Category Archives: Thriller

The Good Liar-2019

The Good Liar-2019

Director Bill Condon

Starring Ian McKellen, Helen Mirren

Scott’s Review #1,201

Reviewed November 26, 2021

Grade: B+

The Good Liar (2019) is a well-acted film, but by the numbers, the thriller is made as well as it can be, thanks to superior acting. Casting British heavyweights Ian McKellen and Helen Mirren automatically provides enough star power and credibility to save any lame plot.

This is the first time the actors have appeared in a film together, though they have appeared on stage together.

The film moves briskly, and there is never a moment of boredom. While the main storyline at first is intriguing, the inevitable twist at the end is satisfying. Suspension of disbelief is required, and a portion of the backstory is unnecessary.

Nothing is as it seems.

Roy Courtnay (McKellen) is a dashing career con man. He is suave and used to getting what he wants out of people, to their advantage and disadvantage. He cagily dips into the online dating pool and stumbles upon an older woman named Betty McLeish (Mirren) ripe for the picking.

She is rich, divorced, and lonely.

What could go wrong?

As Betty opens her life and home to him, Roy is surprised to find himself caring about her, turning what should be a cut-and-dry swindle into the most treacherous tightrope walk of his life.

Betty’s grandson, Steven (Russell Tovey), constantly annoys Roy when he questions Roy’s intentions and urges his grandmother to be wary of the man.

As the plot began, I kept thinking that there was no way Betty could be so gullible, lonely, or not. This kept me engaged until the big reveal that filled the final thirty minutes or so. If The Good Liar did not contain something more than the banal plot, it would have been a real dud.

To continue with the storyline element, Betty’s ultimate motivations, while clever, are hard to believe. Not to ruin any plot points, but the whole Nazi component from the 1940s feels superfluous and easy. The revenge motives feel extremely plot-driven and are meant as a thrown-in explanation.

From a timeline perspective, it also doesn’t make much sense. If events take place during present times, it would put Roy and Betty in their 90s! The characters are assumed to be in their mid-70s.

Despite Roy being the villain, I fell in love with him. His shenanigans appealed to me despite my better judgment. His trickery when he feigns a knee injury to manipulate Betty while dashing into a corporate meeting minutes later was enamoring instead of mortifying.

The chemistry between McKellen and Mirren is tremendous. Both actors know how to carry a film and are confident in their abilities. This comes across onscreen, and the romantic element works.

The Good Liar also gets respect from me for featuring actors in their golden years in leading roles.

Bill Condon has directed various films, including Chicago (2002) and Dreamgirls (2006). The Good Liar is hardly on this level or one of his finest, but the director adds enough seasoning to assure a compelling experience.

The locales of London and later Berlin, Germany, are robust and a treat for any viewer who is partial to international filming—I am! Plenty of busy London streets and German architecture appear during the film.

McKellen and Mirren’s slickness and excellent acting save The Good Liar (2019) from the drivel it might have been with lesser actors and inferior direction. Instead, it’s a clever film that toys with its viewers, keeping them engaged until the end.

Old-2021

Old-2021

Director M. Night Shyamalan

Starring Gael García Bernal, Vicky Krieps

Scott’s Review #1,195

Reviewed November 13, 2021

Grade: B

I am always rather intrigued by any M. Night Shyamalan projects that come down the pike, whether it be a television or film offering. He has a knack for creating twist endings with a supernatural component.

Sometimes, like with The Sixth Sense (1999) and The Village (2004), he knocks it out of the park. Others are more average.

Old (2021) contains a novel and tantalizing premise that sometimes delivers and sometimes lags. It’s a worthy effort that picks up speed in the final fifteen minutes or so with a predictable conclusion I guessed about midway through, but it’s still really cool to see.

The film might have been better as a short film or a shorter episode – think The Twilight Zone.

Nothing in Old is too shocking or scary, and nothing that will make the hair on your neck stand up, but it’s entertaining and provides a message worthy of dissection.

The visionary filmmaker unveils a chilling, mysterious premise that oozes with possibility.

A seemingly happy suburban family decides to treat themselves to a tropical holiday in paradise. Prisca (Vicky Krieps), the wife, stumbles upon the exciting vacation offer online and decides to go for it. This alone should have been a red flag. Her husband, Guy (Gael García Bernal), agrees, and their children, Trent and Maddox, are overjoyed.

What the children don’t realize is that Guy and Prisca plan to divorce after the vacation ends.

The family is lavished with hospitality, food, and drinks and whisked away to a secluded beach where they relax for a few hours with other members of the resort, including a surgeon and his wife, an epileptic psychologist and her husband, and various others.

They realize that something is causing them to age rapidly, reducing their entire lives to a single day.

They panic and try to leave the island, sometimes turning on each other in the process.

M. Night Shyamalan himself has a small role as a resort employee who drives the group to the beach and monitors them.

Filmed primarily on the beaches of the Dominican Republic, the cinematography is outstanding and quite scenic. The film doesn’t specify where the action is supposed to take place, so I guessed it was Hawaii.

The lavish mountains, roaring waves, and exquisite underwater coral sequences give the film a beautiful and calming vibe, despite the drama unfolding.

I also drew comparisons to the popular television series Lost, which ran on ABC from 2004 to 2010. A group of stranded individuals faces complex and startling situations as they desperately try to flee an island.

When one character drowns and another falls to their death from a cliff while trying to leave, I was reminded that maybe the island is a force in itself.

As the title suggests, the characters begin to age rapidly. The makeup effects aren’t as significant as one might hope, and some characters inexplicably age more than others, making the whole idea feel a bit silly.

Some of the characters are written better than others, and there are some stereotypes to overlook, like the schizophrenic doctor who goes mad. His trophy wife is blonde, toned, and obsessed with remaining young. As a positive, the wife of another couple is a doctor and the husband a nurse. Many would expect the opposite.

To that end, I never felt very connected to any of the characters, and most are written as a means to an end. Their backstories are explored, but lack any depth.

The twist at the end, totally expected in a Shyamalan film, lends itself to a discussion that can be had after the movie ends. A question of medicine and playing god is the primary focus, and one character with a small role at the beginning of the film is pivotal in the final events.

Not one of his best but certainly worthy of a watch, M. Night Shyamalan continues to tickle my fancy for crafting good, twisty thrillers.

Old (2021) doesn’t come close to rivaling his classics but provides good entertainment and perhaps a bit more.

Falling Down-1993

Falling Down-1993

Director Joel Schumacher

Starring Michael Douglas, Robert Duvall

Scott’s Review #1,192

Reviewed November 6, 2021

Grade: B+

Falling Down (1993) is a film with a message or arguably several messages. It’s about one man who is fed up with almost everything and is on the brink of a full-throttle meltdown.

What the film does is mix entertainment with this message about socio-economic unfairness, inequality, etc.

Whether or not people take these elements as seriously as they should is at risk from the popcorn qualities. It’s almost like it doesn’t know what it is.

Is it a kick-ass thriller, a black comedy, or a fantasy?

The film certainly entertains.

This is unsurprising because director Joel Schumacher is at the helm as director. The man is a mainstream director churning out hits like The Client (1994), Batman Forever (1995), and Batman & Robin (1997) throughout the 1990s.

Some were more successful than others but Falling Down is his best work.

I am a big fan of Falling Down with the awareness that the messages peppered throughout may not be taken as seriously as they ought to be. And the reason is that there are too many of them. It’s almost as if they are boxes being checked off a list.

But it bears repeating that the entertainment factor is fabulous.

One scorching summer day in Los Angeles William Foster (Michael Douglas) an already frustrated middle-aged man who is unemployed and divorced is having a terrible day.

When his car breaks down on the freeway, he leaves his vehicle and begins a trek across the city to attend his daughter’s birthday party.

As he makes his way through urban neighborhoods, William’s frustration and bitterness are tested at every turn resulting in violent encounters with various people, including a vengeful gang and a pursuant veteran police sergeant Martin Prendergast (Robert Duvall).

Unfortunately for Prendergast, today is the day before his long-awaited retirement.

Douglas delivers an excellent performance as Foster. He makes the character relatable to every viewer who has ever felt so fed up they want to discharge the people responsible for the unfairness. He only takes his anger out on those who deserve it and that makes the character somewhat of a hero.

The white supremacist, the belligerent Korean grocery store owner, the gang members, and the lazy construction workers all deserve their just desserts.

Throughout the film, I cheered Foster mightily and chuckled at his wit.

My favorite sequence occurs at the fast-food joint named Whammy Burger. All Foster wants is his breakfast but he arrives one minute past the cut-off as the unsympathetic cashier smugly tells him.

He proceeds to ravage the restaurant in anger.

Despite the humor that Schumacher adds the message must be taken seriously. Minority characters are aptly shown as repressed or not treated well and that point sticks with me until the end.

The least interesting story point is the entanglement between Foster and his ex-wife Beth, played by a woefully underutilized Barbara Hershey.

The Oscar-nominated actress can do so much but her talents are wasted in a throwaway role as the underdeveloped wife character.

I never warmed to Robert Duvall’s police sergeant character either and while sympathetic to Foster’s cause because of a situation with his son, the plot point never develops fully. Prendergast’s overbearing wife and a young police officer he seems obsessed with are never explored well.

Despite great talent, the film belongs to Michael Douglas.

The mood and cinematography deserve accolades. The humidity is suffocating and the layers of smog overlooking Los Angeles hammer home the stuffy nature of the film. One can imagine the sweaty environment leading to explosions of anger.

What Schumacher does besides entertain the audience is show them that a once successful man who once had a great job and happy family life can lose it all and snap.

Falling Down (1993) shows that what happens to Foster can happen to anyone.

Let’s live each happy day to the fullest while we can.

The Little Things-2021

The Little Things-2021

Director John Lee Hancock

Starring Denzel Washington, Rami Malek, Jared Leto

Scott’s Review #1,191

Reviewed November 5, 2021

Grade: B

The serial killer genre in film always fascinates me. Gems like Dirty Harry (1971), The Silence of the Lambs (1991), Seven (1995), and Zodiac (2007) immediately spring to mind as top-of-the-heap works.

John Lee Hancock, who directs The Little Things (2021), thinks so too, as he borrows from those pictures throughout his film.

The film features superior acting and a fantastic mood, complemented by practical musical score elements and absorbing cinematography of Los Angeles and its surrounding areas.

The script must have been compelling enough to attract heavyweights like Washington, Malek, and Jeto to join on board.

Despite these wins, The Little Things is lackluster and ultimately disappoints. I was ready to award it a solid B+ if not for the confusing and unsatisfying conclusion, which reminds me of a weak copy of those mentioned above, Seven.

Deputy Sheriff Joe “Deke” Deacon (Washington) joins forces with Sgt. Jim Baxter (Malek) to search for a serial killer who’s terrorizing Los Angeles. The blueprint is similar to a case that Deacon worked on and ended with a deadly mistake and his resulting heart attack.

As the pair track the suspected culprit, a loner named Albert Sparma (Leto), Baxter becomes aware of Deke’s inner demons and risks going down the same emotionally wrecked path.

