

Hamilton plays Bernice, a middle-aged black woman, who has always done the right thing. Widowed and recently dumped by a new boyfriend, she runs into ex-convict Fontayne, played by Yolonda Ross, at her parole office.

Initially wanting nothing to do with her former high school friend, Bernice decides to use Fontayne’s criminal connections to locate Rodney.

From this point, they hire retired Mexican police officer Freddy Suarez, played by Edward James Olmos, and the trio embarks on an adventure across the border of Mexico.

I love the story involving the two female leads (Hamilton and Ross) who share a Thelma and Louise-type bond.

The characters reconnect with each other and develop independently. Straight-laced Bernice toughens up and breaks a few rules while Fontayne, determined to go straight, struggles to keep her head above water, resisting drugs and attempting to hold down a job.

The two forge a bond based on trust, respect, and loyalty, and their friendship grows throughout the film.

One gripe about Fontayne’s character- she admits to being a lesbian but then mentions she is not sure if she is or if she is not. This sexual identity crisis seems strange- why couldn’t the film make her a lesbian? Why the hedging?

The remaining aspects of the film are mediocre to weak.

Adding the character of Freddy to the mix is unnecessary. He adds little to the plot except helping the women get into Mexico and being male comic relief.

Either way, I didn’t find the character very interesting or care about him and the film would have been better off without Freddy.

What was the reasoning behind making him have poor eyesight? What was the point of Freddy taking a young woman and her daughter to breakfast and realizing they were crossing the border to find her estranged husband? Who cares?

It had nothing to do with the plot.

All the audience knows about Freddy is that he is retired due to a misunderstanding, accepts money to help Bernice and Fontayne, and tags along with them for the rest of the film.

The stereotypes should have been eliminated. The Chinese dragon lady and the corrupt Mexican police officers have been played to death in films and are rather insulting to smart and serious movie-goers.

I found the plot a bit tough to follow and I still don’t understand how or why Rodney was involved with the Chinese mob in the first place other than to help Chinese immigrants cross the border.

Was he involved in the money or wanted to help the immigrants cross to the United States?

The film mentions countless times how Rodney is a decent person so what’s his motivation? The film never wholly explains why he is kidnapped and a suspect in a murder case.

Also, countless characters are introduced to help the women on their journey with some connection to the kidnap victim but are written haphazardly with no character development.

The ending of Go for Sisters (2013) is too predictable and leaves the audience not caring about the outcome.

Despite numerous negatives, the heart of the film belongs to the talents of Hamilton and Ross and their characters’ interesting and warm friendship that develops throughout the film.

Independent Spirit Award Nominations: Best Supporting Female-Yolonda Ross

A Star is Born-1954

A Star is Born-1954

Director George Cukor

Starring Judy Garland, James Mason

Scott’s Review #175

995474

Reviewed September 25, 2014

Grade: B+

A Star Is Born (1954) was considered Judy Garland’s much-touted comeback film and was very expensive for Warner Bros. to produce.

Garland delivers her finest career performance, even better than her portrayal of Dorothy in The Wizard of Oz (1939). The performance is multi-faceted, complex, comical, silly, poised, emotional, dramatic, and heartfelt.

Playing Esther Blodgett- later changed to Vicki Lester for more Hollywood potential, she is a struggling lounge singer who meets a successful actor named Norman Maine, played wonderfully by James Mason.

Esther saves Norman from public humiliation at a function where he attempts to take the stage while inebriated.  They strike up a friendship, and he convinces her to pursue films. However, through a series of misunderstandings, she assumes he has ditched her.

Determined to become a star anyway, Esther forges her path to success. They reconnect, and Norman recognizes her talent and pursues her professionally and romantically. They marry, and she becomes a star while his career hits the skids, mainly due to his alcoholism.

The talented Mason and Garland are at the forefront of the film and are the reasons for its success.

A few key scenes stand out to me as powerful or essential- The scene involving a musical number over a dinner of sandwiches in their posh living room is wonderfully merry and light; a delivery boy who does not know who Norman is ruins the mood and causes jealousy to come to a head in his marriage to Esther.

Garland’s emotional scenes are excellent, especially in her dressing room, where she crumbles when she realizes Mason has hit rock bottom.