A cat-and-mouse game ensues with Sparma continually toying with both Deke and Baxter.

The story is familiar territory and sets the stage for the rest of the film. How many times in film have we seen a detective tortured over a case? Despite Sparma being the only real suspect and presumed serial killer, we never do learn whether or not he did the deeds.

One girl who escaped the killers’ clutches may recognize Sparmas’ boots, but is dismissed after concluding that, since he is in police custody, he must be the killer.

The opening sequence is excellent despite using a direct rip-off of the scene in The Silence of the Lambs where the girl is cruising down an empty desert road at high speed, singing a rock song without a care in the world.

Thankfully, they had her crooning a different song, but the scene mirrors the other. She is pursued by a killer in another car. The scene is a terrific way to start.

The ensemble does good work with the characters they play. Leto gets the showiest role while Washington plays yet another police detective, a role he now can probably play in his sleep, but always does well.

Malek was cast based on the success of his Oscar-winning portrayal of Freddie Mercury in Bohemian Rhapsody (2018).

Leto received enough acclaim to earn a Screen Actors Guild Award nomination and a Golden Globe nomination. This prompted me, and undoubtedly others, to see The Little Things, which suffered at the box office due to the COVID-19 pandemic.

I didn’t buy the period of 1990-1991 for a second, regardless of how many shiny Chevy Impalas were used in the production. None of the characters looked like the time that it was supposed to be, though I admired the now old-fashioned diners and storefronts they used.

I don’t know much about Hancock, who both directs and writes The Little Things, but looking at his filmography, he has produced such works as The Blind Side (2009) and Saving Mr. Banks (2013).

Since both of these films are safer works, it’s unsurprising that much of the film resembles watching an episode of CSI.

Hancock could do with a dose of rawness over sleekness in his next film.

The Little Things (2021) pales in comparison to other, better-known genre films and will not be remembered well, despite making a valiant effort to play with the big boys.

Unfortunately, it’s a minor league experience that borrows too heavily from other films and therefore lacks a distinct identity.

I shudder to think of the result if not for the big stars who appear.

Stage Fright-1950

Stage Fright-1950

Director Alfred Hitchcock

Starring Jane Wyman, Marlene Dietrich, Michael Wilding

Scott’s Review #1,160

Reviewed July 9, 2021

Grade: A-

Stage Fright (1950) is a British film directed by Alfred Hitchcock before his American invasion.

The film feels like a hybrid British/American project with the leading lady, Jane Wyman, being American, but otherwise, it is set in London with many British actors.

Hitchcock mixes plenty of film noir influences with the typical thrills and suspense, creating an excellent film that flies under the radar compared to his other films.

Wyman is cast as an attractive aspiring actress who works on her craft by going undercover to solve a mystery. The film has elements of Nancy Drew, and it’s fun to watch Wyman, who would become Mrs. Ronald Reagan before he entered politics and later became President of the United States.

She reportedly divorced him because she had little interest in entering the political spectrum by association.

The action gets off to a compelling start with two characters driving in a car in apparent peril. Hitchcock loved driving scenes like these. It is learned that the police think actor Jonathan Cooper (Richard Todd) is a murderer, and now they’re on his tail.

He seeks shelter with his ex-girlfriend Eve (Wyman), who drives him to hide with her father, Commodore Gill (Alastair Sim).

He explains that it was his lover, the famous and snobbish actress Charlotte Inwood (Marlene Dietrich), who killed the victim (not coincidentally, her husband). Convinced that Jonathan is innocent, Eve plays detective and assumes multiple disguises, slowly developing feelings for Detective Inspector Wilfred O. Smith (Michael Wilding).

Once embroiled in a web of deception, she realizes that Shakespeare was right and that all the world is a stage.

Wyman is the Hitchcock brunette as opposed to his later fascination with the blonde bombshell. Therefore, her role is more sedate and astute than the sex appeal that would come with Hitchcock’s later characters.

Eve closely resembles Charlie, the character Teresa Wright played in 1943’s Shadow of a Doubt. They are both astute and investigative, with a mystery to unravel. Interestingly, they both fall for detectives.

All the glasses! Hitchcock’s fetish for women wearing glasses is on full display, especially with the character of Nellie, a cockney opportunist played by Kay Walsh. Look closely, and one can spot several minor or background ladies sporting spectacles, and even Eve dons a pair as a disguise.

The director’s daughter, Pat Hitchcock, plays a small role as she would in Strangers on a Train (1951) and Psycho (1960).

Speaking of Strangers on a Train, there are similarities to mention.

Both involve a tit-for-tat exchange in which one character requests another kill someone for a payoff or other motivation.

Marlene Dietrich is as sexy as ever in Charlotte’s pivotal role. She is also self-centered, self-absorbed, and thoughtless. She constantly mispronounces Eve’s fictitious name and barely notices that she is covering for her regular maid/dresser.

But is she evil and capable of killing her husband?

Stage Fright has a thrilling finale. In the climax, the audience finally finds out who has been telling the truth, who has been lying, and what explanations are revealed. There is a pursuit, an attempted killing, and a shocking death by way of a falling safety curtain in the theater, naturally.

What one would expect from a Hitchcock final act.

The focus on theatrical stage actors is a nice topic and adds to the existing drama, as the implications of playing various roles are prominent. So is the prominence early on of the Big Ben landmark in London and other location trimmings.

Stage Fright (1950) doesn’t get the love saved for other Hitchcock masterpieces, and that’s a shame because the film is excellent.

Foreign Correspondent-1940

Foreign Correspondent-1940

Director Alfred Hitchcock

Starring Joel McCrea, Laraine Day

Scott’s Review #1,158

Reviewed July 2, 2021

Grade: B+

As a superfan of all films Alfred Hitchcock, I had been chomping to see some of his older selections before he took American audiences by storm throughout his 1950s and 1960s heyday.

Many people do not realize just how many films the “Master of Suspense” made that are not household names.

Foreign Correspondent, made in 1940, is a black-and-white production and a prominent precursor for his later works. Much of the fun is zeroing in on particulars that would be featured in later films.

Hitchcock favorites, such as a tower, a circling airplane, an unwitting and innocent man involved in a political plot, and a false identity, are served up. The director’s obsession with female characters wearing glasses is undoubtedly part of the fun.

What Hitchcock fan doesn’t giggle with glee after discovering the director’s trademark cameo appearance in each of his films?

As an aside, I love the cover artwork for this film.

Foreign Correspondent isn’t one of the best-remembered Hitchcock films because it’s only perfect rather than exceptional.

In 1940, the director was getting his groove following a surprising Best Picture Oscar win for Rebecca (1940), a film that was a very early American effort. He was still finding his footing in production values.

The legendary Costume Designer Edith Head and Music Composer Bernard Hermann had not joined the fold yet as they would in masterpieces like The Man Who Knew Too Much (1956) and Vertigo (1958), and it shows. The musical score is ordinary, more or less what a picture made in 1940 sounded like.

The costumes are decent but lack the grandeur and style that Head brought to the productions.

New York City-based crime reporter John Jones, later renamed Huntley Haverstock, played by Joel McCrea, is reduced to producing dull copy despite the world being on the cusp of war. His editor hopes a change of scenery will be what Jones needs to get back on track and provide a juicy story.

He is re-assigned to Europe as a foreign correspondent. When he stumbles on a spy ring, he attempts to unravel the truth with the help of a politician, Stephen Fisher (Herbert Marshall), his daughter Carol (Laraine Day), and an English journalist (George Sanders). But can any or all of them be trusted, or are they in cahoots with the bad guys for their gain?

The plot alone immediately reminded me of Saboteur (1942). Both involve a complicated (maybe overly?) story of government, investigations, and sabotage.

They also each focus on a couple attempting to outwit or outrun authorities. They are both filmed with black and white cinematography.

Foreign Correspondent contains its share of thrills and compelling moments. The best sequence is when John is nearly shoved off the tower of Westminster Cathedral by a hitman, who ultimately plummets to his death. The obvious parallel is to Vertigo, especially when the nuns give the sign of the cross after the body falls.

Other mentions include a terrific airplane finale with astounding, long-lasting special effects. Also unforgettable is a windmill sequence that will remind any Hitchcock fan of the famous cropduster scene from North By Northwest. I half expected a character to exclaim, “The windmill is turning where there isn’t any wind.”

At two hours, even in run time, Foreign Correspondent is a good fifteen minutes too long. The plot takes some time to pick up speed, and John and Carol’s chemistry is relatively weak. They are certainly no Mitch and Melanie like from The Birds (1963).

Foreign Correspondent (1940) is a second-tier Alfred Hitchcock film with enough components to serve as a solid opening act for North By Northwest. This is not such a bad thing, and the film holds its own against similarly patterned films of its day.

Oscar Nominations: Best Motion Picture, Best Supporting Actor-Alan Basserman, Best Original Screenplay, Best Cinematography, Best Art Direction, Best Visual Effects

The Day of the Jackal-1973

The Day of the Jackal-1973

Director Fred Zinnemann

Starring Edward Fox, Michael Lonsdale

Scott’s Review #1,155

Reviewed June 22, 2021

Grade: A

Political thrillers can run the gamut from taut plots involving espionage, assassinations, and car chases to the political landscape. They often risk being overly complicated and losing their audience through too much wordiness and not enough meat and potatoes.

The Day of the Jackal (1973), telling the story of an assassination attempt on a world leader, is perfectly paced and intriguing, offering some titillating elements and nothing run-of-the-mill. It’s not lazy and can be classified as a thinking man’s film.

I loved it.

Certain complexities and trysts experienced by the deadly title character add extra pizazz and spiciness to the already compelling plot.

And the sequences of Paris and its lovely metropolis can aid any film.

A cagey and intelligent underground French paramilitary group is determined to execute President Charles de Gaulle (Adrien Cayla-Legrand). Still, when numerous attempts on his life fail, they resort to hiring the infamous hitman known as “The Jackal” (Edward Fox).

As he plots to assassinate de Gaulle, he takes out others who stand in his way. Meanwhile, Lebel (Michel Lonsdale), a Parisian police detective, begins to solve the mystery of the killer’s identity.

The film is not in French but in English.

Fox is the major draw. Charismatic, handsome, and athletic, he hardly looks like a fiend.  But that’s just the point. A lesser film would have cast an actor who looks like a killer. With Fox, we get many more intricacies. He beds women…..and men.

Think- a bisexual James Bond.

This is enchanting to see in 1973, though the film is British, and sometimes the Brits were well ahead of American filmmakers in this regard.

The director, Fred Zinneman, is Austrian, and boy, can he direct.

I wasn’t sure how engaged I would be. After all, the history books can tell us how the assassination attempt ended. It failed. What was the motivation for watching a film, especially one destined to be complicated? I quickly realized that The Day of the Jackal had that special sauce. It’s more than engaging, it’s enthralling.

The audience is meant to root for Lebel to beat Fox, but there is so much more bubbling under the circumstances. The villain is mysterious, and we know almost nothing about him. The ambiguity continues after the film ends.

This is a positive for the character and, by extension, for the film.

Meanwhile, the hero of the film, the guy after the “Jackal”, is your average, everyday Joe. He is unexciting but very smart and determined to capture Fox.

Lebel is quite likable for his savviness alone, but I still argue many will root for Fox to escape the clutches of Lebel. I know I did.

Great scenes occur in a swanky hotel when Fox becomes intrigued by Madame de Montpellier, played by Delphine Seyrig. He picks up the rich and mysterious woman as they chat in the dining room. He later sneaks into her room and gets the girl.

Whoever cast this woman must have seen the Hitchcock classic Frenzy (1972) because she’s a dead ringer for Brenda Blaney (Barbara Leigh-Hunt).

Is it an accident that both meet grisly ends?

Not to be satisfied with merely bedding rich women, he goes to a Turkish bath to avoid the police and picks up a French gentleman. It is implied they have a romantic date before the gentleman catches onto Fox’s identity (he is now on the run from the police) and meets his maker in his kitchen.

The Day of the Jackal (1973) is a meticulously crafted film that should be the blueprint for anyone intent on creating a political thriller. It avoids hokey stereotypes or predictability, instead offering an edge-of-your-seat experience with nuances for miles.

It’s exceptional on all levels.

Oscar Nominations: Best Film Editing

The Friends of Eddie Coyle-1973

The Friends of Eddie Coyle-1973

Director Peter Yates

Starring Robert Mitchum, Peter Boyle

Scott’s Review #1,151

Reviewed June 11, 2021

Grade: B+

Borrowing heavily from the standard cop thriller films that emerged during the early 1970s but containing a unique cynicism and a point of view all its own, The Friends of Eddie Coyle (1973) is a taut and engaging crime thriller that will please fans of the genre but never bailing on those cinema fans seeking a more intellectual experience.

The Boston landscape is plentiful and a treat for fans of locale shoots and 1970s qualities.

A superior film, despite the many similar films created during the decade, there is a moroseness that encompasses the experience. I felt sorry for the main character, and The Friends of Eddie Coyle lacks a clear good-guy-versus-bad-guy standard. This helps the film.

What I’m trying to say is that those crime-thriller fans who desire a clear hero or standard characterization might be unsatisfied or miss the point, though the bank-robbery scenes alone are worth the price of a ticket.

Some say Robert Mitchum, cast in the title role, gives his finest film performance, but I wasn’t entirely blown away.  The film is an ensemble, and at times, Eddie Coyle feels like a supporting character.

Think Ma Rainey in Ma Rainey’s Black Bottom (2020).

Instead, I ruminated over his brilliant performances in my two favorite films of his, The Night of the Hunter (1955) and Ryan’s Daughter (1970).

His performance is fine, but all the actors bring their A-game.

Aging low-level Boston gunrunner Eddie Coyle (Mitchum) is fearful of the possibility of several years of jail time for participating in a truck hijacking in neighboring New Hampshire. Having a wife and kids dependent on him, and feeling old and desperate, he volunteers to funnel information to Dave Foley (Richard Jordan), an ATF agent.

Eddie buys some guns from another gunrunner, Jackie Brown (Steven Keats), then gives him up to Foley, but the agent isn’t satisfied. Panicked, Eddie decides to give up the gang of bank robbers he’s been supplying, only to find that Foley already knows about them and that the mob believes Eddie snitched.

These events do not bode well for poor Eddie, who now has a mark on his back.

The Friends of Eddie Coyle has a handful of plots happening simultaneously. There is Eddie’s predicament, the saga of the bank robbers and the bank owners they put in peril, and a bartender played by Peter Boyle (of television Everybody Loves Raymond fame), who is also an informant.

The stories intertwine, but sometimes not quite enough, and a conclusion over how the players relate is sometimes unclear.

From the get-go, I was reminded of Dirty Harry (1971), which arguably propelled the cop/crime thriller/crime drama to mainstream audiences.

Dave Grusin receives credit for the music composition and creates a score similar to Dirty Harry, with a funky tempo and time-relevant arrangements. They work and fit the times perfectly.

Unlike Dirty Harry, which is a superb film in many ways, the messaging differs. Whereas Dirty Harry professes a good-versus-bad approach and a conservative pro-gun stance, The Friends of Eddie Coyle doesn’t take the time to school the audience on most cops’ viewpoints.

The bad guys are complex, nuanced characters with worries and fears to wrestle with.

The location sequences are plentiful and lend the film authenticity and a sense of Boston appreciation. The classic Boston Garden is featured as two characters attend a Boston Bruins hockey game. The Charles River, downtown, and surrounding areas, such as Quincy, are featured.

Director Peter Yates certainly creates a blue-collar, Irish-represented community.

Lovers of classic 1970s American automobiles will be in heaven. I spotted a Ford Galaxy, a Chevy Impala, and similar full-sized cars. One character drives a green muscle car.

I mean, there are tons and tons of car sequences in this film.

With the seedy Boston underworld, a terrific performance by Robert Mitchum, and enough guns, car chases, and bank robberies to satisfy the action audience, The Friends of Eddie Coyle (1973) is a win.

The film didn’t stick with me as much as I would have liked, but it’s a striking entry in the crime thriller genre.

French Connection II-1975

French Connection II-1975

Director John Frankenheimer

Starring Gene Hackman, Fernando Rey

Scott’s Review #1,148

Reviewed June 2, 2021

Grade: B

The French Connection, the winner of the coveted Best Picture Academy Award for 1971 releases, is a brilliant film that holds up well as a cream-of-the-crop cop film.

An action film winning an Oscar is as rare as a horror film winning one. It’s rare.

The decision to make a sequel is debatable, but French Connection II (1975) stands as a decent action crime thriller, but hardly on par with the original.

Is anyone surprised?

Sequels rarely usurp their predecessors, especially when The French Connection is such a superior genre film. In a way, Part II didn’t have much of a chance measured up against Part I.

Films like The Godfather (1972) only come around once in a lifetime.

Unfortunately, William Friedkin did not return to the fold to direct, replaced by John Frankenheimer, best known for the nail-biting The Manchurian Candidate (1962).

Thankfully, Gene Hackman did return. He helps the film from an acting perspective and gives his all in a tough role. His partner, played by Roy Scheider, does not appear and is not mentioned.

Picking up a couple of years after the first one ended, Detective “Popeye” Doyle (Hackman) is still hot on the heels of cagey and sophisticated drug trafficker Charnier (Fernando Rey).

Doyle hops a flight to lovely Marseilles, France. Away from his familiar New York City territory, he struggles to assimilate himself in a strange city and conquer the drug ring to bring Charnier down.

Doyle is accosted and spends time as a dreary heroin addict in rough confines before being tossed away and forced to recover cold turkey style. He becomes even more determined to bring the bad guys to justice- dead or alive.

As a stand-alone action film, French Connection II is not a bad experience. It is certainly better than the still-to-come 1980s doldrums, like the Die Hard and Lethal Weapon cop/buddy films, that marginalized the genre into cookie-cutter popcorn fare.

The equally compelling French landscape replaces the gripping New York City. Gorgeous locales like the French Riviera and the Mediterranean Sea are featured, but Marseilles is not Paris. There exists a seediness and dirtiness that helps the film a bit.

Hackman acts his ass off, especially as a drug addict. I shudder to think of a weaker actor trying to pull off this acting extravaganza. From scenes featuring his withdrawals to his drug cravings, it is exciting to watch and showcase Hackman’s wonderful acting chops.

But the intent is to produce a good action film after all, and that effort is mediocre. French Connection II is not as compelling as The French Connection, and despite some decent chase scenes and a cool finale where Doyle gets his satisfaction, there is little else but by-the-numbers activity.

The final fifteen minutes are the best part of the film.

Remember the frightening car chasing a subway sequence? Or the delicious cat-and-mouse subway sequence between Doyle and Charnier?

Brilliant scenes like this do not exist.

A few clichés are bothersome. Predictably, Doyle stands out like a sore thumb in France, and his hot-headedness emerges quickly, offending or pissing off the French authorities. He is not the most likable character, and I frequently found myself rooting for the bad guys!

I don’t think I was supposed to.

Other implausibilities occur, like the boneheaded decision to send Doyle to Marseilles, to begin with. Was he the only detective, including the French authorities, capable of catching Charnier?

What was the point of the old-lady heroin addict stealing Doyle’s watch?

A shadow of The French Connection, the dull titled French Connection II (1975) is a weaker effort but still respectable compared to other genre films.

This is mostly due to the French landscape and Gene Hackman’s return.

Femme Fatale-2002

Femme Fatale-2002

Director Brian De Palma

Starring Rebecca Romijn-Stamos, Antonio Banderas

Scott’s Review #1,137

Reviewed April 28, 2021

Grade: B+

The plot of Femme Fatale (2002) is muddy, to say the least, and I was left perplexed by the details by the time the film concluded. I even needed to review a synopsis to figure out what the hell went on but I was willing to do so.

But, let’s remember that it’s directed by Brian De Palma so the beauty is in the visuals’ style and stimulation, which makes the film pay off in spades.

Probably more similar to a modern De Palma film like 2012’s underrated and underappreciated Passion than more familiar turf like Carrie (1976) or Dressed to Kill (1980), Femme Fatale has juicy trademarks that only fans of the director will immediately notice and revile in.

The entire experience that De Palma creates is titillating, erotic, fetishist, and thrilling. It’s an enrapturing piece.

Unfortunately, Femme Fatale was a box-office dud but has subsequently amassed a cult following status likely by the legions of De Palma fans who appreciate the good stylistic film.

Rebecca Romijn-Stamos, with legs for miles and an abdomen to fry eggs off of, stars as Laure Ash, a master manipulator, who takes part in one last jewel theft intending to leave behind her life of crime. Her intention predictably doesn’t turn out so well but Laura sure does look great in her leather-clad outfits and affair with a female supermodel.

Later, Romijn-Stamos also plays an odd character named Lily, who is suicidal.

Reinvented under the presumption of a respectable married woman, Laura captures the attention of eager photographer Nicolas (Antonio Banderas). He becomes mesmerized by the elusive woman amid the gorgeous locales of Paris and accidentally shatters her carefully crafted world by way of his photo taking.

The steamy women’s bathroom love scene between Laura, who is bisexual, and Veronica, a model with a diamond gold ensemble top, is not just a male chauvinistic turn-on, but hugely important to the storyline.

Laura is supposedly in cahoots with thugs “Black Tie” and Racine who aggressively wait outside the restroom, but is Laura double-crossing them both? Is she partnered in crime with Veronica or is she just a mark?

The riddles of the plot are both positive and negative especially when one scene plays out twice, midstream and during the finale. There is a mystique that forces the viewer to give up on any comprehension and plausibility over Laura and her motivations and modus Operandi.

I chose to immerse myself in the bevy of trimmings that De Palma tosses our way like a hungry dog salivating over a bone.

He borrows a bit from the best of Alfred Hitchcock films (when doesn’t he?)and his own, neither a bad thing. The most obvious is from the 1954 masterpiece, Rear Window, an orgy of fetishism, which appears throughout, mostly concerning Nicolas as he spies on Laura again and again, almost obsessively.