The best scene is the Academy Awards scene, where a drunken Norman causes a public spectacle as Esther receives her top honor, spoiling her night and accidentally hitting her in the face in front of millions.

What a forgiving woman Esther is for staying with him and ultimately choosing him at the risk of ruining her career.

An interesting aspect of the story is that Garland’s character is not some ugly duckling transformed into Hollywood royalty—she already has the talent. She needs a break but is not down on her luck or starving. She makes a decent living with a touring band and is torn about leaving them.

The musical numbers are inspiring and one is reminded why Garland is such a star as she belts them out of the park like nobody’s business, however, they do little to further the plot.

The film sometimes drags a bit, as is often the case in the first half, but the second half (post-intermission) is brilliant, and the ending is tragic yet heartwarming.

Will Esther’s career continue to flourish?

A major flaw with the film is the usage of still frames with dialogue overlapping due to lost footage. This makes following the story very tough, and the continuity is affected. It also looks ridiculous, and for the viewer to be captured by the story and only view a discolored still shot with audio is disappointing.

Indeed, this can be corrected.

A Star Is Born (1954) is the perfect vehicle for Garland to return to her grand position among the Hollywood treasures.

Oscar Nominations: Best Actor-James Mason, Best Actress-Judy Garland, Best Scoring of a Musical Picture, Best Song-“The Man That Got Away,” Best Art Direction, Color, Best Costume Design, Color

Love Is Strange-2014

Love Is Strange-2014

Director Ira Sachs

Starring John Lithgow, Alfred Molina

Scott’s Review #174

70299861

Reviewed September 24, 2014

Grade: B

Love Is Strange (2014) is sweet, though not nauseatingly sentimental, looking at many different types of relationships, at the forefront is the same-sex couple, Ben and George, played by John Lithgow and Alfred Molina respectively.

They are a successful New York City couple of a certain age, together for nearly thirty years, and finally legally wed in a low-key ceremony surrounded by friends and family.

George teaches music at a strict Catholic high school where the students and staff know and love him and his new husband. The bishop is not supportive of his marriage and he is unceremoniously fired.

This causes Ben and George to become homeless and rely on family and friends for a roof over their heads.

The film features several secondary character relationships.

Ben’s nephew and wife balance busy careers with a temperamental, rebellious, confused son; Ben’s niece from Poughkeepsie seems neurotic.

Neighbors who are gay police couples have loud parties seemingly every night. Marisa Tomei, who plays Ben’s niece by marriage, Kate, and Charlie Tahan as Joey, Ben’s great-nephew are probably the most prominently featured in the supporting cast.

While well-meaning and accommodating, Kate bottles her anger and comforts herself with nightly consumption of red wine. Joey lashes out at his great Uncle in frustration criticizing his artwork and scolding him for using his teen friend in a portrait, a friend whose sexuality is unclear.

Most other characters are not fleshed out well and are there to move the plot along. This is slightly disappointing. I would have preferred a bit more backstory regarding the rest of the cast.

Throughout the film, a few clues are dropped surrounding Joey and his friend’s sexuality, but not pursued further than on the surface.

I was curious about the cop’s back story. How long have they been together? Do they face conflict at work? Numerous scenes show both cops in uniform while running errands or visiting the hospital, which seems to be the film’s desire to emphasize that cops can be masculine and gay- a fact I love, yet the characters are only one-dimensional.

Why is Ben’s niece neurotic? This is also not pursued at all.

The film belongs to Lithgow and Molina. The two have such effortless, natural chemistry that the audience instantly believes they have been together for decades. The fact that Lithgow and Molina are lifelong friends in real life surely adds to the realism and naturalness.

Ben is the yin to George’s yang. The performances of Lithgow and Molina are so understated and calming that one might overlook how excellent they are since they are both low-key characters.

Love Is Strange (2014) is a film about strength, courage, loyalty, and perseverance through life’s challenges.

It is a sensitive and lovely film.

Independent Spirit Award Nominations: Best Feature, Best Male Lead-John Lithgow, Best Supporting Male-Alfred Molina, Best Screenplay

Requiem for a Dream-2000

Requiem for a Dream-2000

Director Darren Aronofsky

Starring Ellen Burstyn, Jared Leto

Top 100 Films #51     Top 10 Disturbing Films #3    

Scott’s Review #172

60001134

Reviewed September 21, 2014

Grade: A

Requiem for a Dream (2000) is a disturbing film and, at times, very difficult to watch, but it is also a brilliant masterpiece, visually as well as from a storytelling perspective, that I appreciate more and more with each painful (in a good way!) viewing experience.