Romijn-Stamos isn’t the best actress in the biz and Banderas would grow as an actor after this film but Femme Fatale is about style, not Academy Award acting and the beauty is trying to figure out a puzzle and being startled by a twist ending and a replay of the events to provide some sort of explanation.

The twist is quite a doozy and had me rethink the entire film. Plot holes be-damned it was a very good reveal but also made most of the rest of the film a bit worthless.

Femme Fatale (2002) will never reach the upper echelons of the best of Brian De Palma films but it’s hardly a waste of time to give it a spin either.

Forgetting the steaminess altogether, the film is to European appreciating viewers with the astounding and plentiful sequences in and around Paris.

Zero Dark Thirty-2012

Zero Dark Thirty-2012

Director Kathryn Bigelow

Starring Jessica Chastain

Scott’s Review #1,133

Reviewed April 14, 2021

Grade: A-

Director Kathryn Bigelow, not far removed from her Oscar win for The Hurt Locker (2008), returns with a similar style of film centering around war and more specifically about the emotional tolls and psychological effects from not just the battlefields but from dangerous missions.

The main character suffers from many conflicts and inevitably the viewer will as well.

Zero Dark Thirty (2012) is unique for the genre by having a female in the lead role and star Jessica Chastain is front and center and terrific.

She is calm, restrained, and in control. She is tough to rattle and a powerful and inspirational character to be admired.

Chastain exudes cool in the face of danger.

Chastain does have a brilliant emotional scene at the end of the film. Her character, Maya, boards a military transport back to the U.S., as the sole passenger. She is asked where she wants to go and begins to cry. The emotion finally gets the better of her as it would to anyone.

The film is not all Chastain’s to brag about and there is little wrong with the film.

Beautifully directed, Bigelow layers her film with enough tension and magnificence to enshroud the moral questions viewers will ask, specifically about torture.

It’s somewhat fictionalized, and in fact, Chastain’s character is made up, but Zero Dark Thirty is a gem nonetheless.

But we also know the events happened.

The film starts incredibly well and immediately grabs the viewer’s attention with a brilliant first scene. Amidst a dark screen and soundtrack of actual calls made to the 911 operator from inside the World Trade Center Towers on 9/11, the scene is about as powerful an opening as a film can have and bravely sets the stage for what follows.

These include many scenes of Arab detainees being interrogated (that is, tortured) for information about Al Qaeda. Is this justified or unnecessary abuse?

The viewer is immediately saddened and in tears and conflicted about whether the torture is justified having just heard the 911 calls.

I know I was.

From there, the viewer also is told a summary story putting the pieces of the first scene together.

After the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, Osama bin Laden becomes one of the most wanted men on the planet. The worldwide manhunt for the terrorist leader occupies the resources and attention of two U.S. presidential administrations.

This is the crux of the film and the story told.

Ultimately, it is the work of a dedicated female operative  (Chastain) that proves instrumental in finally locating bin Laden. In May 2011, Navy SEALs launched a nighttime strike, killing bin Laden in his compound in Abbottabad, Pakistan.

We all know this but troubling is the use of torture. I keep coming back to this point.

I think what I like most about the film besides the riveting pacing, action sequences, and psychological appeal is the controversy that surrounds it.

The fact that it ruffled feathers at the CIA and in Congress about whether the info was leaked to the filmmakers makes me think that at least some of it is based on facts, despite what other reviewers (likely with a strong political bias) might claim to the contrary.

But as a political junkie that’s just my belief.

The film’s reproduction of enhanced interrogation techniques is brutal. Some critics, in light of the interrogations being depicted as gaining reliable, useful, and accurate information, considered the scenes pro-torture propaganda.

Acting CIA director Michael Morell felt the film created the false impression that torture was key to finding bin, Laden. Others described it as an anti-torture exposure of interrogation practices.

I guess we may never know the truth. But the film compels and provokes feeling.

Bigelow is at the top of her game with Zero Dark Thirty (2012) crafting a genre film (the war one) way too often told from only a masculine “us versus them” mentality and leaving behind the fascinating nuances that can make the genre a more interesting and less one-note one.

The masterful director does just that and makes us think, ponder, and squirm uneasily.

Oscar Nominations: 1 win-Best Picture, Best Actress-Jessica Chastain, Best Original Screenplay, Best Sound Editing (won), Best Film Editing

Promising Young Woman-2020

Promising Young Woman-2020

Director Emerald Fennell

Starring Carey Mulligan, Bo Burnham

Scott’s Review #1,132

Reviewed April 13, 2021

Grade: A

Emerald Fennell, making her film directorial debut, kicks her viewers in the ass with significant help from star Carey Mulligan, with Promising Young Woman (2020).

The actress gives the best performance of her career.

The film is a sexy and haunting experience, mixing black comedy and witty dialogue with an important and timely subject matter- the abuse and victimization of young women by men.

Both men and women can be held responsible, as Fennell makes abundantly clear. Predators often have a share of people who choose to “look the other way” and thereby enable.

This is a constant theme throughout the film involving many characters who are called out for their passivity.

Fennell makes this point during two of the film’s most compelling scenes, calling out a high-powered dean and attorney for their betrayals. The scenes are so powerful that I wanted the characters to suffer as much as the revenge seeker does.

There is also a wackiness in the pacing and dialogue that reminds me quite a bit of the 1999 masterpiece, American Beauty.

The film is depravity, bizarreness, and brilliance all rolled into one. I felt this film in my bones.

Almost every scene is a treat in the mysterious and unexpected, and the film features peculiar characters and creative musical score renditions, and includes a scene and music from the underappreciated masterpiece The Night of the Hunter (1955). Fennell knows her classic cinema.

Mulligan stars as a woman named Cassie who seeks to avenge the death of her best friend, who was a victim of rape when they were in medical school, and their young lives had potential, and such possibility lay ahead of them.

Cleverly, we never see her friend, named Nina Fisher, but she is of vital importance and nearly a central character herself despite her absence.

Everyone said Cassie was a “promising young woman” until a mysterious event abruptly derailed her future. But now, at thirty and still living at home, her parents suggest, via a giant suitcase for her birthday, that it may be time for her to move on.

Cassie is tough to figure out since she’s wickedly clever, sometimes wisecracking, and tantalizingly cunning, and she’s living a secret double life by night. She goes to nightclubs looking drop-dead gorgeous and lures men to her rescue, pretending to be inebriated.

What happens when they go back to their pad is shocking, dark, and justified. The men will never see this coming.

Before the presumption is that Cassie is nothing more than a bad-ass, her intentions are not only admirable, but she has a heart and desires love. Promising Young Woman is a dark character study.

Besides the powerful story, Promising Young Woman is riddled with interesting cinematic techniques. Cassie’s parents lounge in their afternoon, watching The Night of the Hunter, a dark fairy tale for adults.

Later, a haunting version of Britney Spears “I’m a Slave 4 U”, complete with a string arrangement, is featured most uniquely.

All the supporting players add pizzazz and strength, some in odd or unclear ways, until certain revelations bubble to the surface.

Jennifer Coolidge as Cassie’s strange mother, Bo Burnham as the smitten Ryan Cooper, and Alison Brie as Cassie’s college friend Madison McPhee are the best examples.

Bo and Madison have the most to hide, but will they or won’t they face Cassie’s wrath? Not much is worse than a woman scorned.

But the main draw is Mulligan. Startlingly good, with an astonishingly powerful, deeply layered performance by her. She showcases a remarkable acting range, effortlessly shifting from brash to darkly humorous and, at times, emotionally vulnerable in her best performance to date.

Two scenes stand out to me.

The first is a delicious scene between Cassie and the female dean of her school, played by Connie Britton. At first dismissive and annoyed by Cassie’s accusations, Dean Elizabeth Walker finally takes notice when she believes that Cassie had kidnapped her teenage daughter and left her with a group of drunken frat boys. What comes around goes around!

The second is the finale wedding scene, interestingly not featuring Cassie other than by text messages. As the happy young couple says their vows a parade of police cars ruins the moment and the audience cheers victory. It’s a satisfying moment.

The screenplay is original, fresh, and timely. In the “Me Too” movement, the timing is vital and makes the subject matter relevant. Fennell wrote the screenplay- is there anything she can’t do?

Promising Young Woman (2020) is an exceptional film. It’s a controversial revenge film, but it’s so much more. Taking a powerful subject matter and examining the hypocrisy of men and women is telling and eye-opening.

That is why this film is critical to see and brings awareness to a situation that society still too often deems as okay.

Oscar Nominations: 1 win-Best Picture, Best Director-Emerald Fennell, Best Actress-Carey Mulligan, Best Original Screenplay (won), Best Film Editing

Independent Spirit Award Nominations: 2 wins-Best Director-Emerald Fennell, Best Female Lead- Carey Mulligan (won), Best Screenplay (won)

P2-2007

P2-2007

Director Franck Khalfoun

Starring Rachel Nichols, Wes Bentley

Scott’s Review #1,106 

Reviewed January 29, 2021

Grade: B

Franck Khalfoun, a French filmmaker known for the horror genre, makes his directorial debut with P2 (2007).

As a horror buff, the film has a great premise which made me immediately want to see it. Unfortunately, while the film has its moments of intrigue and plenty of gore, the climax ultimately disappoints and it turns run-of-the-mill.

Like many of its modern horror brethren, there is little that separates it from other similar films.

It’s fine Saturday night viewing fare but quite predictable.

Films set during the Christmas holiday and especially in festive New York City always enrapture me so P2 gets a leg up. The film doesn’t utilize the holiday very well save for a smattering of decorations within an office building, some snow, and one creepy holiday song.

Set on Christmas Eve, the plot follows a young businesswoman named Angela (Rachel Nichols) who becomes trapped in an underground parking garage in midtown Manhattan. She is pursued by a psychopathic unhinged security guard (Wes Bentley), who is obsessed with her.

Bentley, known for his terrific role in American Beauty (1999) is the main reason to see this film. He plays creepy and obsessed very well and is a great villain.

His piercing blue eyes are intense and frightening and his obsession with Elvis Presley and his dog is revealed. He is disturbed though for no apparent reason, which is not positive to any character development.

Why is he crazy?

When Thomas plays Elvis Presley’s “Blue Christmas” over the intercom it’s a festive and delightfully morbid highlight.

I desired to know what makes Thomas tick and why he hunts Angela. Has he been watching her for months or does he simply see an opportunity on this particular night and go for the gusto?

The plot reveals a bit of both which is unsatisfying because there is no payoff.

Does he knock out and kidnap Angela because she rebuffs his advances or would he have done this anyway if she agreed to dinner?

He is in love with her but why? It’s not that she isn’t a catch. She is pretty and a successful businesswoman with a good head on her shoulders. Does she reject him because she gets a bad vibe or because he’s a security guard?

I wanted more backstory for both main characters but once she is chained to a table it hardly matters. He’s gone too far off the deep especially after it’s revealed he has killed others. Thomas’s motivations are not satisfying.

Nichols, a novice actress, is very good at her role. She carries the film and is in a state of peril most of the time. But she neither overacts nor plays the victim.

There is a nice balance of terror and figuring out what steps to take to save her life and flee the madman.

P2 possesses a female-empowerment vibe but Angela does appear in skimpy clothing thus issuing the standard state of undress required by their female stars, a formula many horror films stick to.

Angela is smart, quick-thinking, and strong. She tries to outsmart her capturer and more often than not she does and she is victorious in the end.

Surprise!

I noticed multiple nods to the Saw (2004-present) franchise since this series introduced and embraced the torture-horror genre.

Many horror films use this technique to shock and startle viewers instead of providing clever writing or stories. The use of videotape appears in P2 which borrows heavily from Saw.

P2 (2007) is a fine effort and will satisfy horror fans. It may tread into familiar territory and back itself into a corner with limited story possibility, but I did look over my shoulder a couple of times after viewing the film when I was in my building’s parking garage.

Ironically, I was on level P2.

Maybe the film did leave an impression after all?

Air Force One-1997

Air Force One-1997

Director Wolfgang Petersen

Starring Harrison Ford, Gary Oldman, Glenn Close

Scott’s Review #1,085

Reviewed November 21, 2020

Grade: B+

If ever a straight-ahead, summer blockbuster, popcorn flick existed, Air Force One (1997) is it. Surprisingly, this is not a bad thing. It’s not cerebral, but it’s never dull.

The film has hooks and muscle and assembles a thrill ride, edge-of-your-seat action fest. Some would say this is just what the doctor ordered, and they’d be right, provided the mood is for a mind-escaping, meat-and-potatoes affair.

Air Force One is pure Americana. With a patriotic musical score and a clear hero and villain, it’s easy to know who to root for. Suspension of disbelief is mandatory since some scenes are as implausible as Santa Claus shimmying down a chimney on Christmas Eve, but the film is entertaining.

The action is non-stop.

At the tail end of his prime action star years (the 1980s and 1990s), Harrison Ford stars as the president of the United States of America, James Marshall.

After making a bombastic speech in Moscow vowing never to negotiate with terrorists, a group of them led by the dastardly Ivan (Gary Oldman) hijacked Air Force One with the president and his family on board.

Marshall, a former soldier, hides in the cabin of the plane and races against time to save his family and those aboard the flight from the terrorists.

The plot is implausible and hokey and reeks of plot points to carry the story along, but surprisingly, the film works. There is no way a president would ever race around performing stunts aboard an airplane, conquering the villains like clockwork.

But Ford has the charisma to make us believe it could happen, and his character is a family man, a Vietnam veteran, and a Medal of Honor recipient. Can this guy be any more perfect?

Oldman, always reliable as a villain, is perfectly cast. His character’s motivations are simplistic and nationalistic. Ivan believes that the collapse of the Soviet Union has ruined his country and somehow it’s the fault of the United States.

The reasoning is silly, but it’s in keeping with the patriotic nature of Air Force One- the ‘us versus them’ mentality. The United States is good; Russia is bad. It’s what middle America wants, and the target audience of this film is clear. Back to the Cold War.

Wolfgang Petersen, who directs the film, knows his way around the action genre. After all, he crafted the memorable Das Boot (1981) and Outbreak (1995). The film has a Tom Clancy-Patriot Games meets Die Hard (1988) style.

Petersen meshes the score with the quick editing style to layer the film with more action than slowed-down conversational scenes. We know how it’s going to end but enjoy the ride.

Looking closely, the film is not just for the guys.

Glenn Close is cast as a female Vice President and a strong gender-twisting presence. Kathryn Bennett is a bold, careful woman and the implication is that she is more than capable of taking over should anything happen to the president.

Her scenes mostly take place in the White House Situation Room and provide a nice calm as she is pressured by the Defense Secretary (Dean Stockwell) to declare the president incapable.

The scenes between Stockwell and Close are very strong.

Air Force One (1997) is a cliché-riddled and mainstream Hollywood creation to the max. Both the pacing and the pulsating style make the film a guilty pleasure and quite enjoyable.

When the mood strikes to kick back and relax with a fun, action-packed affair, this one is your choice. Just don’t dissect the details too much or expect real-life to mimic art.

Oscar Nominations: Best Sound, Best Film Editing

They Call Her One Eye-1973

They Call Her One Eye-1973

Director Bo Arne Vibenius

Starring Christina Lindberg, Heinz Hopf

Scott’s Review #1,061

Reviewed September 14, 2020

Grade: A-

They Call Her One Eye (1973) is a marvelously wicked revenge film that is a must-see for any Quentin Tarantino fan, as it’s a blueprint for his work to come.

The famous director worked as a clerk at a video store (back when they had video stores) and stumbled upon many odd and wonderful, obscure, independent films.

With his stepfather’s guidance, he was encouraged to pursue his love of film by visiting art theaters and similar venues.

Undoubtedly, They Call Her One Eye was one of his findings.

A young woman (Christina Lindberg) struggles to overcome her tortured past but runs into more trouble when she gets mixed up with a seemingly wonderful man (Heinz Hopf), who turns out to be the exact opposite.

After she misses her bus to her job at a farm, the man picks her up and soon has her working as a prostitute and addicted to drugs. Her only chance to escape will be to learn martial arts and exact revenge on her pimp. She spends her time learning to fight and plotting a day of reckoning.

Impossible not to conjure images of Kill Bill: Volume 1 (2003) and Kill Bill: Volume 2 (2004), the film is told from a female perspective, and revenge is the recipe of the day.

The main character also wears an eye patch, following a horrific scene when her eyeball is removed as punishment for being defiant.

Any fan of Tarantino knows that the character of villainous Elle Driver (Daryl Hannah) in Kill Bill also wears an eye patch and is a force to be reckoned with.

The film is focused on the 1970s female revenge genre, so the fun is in witnessing how badly Madeleine is treated by her pimp and her myriad of clients, because we know they will soon be dead.

Director Bo Arne Vibenius makes no bones about what type of film this is and, as a good measure of gender equality, throws in a female client who abuses Madeleine.

They Call Her One Eye is also reminiscent of I Spit on Your Grave, a disturbing 1978 American film with a similar story and more fanfare.

Those with even the slightest hint of prudishness must be forewarned. There is not only extreme nudity (the film is Swedish after all!), but contained within are several pornographic sequences of both vaginal and anal sex.

The scenes are tough to watch, and the unknown is whether the actors appeared in these moments themselves since their faces cannot be seen.

My hunch is that these scenes were spliced in from real pornographic films of the day, but are not necessary or relevant to the rest of the film.

The Swedish locales are lovely, especially those of the countryside or farmland, and the subtitles are nice to have. The film loses a point because my copy of the DVD is dubbed in English rather than authentically Swedish-speaking.

I found this a slight detraction, but other viewers may find this just fine.

The fight scenes are mostly done in slow-motion, which is another Tarantino stamp. This adds some flavor, as the slowed-down scenes become more effective, with blood and saliva spattering at a maximum.

Madeleine is the clear heroine (no pun intended) of the story, so the film doesn’t contain any other good characters except for Madeleine’s parents, who quickly commit suicide after receiving hateful letters they think are from their daughter.

Her plight is lofty since she was raped at a young age by a filthy derelict, which left her mute.

The girl has little luck.

Her pimp, Tony, is dastardly, and when he picks her up on the roadside, we know there is terror in her future, even though he benevolently takes her for dinner.

They Call Her One Eye is so low-budget that it almost feels like someone walked around with a camcorder and videotaped the sequences. Of course, this only lends credence to the grit the film produces and works exceptionally well for offering a seedy, dirty delight.

Rumor has it that during the eye-slicing scene, recommended for only those with steel-lined stomachs, a real corpse was used. Whether or not this is an urban legend is anyone’s guess.

Fans of Tarantino or those of experimental, artsy, horror-meets-thriller productions will adore They Call Her One Eye (1973), as it is rich in disturbing storylines and abundant in blood.

However, the result will leave feminists or anyone championing women with a small smile on their face after the dramatic conclusion.

The Mackintosh Man-1973

The Mackintosh Man-1973

Director John Huston

Starring Paul Newman, James Mason, Dominique Sanda

Scott’s Review #1,058

Reviewed August 31, 2020

Grade: B

The Mackintosh Man (1973) is not one of legendary director John Huston’s best films.

Known for well-remembered titles like The African Queen (1951), The Maltese Falcon (1941), and The Misfits (1961) that all movie historians and fan buffs are familiar with (or should be), this project is rather lackluster, only picking up at the very end to offer a riveting ending.

The rest is mediocre, weighed down by a plot that lacks depth, a romance that falls short, and little in the way of answers or a good wrap-up.

If this sounds too harsh, I will say that anything starring Paul Newman is worth seeing. Huston hit the jackpot in the casting department, and the actor provides enough to raise The Mackintosh Man’s status to an adequate “B” ranking.

I hate the title as it took days for it to stay in my memory.

Huston attempts to make the film a taut thriller, which at times is achieved, especially during the climax, and mixes humor, but the humor rarely comes through, only getting in the way of what would have been better in a darker vein.

It feels like a weak attempt to turn Paul Newman into James Bond.

Back to Newman. With his handsome face and icy blue eyes, he makes any film compelling, but I never really bought him in the role. This could be because of how the character is written.

Newman is an American actor who plays a British secret agent pretending (sometimes) to be Australian. This is a busy ask even for an actor of Newman’s caliber. He was much better in Alfred Hitchcock’s critically panned but well-aged Cold War thriller, Torn Curtain (1966), in a similar role.

Dominique Sanda, brilliant in The Conformist (1969), has little screen time until the finale, when her character finally shows depth.

Newman plays Joseph Rearden, a British intelligence agent tasked with bringing down a communist spy ring. After purposely getting himself tossed in a high-security prison, he breaks out of the joint in an escape arranged by a mysterious organization.

Rearden then tries to track the group’s activities and unmask its shadowy leader, played by James Mason.

On paper, the premise sounds quite appealing, and with Newman, Mason, and Sanda in my pocket, my expectations were lofty, but not met.

I am not painting the film as bad by any means, just not as good as I anticipated. Certainly, some aspects work.

Reardon’s time in prison is appealing and might have influenced the not-yet-made Escape from Alcatraz (1979).

When a male prisoner makes a pass at Reardon on the lunch line, asking Reardon if he’d like to dance with him, he is kindly rebuffed. Does the prisoner cleverly respond with “maybe in a year or two”?

The scene is played for laughs but also contains a sweet innocence.

The Mackintosh Man is not a film in which a scene like this can be interpreted as anything more than a reaffirmation of Reardon’s (and Newman’s) masculinity, though.

From there, we get back to business.  He meets a convicted Russian spy, and the two conceive a successful prison break. How they escape so easily is hard to swallow, but they have help from an organization.

After the breakout, Reardon finds himself drugged and sent to Ireland. It turns out that Mackintosh organized the escapade in the hope that Reardon could infiltrate the Scarperers, gather information on the group’s leader, Sir George Wheeler (James Mason), and prove that he was a Russian spy.