The film is easily one of the most disturbing films I have ever seen.

The subject matter is drug trafficking/addiction that affects more than one character in the cast- this subject has been tackled by a myriad of different films- think Traffic, released around the same time as Requiem for a Dream for a comparison.

At the risk of directly comparing Requiem for a Dream to Traffic, which is unfair, I will say that as gritty as Traffic is, Requiem for a Dream makes it look like a kid’s film.

Director Darren Aronofsky’s direction is superb.

The story revolves around a young man (Harry) from Brooklyn, played by Jared Leto, his girlfriend Marion, played by Jennifer Connelly, Harry’s mother Sara, played by Ellen Burstyn, and Harry’s best friend Tyrone, played by Marlon Wayans.

Each individual falls into a trap of drug addiction in their way, but all are written sympathetically so that the audience cares about them and feels their sorrows intensely.

Harry and Tyrone are involved in drug selling but aspire to be successful and both love their mothers and their significant others- in Harry’s case that is Marion.

Marion (Connelly) falls in over her head and is forced to turn tricks to feed her heroin habit. She is an intelligent young woman from an affluent family, which makes her downward spiral into prostitution all the more shocking.

The standout among the central characters is Sara Goldfarb, who is a lonely widowed woman obsessed with a television game show. She develops delusions of grandeur of becoming a contestant and is tragically determined to lose weight to fit into her favorite red dress.

She becomes dependent on diet pills and begins hallucinating that her refrigerator is attacking her.

Aronofsky perfectly mixes in fantasy sequences showcasing Burstyn’s real attractiveness contrasted with the desperation of Sara. Sara is a sad character and Burstyn is mesmerizing in the role.

How she lost the Oscar to Julia Roberts in 2000 is and always will be one of the biggest Oscar travesties in my opinion.

The special part of this film is the visual and cerebral aspects. The film is dreamlike in its texture and extreme, fast-paced close-ups of the diet pills or heroin being consumed.

The viewer feels the highs and lows that the characters feel and there is immediately a sense that all of the characters are doomed and hopeless.

Besides, this film has one of the most effective and haunting scores I have ever experienced, right up there with John Carpenter’s Halloween.

The slow-motion sequences combined with frenetic images make this quite cerebral to watch. I cannot watch this film very often as it is too disturbing and upsetting, but I sure am glad it was made at all.

Oscar Nominations: Best Actress-Ellen Burstyn

Independent Spirit Award Nominations: 2 wins-Best Feature, Best Director-Darren Aronofsky, Best Female Lead-Ellen Burstyn (won), Best Supporting Female-Jennifer Connelly, Best Cinematography (won)

The Past-2013

The Past-2013

Director Asghar Farhadi

Starring Berenice Bejo, Tahar Rahim

Scott’s Review #171

70275523

Reviewed September 16, 2014

Grade: B+

The Past (2013) is an international film directed by acclaimed Iranian director Asghar Farhadi, who directed the brilliant A Separation in 2012.

Despite being directed by an Iranian director, the film is written in French and set in France.

While not quite on the level of A Separation, The Past is still a good, layered, and quite compelling film, though admittedly slow-paced in spots, similar to real life.

The film centers on a couple, Marie and Ahmad, amid a divorce. Marie lives in France with her two daughters from a relationship before Ahmad so they have no children. He lives in Iran and comes to visit and finalize the divorce proceedings.

Further complicating the situation is that Marie is in a relationship with another man, Samir, who has a son with his current wife, who is a vegetable in a coma after a suicide attempt.

What were the events that led her to attempt suicide? Did someone reveal something of importance to her? If so, who?

Questions such as these compel viewers to invest in the characters.

The Past is an excellent family drama done right- there are no needless stereotypes and the children serve more of a purpose than being cute or attractive wallpaper like in many family dramas.

Each child involved- there are 3- has real feelings and realistically expresses themselves. All three principal adult characters are mature, complicated, and have depth. Nobody is the villain and the intent is not to make the audience root for one couple over the other- the film is more mysterious than that.