Just writing this out feels too confusing, which is the film’s main problem.

Reardon has a flirtation with an eccentric, tall, bad girl straight out of a Kubrick film, before connecting better with Mrs. Smith (Sanda), and culminating in a harrowing climax aboard a luxury yacht, with the gorgeous backdrop of Malta.

The sequence almost makes the rest of the film forgivable, as a lot of action suddenly develops, and the landscape is gorgeous. A deadly and unexpected shooting occurs after an incident involving drugged champagne or white wine.

I advise watching The Mackintosh Man (1973) with the knowledge that the slowness and the confusion of most of the film are worth watching for the fantastic finish.

Events and plot points may not necessarily all be spelled out, but the yacht scene and Malta locales are tremendous.

Newman carries the film with good acting from Mason and Sanda supporting the star.

Absence of Malice-1981

Absence of Malice-1981

Director Sydney Pollack

Starring Paul Newman, Sally Field

Scott’s Review #1,055

Reviewed August 20, 2020

Grade: A-

Absence of Malice (1981) is a terrific, slick crime thriller that, while compelling and way above average in content, feels like a studio creation and a starring vehicle for its two A-list stars.

There is little wrong with this since Paul Newman and Sally Field are top-notch talents, and the resulting project has tension, thrills, and a relevant concept.

I loved the Miami locales, as the hot, steamy atmosphere set the right tone for sizzling romance and intrigue. Despite feeling manipulated by the casting, the film nonetheless feels fresh and authentic.

The film compares with 1976’s magnificent All the President’s Men in terms of story and look, though Absence of Malice is much more mainstream.

The former has more grit and dirt, while the latter adds some romance that may or may not have been a wise decision. The chemistry between Newman and Field is mediocre, but it’s the story that works.

In rock n roll terms, Absence of Malice is the opening act to All the President’s Men’s headliner. They make a perfect double-bill.

Field plays Megan Carter, an ambitious young journalist who writes a scathing article implicating Michael Gallagher (Newman), a successful liquor wholesaler with ties to a criminal family, in the disappearance of a labor leader.

When he confronts Megan, she sees his side, and the duo team up to find the truth. Complicating matters is their mutual attraction, which leads to romantic interludes.

The initial setup seems like a ploy to put Megan and Michael at odds, only for them to fall madly in love. Fortunately, the story has more depth than that.

Any trite 1980s or 1990s romantic comedy uses the same trick. No, not only do sparks fly, but the characters realize that Megan was duped into writing the article. This sets off a series of events to figure out who wants to frame Michael and why. And why Megan has been “chosen” to help see this through.

There is plenty of political espionage and other things to keep the audience engaged. Similar genre films would flood movie theaters throughout the decade, becoming watered down.

If Absence of Malice were released in 1988 or 1989, it would not have had the same effect as it did upon release in 1981.

The soggy 1980s style of filmmaking had not yet appeared, so I like to think of Absence as more of a 1970s film.

Sally Field is a Nancy Drew type, a sleuth determined to solve a mystery. She is assertive, yet feminine, with a trendy hairstyle.

Newman is, well, Newman. Aging handsomely with his dazzling blue eyes, he can charm the pants off any woman. I didn’t quite buy the romantic element, not because he is at least twenty years older than she. He is suave and charming, and she is so strait-laced that the romance doesn’t work.

The film would have been better as a buddy film with a male and a female buddy.

Supporting stars flesh out the film nicely, especially Melinda Dillon, who is fabulous as Teresa Perrone, Michael’s conflicted friend who serves as his alibi.

In a nicely crafted side story, she suffers because her abortion is revealed to the public. Teresa, a devout Catholic, must decide between life and death. It is admirable to give a supporting character a good, juicy story.

Pollack is the right director for the job, and he successfully crafts a thriller laden with liberal beliefs that serves up a message film without losing tension.

Absence of Malice (1981) has snippets of style and tone reminiscent of his other films, such as They Shoot Horses, Don’t They (1969), The Way We Were (1973), and The Electric Horseman (1979).

My mind wanders, thinking about a potential Robert Redford/Jane Fonda pairing instead of Field and Newman, or some combination of a Barbra Streisand/Newman/Redford/Fonda mix.

I am not sure if Absence of Malice (1981) is still on anyone’s radar, but some forty years later, the message couldn’t be timelier.

When government officials regularly attack journalists for providing “fake news” or “alternate facts,” this film is a refreshing reminder that, more often than not, they seek to uncover corruption and get to the truth.

Oscar Nominations: Best Actor-Paul Newman, Best Supporting Actress-Melinda Dillon, Best Original Screenplay

Uncut Gems-2019

Uncut Gems-2019

Director Ben Safdie, Josh Safdie

Starring Adam Sandler, Idina Menzel

Scott’s Review #1,049

Reviewed August 5, 2020

Grade: A-

The Safdie brothers have quickly emerged as a directing force to be reckoned with, producing two “gems” in only three years.

Co-written by Ronald Bronstein, the final product is jagged, fast-paced, and frighteningly intense.

Uncut Gems (2019) follows up the similarly themed Good Time (2017), giving star Adam Sandler his most significant role yet.

Yes, his performance even rivals the brilliant one in Punch-Drunk Love (2002), leading him to his first Independent Spirit Award win for Best Male Lead.

He was robbed of an Oscar nomination. We can’t have everything.

Playing a loud-mouthed Jew is hardly new territory for the actor. Think of most of his screwball comedies from the 1990s and 2000s before he delved into serious actor territory. In the dreadful Jack and Jill (2011), he played two of them!

But a trip down memory lane is surely not what the actor prefers; instead, he undoubtedly prefers to veer off course to more mature movies for the latter part of his film career. Uncut Gems made money, so let’s hope so.

We meet Howard Ratner (Sandler) following his first-ever colonoscopy, which leaves him anxious and irritable.

On better days, he is needier and a somewhat lovable teddy bear as he carries on an affair with his employee, Julia (Julia Fox), and his estranged wife Dinah (Idina Menzel), who has agreed to a divorce after Passover.

Howard runs KMH, an upscale jewelry store in the Diamond District section of New York City. How he manages to land and carry on with both gorgeous ladies is a mystery, but Dinah is a kept woman, and Julia’s father is in the jewelry industry, thus explaining why Howard is.

There is something particularly charismatic about Howard that draws other characters and the viewers to him.

As revealed at the beginning of the film and the main storyline, Howard has made a deal with Ethiopian Jewish miners in Africa to obtain a valuable black opal and sell it to him at a low price, presumably so that he can make a substantial profit from it in the United States.

It is also quickly established that Howard is a mess, owing $100,000 to his brother-in-law and loan shark. To complicate matters, his shady business associate brings basketball star Kevin Garnett into Howard’s shop.

After spotting the opal, he asks to borrow it for one night with his NBA Championship ring as collateral. This cannot end well, and it doesn’t.

The subsequent activity in Uncut Gems is crude, foul-mouthed, and off-putting to some. I have friends who watched eight or twelve minutes of it and either turned it off or left the theater in a huff.

If you are expecting a comedy rife with potty jokes or other juvenile humor, look elsewhere.

This is the real deal, with a deadly ending that is impossible to imagine. I loved the settings of Manhattan, Long Island, and Mohegan Sun in Connecticut the best.

The Safdie brothers have two major knacks. They can craft tense, edge-of-your-seat crime thrillers like nobody’s business with a pulsating backdrop and a herky-jerky editing style. They can also catapult A-list actors teetering on the verge of being typecast for specific roles into the deep waters of creativity and sink or swim risk.

No better example than Robert Pattinson’s risky turn as a grizzled bank robber in Good Time (2017), shedding his sterile, pretty-boy image that The Twilight (2008-2013) films brought him. This led to his fantastic turn in The Lighthouse (2019).

The soon-to-be household name directing team does not deserve all the credit, though, even though the men serve in a variety of key positions, including acting, editing, shooting, mixing sound, and producing their films.

Sandler has become an interesting and versatile actor as he forges into the drama vein. Happy to roll up his sleeves and do an indie film for little money (like he needs it!), he proves that an unlikeable character can have hints of likability, black humor, and pizzazz.

He completely embodies Howard, making the audience love and hate him. He balances two women, schemes to get rich, and neglects his kid’s school play, yet he is appealing.

Let’s ceremoniously proclaim 2019 as the year that stars previously known for generic films, determined to break out with challenging and fantastic roles, were shunned by the Academy.

Jennifer Lopez, shockingly snubbed for Hustlers (2019), is being punished for years of mediocre films such as Maid in Manhattan (2002) and Monster-in-Law (2005), which join her compadre Sandler in two of the biggest snubs of the decade, with Uncut Gems (2019).

Perhaps an Oscar will be in their future if they stay the course and remain true to the work.

Independent Spirit Award Nominations: 3 wins- Best Feature, Best Male Lead-Adam Sandler (won), Best Director-Benny Safdie and Josh Safdie (won), Best Screenplay, Best Editing (won)

When a Stranger Calls-1979

When a Stranger Calls-1979

Director Fred Walton

Starring Carol Kane, Charles Durning

Scott’s Review #1,046

Reviewed July 29, 2020

Grade: B+

When a Stranger Calls (1979) has the great honor of possessing one of the most frightening twenty minutes in horror film history, kicking the daylights out of the stunned and transfixed viewer from the first frame.

While still a very good film, the pacing slows and shifts into a different kind of film before kicking back into high gear for the final twenty minutes of action.

This results in some imbalance and imperfections throughout.

Carol Kane, Tony Beckley, and Colleen Dewhurst make the film as good as it is, and they are the standouts for me.

Teenage babysitter Jill Johnson (Carol Kane) calmly walks through an affluent California neighborhood for a quiet evening of watching two children.

The doctor and his wife are embarking on a night of dinner and a movie, and the children will be no trouble, Jill is told, since they are recovering from colds and are already fast asleep in their beds.

Shortly after they leave, Jill begins receiving odd phone calls from a man who asks, “Have you checked the children?” At first, assumed to be a practical joke, the calls become more menacing, prompting Jill to get the police involved.

Now terrified, Jill is told by the alarmed police to calmly get out of the house because the calls she is receiving are coming from inside the house!

She flees and is met head-on by Detective John Clifford (Charles Durning), who apprehends an English merchant seaman named Curt Duncan (Tony Beckley), who has ripped the children to shreds with his bare hands.

He is subsequently sent to an asylum, only to escape seven years later, prompting Clifford to hunt him down like an animal.

The film is sectioned into two segments and multiple genres. The beginning and conclusion are standard horror sequences, while the guts of the film delve into a psychological thriller or crime-drama territory, with similarities to Dirty Harry (1971).

Clifford spends much of his time trying to track down Duncan in a cat-and-mouse game throughout Los Angeles. Colleen Dewhurst plays a middle-aged woman who catches the eye of Duncan one night in a seedy downtown nightclub.

Director Fred Walton makes Clifford a hard-edged, grizzled detective who has seen it all and has no mercy for Duncan, intent on killing him rather than capturing him.