Rather, the audience spends the film trying to figure out secrets that the characters keep.

Is Marie ready to divorce Ahmad or does she still love him? Does Samir blame Marie for his wife’s condition? Why does the oldest daughter hate Samir so much?

These are questions that arise more and more as The Past unfolds.

Another interesting facet of the film is there are no red herrings introduced to manipulate the viewer. The film is simply a detailed, complex drama.

All three leads (Berenice Bejo, Tahar Rahim, and Ali Mosaffa) give wonderful performances, though I’m not sure why Bejo’s performance is considered the standout.

Upon completion and thought, I noticed many similarities to A Separation.

The Past (2013) is a good, solid, family drama, with rich writing and honest, compelling situations.

The Red Balloon-1956

The Red Balloon-1956

Director Albert Lamorisse

Starring Pascal Lamorisse

Scott’s Review #170

220px-Red_balloon

Reviewed September 15, 2014

Grade: A

The Red Balloon (1956) is a poignant short film (thirty-four-minute running time) in its innocence and creativity.

Directed by acclaimed French filmmaker Albert Lamorisse, it tells the story of a young Parisian boy named Pascal who befriends a special red balloon that arrives and greets him one day.

Amazingly, the balloon follows him everywhere, and they become inseparable friends. The balloon has a mind of its own and protects Pascal from schoolyard bullies and others who do not understand or care about his bond with it.

The balloon does not leave his side, and he waits outside during school hours and sleeping hours.

Director Lamorisse’s children play Pascal and a little girl with a similar blue balloon.

The film is shot in Paris and features many beautiful city glimpses. Unfortunately, the neighborhood (Belleville) where most of the adventure takes place, where little Pascal and his balloon meander through the streets to and from school, no longer exists and was destroyed in the 1960s due to decay.

It is a bleak, melancholy neighborhood that perfectly contrasts the extreme brightness of the balloon.

The Red Balloon is a thought-provoking short film and contains almost no dialogue. None is needed as a powerful message of friendship, heartbreak, and loyalty is portrayed.

The climax of the film is heartbreaking yet uplifting.

The Red Balloon is a film that people of all ages can enjoy and fall in love with. In fact, for many years, educators have shown it to children.

The Red Balloon is the only short film to win the Academy Award for Best Writing (Original Screenplay).

Oscar Nominations: 1 win-Best Screenplay-Original (won)

Mandela: Long Walk to Freedom-2013

Mandela: Long Walk to Freedom-2013

Director Justin Chadwick

Starring Idris Elba, Naomie Harris

Scott’s Review #169

70278999

Reviewed September 13, 2014

Grade: B

Mandela: Long Walk to Freedom (2013) recounts the true story of the life and times of South African leader Nelson Mandela chronicling fifty-plus years of his life from 1942 to 1994, his passion for freedom and dedication to anti-apartheid, his battles with the government, and his struggles to survive in prison.

The film is shot beautifully, the cinematography gorgeous, and the South African landscape is breathtaking.

I enjoyed the chemistry between Idris Elba and Naomie Harris, who plays Nelson Mandela and his second wife Winnie respectively, and Elba, in particular, is very well cast.

He is charismatic, handsome, calm, and perfectly encompasses the famous leader’s mannerisms.

It was interesting to be exposed to a biopic that spanned such a lengthy period and, in a way, is a history lesson, especially for viewers young enough not to remember the details of Mandela’s life.

I was too young to know of all of Mandela’s trials and tribulations.

For example, I knew he was imprisoned and released, but knew not how long he had spent in prison and away from his wife and family. I got the sense that factually, some details were either embellished or skipped over entirely.

I’ve heard this criticism from moviegoers regarding Mandela: Long Walk to Freedom.

A few drawbacks- this film is VERY Hollywood. It has a glossy feel to it. I would have preferred a bit more grit.

Was there any sexual abuse while Mandela was imprisoned? Was Winnie abused while she was in prison? Why was the lack of sexuality in Mandela’s and Winnie’s marriage in later years alluded to, but never explored?

This is a negative to the film.

Since the film is rated PG-13, aspects are toned down and it has a very safe feel.

Also, for such a perfect shot and designed film, the makeup is dreadful! It was apparent that Idris Elba was wearing a glued-on, unflattering grey wig.

Furthermore, the woman playing Mandela’s mother was surely the same age if not younger than Elba, with dyed grey hair. This aspect feels poorly produced.

Overall, Mandela: A Long Walk Freedom (2013) is a good film, largely due to its acting and the look of the film, but it is not a great one.

Oscar Nominations: Best Original Song-“Ordinary Love”

Pit Stop-2013

Pit Stop-2013

Director Yen Tan

Starring Bill Heck, Marcus DeAnda

Scott’s Review #168

70268909

Reviewed September 10, 2014

Grade: B

Pit Stop is a small independent film from 2013 that centers on a group of gay men living in rural Texas, outside of Houston or San Antonio.

The plot focuses on two specific men, Gabe and Ernesto, who are not acquainted with each other. They tell of their ups and downs, mostly regarding dating and relationships.

Gabe lives with his ex-wife Shannon and they share a child they raise together as a family. They have a warm relationship and live together as friends.  Gabe was recently dumped by a married man who wants Gabe to stop calling him.

Ernesto lives with a younger man whom he used to date and is trying to convince him to move out and get his life together.

Ernesto also has a former partner who is comatose and whom he continues to visit in the hospital.

A subplot of the film is Shannon’s struggles to date. She arranges a date with a co-worker and, after drinking too much, embarrasses herself by coming on too strong to him.

The point of the film is that all of the characters are struggling to find love and companionship and most are quite lonely people, yet not unbalanced or neurotic folks.

They reside in the middle of nowhere which dims their chances of finding love.

There are no villains and all the characters are quite likable. There is a rooting value to each of them especially towards Gabe and Ernesto and all along I kept hoping that they would be brought together as they seem to be a wonderful pair fraught with potential chemistry.

Both are caregivers in their current situations so interesting is what transpires after the film.

Pit Stop (2013) is a feel-good, happily-ever-after type film, mostly screened at independent film festivals and the gay festival circuit.

The film is small and steady, but nice, uplifting experience and worth checking out.

Independent Spirit Award Nominations: John Cassavetes Award

Gloria-2012

Gloria-2012

Director Sebastian Lelio

Starring Paulina Garcia

Scott’s Review #167

70270790

Reviewed September 10, 2014

Grade: B+

The subject matter of the film Gloria (2012) is so unusual in this day and age of the clichéd, youth-obsessed world of Hollywood that it is incredibly refreshing and pleasing to view.

Gloria tells the story of the title character, a middle-aged (50’s) divorced woman, living in Chile, who simply lives life to the fullest.

She loves and embraces new experiences. She tries smoking pot, sings along to disco songs, and dances the nights away.

Gloria is looking for love, but she is not a depressed or dowdy woman. She is stable, attractive, intelligent, and funny.

She lives!!

Gloria meets and begins a relationship with Rodolfo, a similar-aged divorced man with a family filled with baggage whom she meets in a nightclub. His ex-wife and two daughters reside with and are dependent on, him.

The film wisely does not feature Rodolfo’s family at all until the very end which adds to the mystique of the character. Gloria and Rodolfo begin a series of trials and tribulations involving both of their families.

Gloria introduces Rodolfo to her family at a birthday party in which her ex-husband and his current wife are in attendance.

Her family is very close including her relationship with her ex-husband and his new wife. They take a wine-induced trip down memory lane. This is too much for Rodolfo and he bails. He is constantly barraged with phone calls from his family during alone time with Gloria.

They continue to have ups and downs.

The audience wonders, will they find their way to a happily ever after? Is Rodolfo really a cad? Does Gloria want to settle down? A moment of bliss at an expensive hotel is ruined by an event and the audience’s heart breaks for Gloria.

How wonderful that this film dares to feature more than one explicit nude scene between these two middle-aged people in a classy, tender style. This is not common in American films so happily, foreign-language films are not as rigid or prudish in their sexuality.

Why Paulina Garcia received little recognition for this role is unfortunate to me. She deserved an Oscar nomination as she relays an enormous level of complex emotions- she feels the loss, she is betrayed, she is giddy, she is silly, and the list goes on and on.

Gloria, at times, is admittedly slow-paced, but what a breath of fresh air the film and the story is.

The film is a character-driven, tender tale centering on mature, intelligent people.

Independent Spirit Award Nominations: Best International Film