Durning is not the best part of the film, and the role might have been cast with a more charismatic actor.

Perplexing is what Duncan’s motivation is for killing others, other than simply being crazy, which is not a good enough explanation. Was he abused as a child? During some scenes, he is sympathetic, more like a wounded child than a crazed killer.

He wants a friend, whereas Clifford, the good guy, is sometimes unsympathetic and tough to root for.

With “deer caught in headlight’s eyes” expressions and emotions, Kane’s Jill is brilliant at using her eyes to great benefit. The audience feels her peril, fear, and panic during her scenes. When Duncan resurfaces looking for her again (though it’s not clear why he obsesses over her), her nice life, two children, and husband’s lives are all placed in jeopardy.

Dewhurst, who could have easily been cast as the lead in Gloria (1980), is tough as nails and no-nonsense, though she does feel sympathy and some attraction for Duncan.

In 1996, when Scream was released and provided the oomph that the horror genre desperately needed, thanks were justifiably given to When a Stranger Calls for its mighty influence.

The first twelve minutes of Scream (1996) are a direct homage to this film when a stranger calls (pun intended!), and the leading lady’s life spirals out of control due to a phone call and a menacing voice.

Parts of the opening sequence are influenced by Black Christmas (1974), a brilliant horror film instrumental in the making of so many others. The revelation that the killer is inside the house is a plot device that remains scary and satisfying.

Offering a cross-genre approach that works best with its terrifying horror elements, When a Stranger Calls (1979) is a sometimes terrific, sometimes uneven picture.

Thanks to compelling acting, the slowed-down middle portion does not ruin the entire experience, but what an erupting and memorable beginning and end.

Followed by an unsuccessful sequel and an even more disappointing remake in 2006.

A Prophet-2009

A Prophet-2009

Director Jacques Audiard

Starring Tahar Rahim

Scott’s Review #1,034

Reviewed June 18, 2020

Grade: A-

A Prophet (2009), known as Un prophète in the French language, is a prison drama/crime thriller made exceptionally well and told from a character perspective rather than a plot angle.

Skirting any traditional genre prison characteristics, the film instead crafts a character study with the conflicting emotions of its main character taking center stage.

The result is a layered, complex experience led by a brilliant acting turn by actor Tahar Rahim.

Malik (Rahim) is a nineteen-year-old French youth of Algerian descent imprisoned for six years for attacking police officers. Friendless and unable to read, he is vulnerable and coaxed into murdering a witness involved in a crucial trial.

He becomes embroiled in tensions between the Corsicans and Muslims who populate much of the prison.

Malik cannot forget his participation in a murder, tortures himself, and has frequent nightmares of the incident. He slowly rises to the ranks of power within the prison community becoming involved in dangerous events and pivoting from meek to fear.

Largely avoided are overused prison elements common in many films of similar ilk. In other films, humor or standard dramatic situations occur that make a watered-down experience. A Prophet breathes fresh life into the prison film, albeit grisly and violent life.

The film is not for everyone and is extremely dark, even brutal at times.

During murder scenes, blood and guts are spilled at an alarming rate, and there ceases to exist many characters to sympathize with.

Malik is the main character but is an opportunist, readily doing what he must to gain power and control. Can we blame him? No.

Malik is a complex and nuanced character who is a joy to watch and dissect. He starts his prison tenure as a naive and timid boy, illiterate and easily manipulated. Over time, he grows into a seasoned gangster becoming involved in intricate plots and messy situations.

Actor Tahar Rahim successfully makes the character both likable and detestable, fleshing him out so the audience will love and hate him. This is the mark of a wonderful actor who can give complicated dynamics to the character.

Prison life is portrayed exceptionally well by director Jacques Audiard, who relays an authentic representation. It was good enough to make me never want to be imprisoned anyway. He wisely hired former convicts as both extras and advisors to flesh out the experience.

Life in prison, Audiard style, is not a rosy picture, but one filled with pain, fright, and violence. The Arab population, woefully underrepresented in cinema, is given a voice.

Another subject matter, homosexuality, a popular addition in prison films is not explored. Mostly played either for laughs or providing a conveniently situational plot device, A Prophet does not need the inclusion, too much else is going on.

Although a titillating prospect for many, the subject may have added a sexual or romantic angle taking away from the main point of the film, which is one man’s journey within the prison system.

Told from one man’s viewpoint, A Prophet (2009) is a triumphant French film that deservedly received accolades for its courage and realistic feel.

Starring a young actor with great potential and a brave director unafraid to develop logical storytelling and avoid typical traits, one wonders what their next project will be.

Violent gangs, corrupt guards, and impressionable prisoners would be a good way to continue.

Oscar Nominations: Best Foreign Language Film

Independent Spirit Award Nominations: Best Foreign Film

Suspicion-1941

Suspicion-1941

Director Alfred Hitchcock

Starring Cary Grant, Joan Fontaine

Scott’s Review #1,029

Reviewed June 3, 2020

Grade: B+

An early American effort by the master of suspense Alfred Hitchcock (1941) follows the Oscar-winning Rebecca (1940) with a similarly themed film.

A dazzling beauty (Joan Fontaine) is manipulated by her charming husband (Cary Grant), but is he gaslighting her and plotting her death, or is it all in her mind? The puzzle unfolds with a sizzling final thirty minutes that eclipses the remainder of the film, which drags and plods along slowly.

Wealthy but insecure Lina McLaidlaw (Fontaine) meets handsome and irresponsible playboy Johnnie Aysgarth (Grant) on a train in England. He charms her into eloping despite the strong disapproval of her father, General McLaidlaw (Sir Cedric Hardwicke), who thinks Johnnie is after the family’s money.

After a lavish honeymoon and return to an extravagant new home, Lina discovers that Johnnie has no job and no income, habitually lives on borrowed money, and intends to try to sponge off her father.

She talks him into getting a job, which he embezzles from.

Lina begins to think that not only is Johnnie after her money, but he intends to kill her. She becomes aware of his financial schemes and motivations, feeling conflicted over her love for him and her survival.

Events kick into high gear after a friend’s death, an insurance policy, and discussions with an author’s friend, Isobel Sedbusk (Auriol Lee), a writer of mystery novels about untraceable poisons. A bizarre dinner conversation surrounding ways to get away with murder causes Lina to start unraveling.

Many suspensions of disbelief must be contained in frustrating measures throughout most of the film, and a bothersome level of female mistreatment is to be endured.

From the very first scene, Lina’s insecurity gnaws at me. She is gorgeous, rich, and intelligent, so why does she feel, and is perceived even by her parents, as a lonely spinster sure to become an old maid?

Despite Hitchcock’s love of glasses on female characters, brandishing Lina with gawky bifocals hardly makes her an ugly duckling. Johnnie’s nickname, “Monkeyface,” is jarring and insulting.

The determination not to make Hollywood royalty Carey Grant too bad of a guy does not work. It feels like a weak effort to suddenly change the story to thwart the perception of a character as not a villain but someone to feel sympathetic toward.

Unclear is if this was Hitchcock’s decision or the mighty studio’s (my best guess would be the latter since Hitchcock was not afraid to take risks). The audience hardly has a chance to let their emotions marinate as the big reveal quickly culminates in the end credits rolling, and the film concludes.

A significant positive to Spellbound is the hidden tidbits brewing beneath the main saga of the Hollywood glamour boy and girl (Grant and Fontaine).

A clever LGBTQ+ revelation among two supporting characters can be unearthed decades before the terminology was invented. Hitchcock loved his gay characters, who could not be openly gay, though the director did his best to offer the now-obvious idiosyncrasies.

Sophisticated Isobel seems to live alone in her quaint and lovely cottage, but during a dinner party, a blonde woman wearing a suit and tie, clearly butch, joins the conversation. As Isobel asks her to pour more wine, we realize she is hardly a servant but Isobel’s lesbian lover!

The stunning yet highly subtle revelation is prominent to eagle-eyed viewers and cagey enough to catch on. In addition to these lovely ladies, an odd-looking male dinner guest wearing glasses and discussing murder novels is an interesting character, though we see little of him.

The same can be said for Lina’s sophisticated mother, Mrs. Martha McLaidlaw (Dame May Whitty), and Lina and Johnnie’s maid, Ethel (Heather Angel). Both, playing minor roles, add subtle delights to the film.

Suspicion (1941) is an early Hitchcock film that is rarely mentioned among his best works. The film is a tough sell because of its tedious pace, the lead character’s inexplicable insecurity, and the unfulfilling story conclusion.

The suspense and activity in the final act (mostly the stunning edge of the cliff car drive) promote the film to an above-average rating, but grander works were soon to follow in the decades ahead.

The most fun is noticing the delicious peculiarities of interesting supporting characters.

Oscar Nominations: 1 win-Outstanding Motion Picture, Best Actress-Joan Fontaine (won), Best Scoring of a Dramatic Picture

Lifeboat-1944

Lifeboat-1944

Director Alfred Hitchcock

Starring Tallulah Bankhead, William Bendix

Scott’s Review #1,020

Reviewed May 6, 2020

Grade: A-

Alfred Hitchcock, well-known for big, bouncy, suspenseful productions, creates a stripped-down, intimate story of adventures while adrift on a survival boat, leaving plenty of tension and peril.

Lifeboat (1944), now teetering on extinction from memory save for fans of the director, deserves appreciation and respect for the brilliant direction and outstanding cinematography alone.

The film was met with controversy and some derision for sympathetic depictions of a German U-boat captain (Walter Slezak) amid the horrors of World War II.

Events begin in the middle of calm Atlantic Oceanic waters after a cruel battle results in a German U-boat and a British/American ship sinking each other, leaving fewer than a dozen civilians and service members to survive in one Lifeboat.

The haughty, glamorous columnist Connie Porter (Tallulah Bankhead), clad in the finest fur coat, is irritated by a run in her stocking, a travesty in her mind.

She is slowly joined by other survivors, including a young British woman with a dead baby, a steward, a U.S. Army nurse (Mary Anderson), a wealthy entrepreneur, and other people from most walks of life.

Lifeboat plays out like a more cerebral version of a disaster film. Think- a brilliant man’s version of The Poseidon Adventure (1972), said with love since it’s one of my favorite films. But with Lifeboat, darkness and a sense of sadness are missing from the 1970s’s more lightweight disaster films.

The black-and-white camerawork helps tremendously, as do the mist, the rain, and the intense beating sun. The weather elements play an essential role, as do the characters themselves.

Speaking of characters, the individuals are plentiful and diverse, ranging from British, American, Black, German, wealthy, and working-class to eventually dead and alive with a gruesome leg amputation taking place mid-stream.

Each is well-written and exhibits fear, bravery, and suspicion of the other’s motivations. The German captain communicates with Connie in his native tongue, causing confusion among the other survivors.

Events would hardly be complete without a good melodramatic romance, and it is a treat to see two formulate. Connie and handsome John (John Hodiak) share a love/hate relationship, clearly from opposite backgrounds, while the more stable Alice and Stanley (Hume Cronyn) even decide to marry!

Genteel Alice reveals a marriage and an affair to Stanley, uncovering the layers and complexity of the character.

My favorite character is Connie, and Bankhead is a pure delight in the bitchy, no-nonsense role. She enshrouds the camera from the first scene.

Reminiscing about Bette Davis, the actress has a similar composure, stance, and trademark cigarette but slowly reveals her insecurities and desperation.

What fun she is to watch!

A tender and poignant scene occurs at the end of the film and is lovely to witness, especially given the tumultuous time of the mid-1940s. A drifting young German soldier attempts to board and shoot at the survivors but is apprehended.

Disputes occur, but instead of shooting or casting the lad overboard to drown, he is saved and presumably provided food and water. Does he inquire why they don’t kill him? The message is powerful and anti-war.

The direction methods are brilliant, and they look as realistic as possible in 1940s cinema, where CGI was decades away. Hitchcock had me fooled as I bought lock, stock, and barrel that the Lifeboat was in the middle of rough and murky waters instead of a Hollywood studio tub.

The creative method of gathering so many characters into one shot wonderfully and effectively provides a claustrophobic feel, as the lack of food and drinking water causes hysteria and emotion.

The one-set approach is marvelous and perfect for the film’s specific storyline.

After decades of underexposure and playing second or third fiddle to other Hitchcock masterpieces, Lifeboat (1944) is finally getting some notice and acclaim. The trend continues here, as the film contains enough frights and perils to keep anyone guessing which characters will sink and which will swim.

Although it may not be the best watch on a cruise ship or other watery surfaces, the escapade will delight fans of classic black-and-white thrill cinema.

Oscar Nominations: Best Director- Alfred Hitchcock, Best Original Story, Best Cinematography, Black-and-White

A History of Violence-2005

A History of Violence-2005

Director David Cronenberg

Starring Viggo Mortensen, Mario Bello, Ed Harris

Scott’s Review #1,016

Reviewed April 28, 2020

Grade: B+

David Cronenberg has directed films such as Videodrome (1983), The Fly (1986), and Crash (1996), stories safely classified as “off the beaten path”.

With A History of Violence (2005), he creates a film that on the surface appears conventional and even wholesome at the onset, a family drama or thriller, that turns sinister and bloody as it lumbers along.

The Christian-like small Indiana town is the perfect backdrop to quietly inflict mayhem and terror on its characters. Stars Viggo Mortensen and Ed Harris give tremendous portrayals.

Tom Stall (Mortensen) lives a quiet mid-western life and owns a quaint, little diner nestled in the center of town. He is a popular man and quite neighborly, befriending the many patrons who visit his lovely eatery. At his side are his adoring wife Edie (Maria Bello), and children, Jack and Sarah.

If they owned a golden retriever and resided in a house with a white picket fence, they would define the all-American family.

Late one night, two men attempt to rob the restaurant and when they attack a waitress, Tom kills both robbers with surprising ease and skill barely blinking at his violent tendencies. He is professed a hero by the townspeople and the incident makes him a local celebrity.

Tom is then visited by the frightening scarred gangster Carl Fogarty (Harris), who insists that Tom is a notorious gangster from Philadelphia named Joey Cusack. Tom is perplexed and vehemently denies the claims, but Fogarty begins to stalk the Stall family.

Because of the pressure, Tom’s family life hits crisis mode.

As the film ticks along the plot becomes thicker and thicker as the puzzle pieces are rife with mystery. Is Fogarty merely a liar, holding a vendetta against the person who killed his men? Does Tom suffer from amnesia, having forgotten his past life due to an accident?

Has Tom fled the criminal life seeking refuge and a new life in middle America, safely leaving his troubles behind? Does the truth lie somewhere in the middle of these possibilities?

Bello is cast in the role of Edie, Tom’s loyal wife. Bello is a stellar actor and does a wonderful job in the complicated role. Far too often, especially in thrillers, the wife role is as lacking in the challenge as it is in glamour. The ever-supportive wife must be a drag to play but pays the bills.

Edie is different, and as soon as the viewer has her figured out, she acts out of the blue which will surprise this type of character. This has a lot to do with Bello’s pizzazz and acting chops.

I adore the setting of the film. A far cry from the bustling City of Brotherly Love, Philadelphia, when the action eventually flows to the city, the rural setting of Indiana becomes even more important.

The quiet mornings, the imagined smell of fresh-brewed coffee, the crackling of sizzling bacon on the grill at Tom’s Diner, and finally, crickets chirping in the distance, all provoke the potent atmosphere and surroundings that work in this film.

A History of Violence (2005) is a superior film that contains excellent writing, the best aspect of the rich experience. A top-notch screenplay written by Josh Olson leaves the viewer not only with mounting tension but the mysterious unknown as to what will happen next and what the truth is.

Mortensen, commonplace in recent Cronenberg films, has found his niche playing complex yet humanistic characters, which must be a challenge for the actor and a splendid reward for the audience.

Oscar Nominations: Best Supporting Actor-William Hurt, Best Adapted Screenplay

I Confess-1953

I Confess-1953

Director Alfred Hitchcock

Starring Montgomery Clift, Anne Baxter

Scott’s Review #1,007

Reviewed April 2, 2020

Grade: A-

I Confess (1953) is an early effort by the brilliant Alfred Hitchcock with a decidedly religious slant but keeps the suspense and thrills commonplace like his other films.

The picture is not one of his best-remembered works but one of his least-remembered projects. This is unwarranted because the film contains all the standard elements known to the director, creating an entertaining and enthralling effort.

Montgomery Clift and Anne Baxter are featured as big Hollywood stars of the day.

Although he was not a fan of exterior shoots where he couldn’t control the elements, filming was done mainly on location in Quebec City. Numerous shots of the city landscape and interiors of its churches and other emblematic buildings, such as the Château Frontenac, were heavily featured.

This factor adds to the enjoyment as French sophistication and culture are added, and the accents provide a European influence, which is especially powerful during the final act.

A handsome Catholic priest, Father Michael Logan (Clift), wants nothing more than to be a good priest, but his calling is made complicated after someone confesses a murder to him, and he’s subsequently blamed for the death.

A World War II veteran, he harbors secrets told in the back story as a strong connection to another character comes to light. An easy way to clear his name is to reveal exactly what he knows, but doing so would break his vows as a clergyman and alienate members of his community who trust he will keep their steamy secrets very private.

Ruth Grandfort (Baxter) is a respected member of society, married to her husband Pierre (Roger Dann), a member of the Quebec legislature. They live comfortably in a lavish house with servants and regularly throw cosmopolitan parties befitting people of their stature.

Amid martinis and festive party games, Ruth keeps not one secret but two and is being blackmailed for her shenanigans. Her connection to Father Michael slowly bubbles to the surface.

Christian viewers will neither be offended nor completely embraced either. Hitchcock does not mock religion but makes sure of the conflict and demons that can encircle even a pious or righteous man.

As far back as the 1940s, Rebecca was toying with viewers and frequently adding an LGBTQ uncertainty; this can be said of I Confess.

Assumed to be in love, Father Michael offers little romantic passion or zest towards Ruth, and the connection seems one-sided. Could his descent into the Catholic Church be a front to cover up his sexuality?

Only Hitchcock will know the answer.

Eagle-eyed Hitchcock fans will undoubtedly discover similarities to his other works.

In the very first scene, an unknown man is strangled to death, collapsing to the floor. This is reminiscent of the 1948 masterpiece, Rope (1948), when an identical sequence occurs. The audience knows nothing about the stranger- yet.

In both films, even after death, the character becomes integral to the plot twists and turns in store. The tremendous use of shadows and lighting is on careful display, mirroring the look of the soon-to-come The Wrong Man (1956).

While not the cream of the crop among Hitchcock’s best film entries or even a top ten offering, I Confess (1953) deserves a viewing or two on its own merits.

Clift and Baxter have excellent chemistry and mystique, and the plot is enough to keep audiences well-occupied.

The final twenty minutes provide cat-and-mouse revelry and a shocking death, perfect for a dramatic climax to a film oozing with Hitchcock’s finest traits.

5 Against the House-1955

5 Against the House-1955

Director Phil Karlson

Starring Brian Keith, Kim Novak

Scott’s Review #998

Reviewed March 11, 2020

Grade: C-

5 Against the House (1955) is a film that may have influenced heist films such as the Rat Pack Ocean’s 11 (1960) or countless other films featuring groups of young men holding up an establishment for money.

The film is mediocre and lacks memorable content. Nothing distinguishes it from other movies with similar themes.

Star Brian Keith is charismatic in the lead, but the chemistry with Kim Novak goes nowhere with any of the actors.

The film is mildly interesting, with a few tense moments but little more. 

Four Midwestern University college pals, Brick (Keith), Al (Guy Madison), Ronnie, and Roy, devise a grand casino heist while drunk and partying one weekend in Reno. The idea is to go through with their plan and then return the cash to prove they can get away with the high-stakes prank.

But when one of the group betrays the others and plots to keep the money for himself, he imperils them all.

Novak plays Kaye, Al’s girlfriend, who recently became a singer at a local nightclub.

The standouts from the cast are Keith and William Conrad because the then-unknown actors became television stars in later years, for Family Affair and Jake and the Fat Man, respectively.

Keith is great in the lead role of Brick, the tormented and conflicted ex-veteran of the Korean War, unable to forget tragedies he saw while abroad. He is a remarkable every man with an edge, angry and out to prove something to the world. He also needs the money that the heist will provide him.

The character is interesting and empathetic.

Conrad is gruff and memorable as a cart operator who plays an essential role in the film’s finale. Sent to retrieve cash from the money room, using the prerecorded message to make him believe that there is a desperate man with a gun in the cart who will shoot him if he does not cooperate, Conrad does wonders with his eyes and facial expressions.

The luscious Novak, soon to be a household name in the stunning and cerebral Alfred Hitchcock film Vertigo (1958), is not as compelling as Kaye.

The main reason is that she has little to do but stand around and serve as window dressing. This is too bad since the actress has talent and charisma for miles, but this work is beneath her.

It was not her debut but one of her early films, What’s a Girl to Do? To add insult to injury, another singer dubbed her voice. Novak needed the paycheck.

Director Phil Karlson is unsuccessful at bringing the picture entirely- circle but does pepper in some nice exterior night scenes of Reno. The casino sequences are commendable, and the set pieces are properly zesty and flashy when appropriate.

However, trimmings never complete a film, and 5 Against the House needs more meat on the bone than it serves up.

The heist is the main attraction. Some tension does exist, but not enough, and the finale is a letdown. After the unspectacular robbery, Brick leaves the others behind and escapes with the money. A pursuit ensues. Kaye, having alerted the police, follows them, and a tepid standoff follows.

Ultimately, Brick changes his mind while Al and Kaye embrace on a crowded street. The feeble final scene is a romantic sendoff for the couple, who didn’t have much chemistry.

5 Against the House (1955) contains an adequate cast and a few positive tidbits worth mentioning, but the story is way too predictable. The conclusion, which should be the high point, disappoints, and the actors are too old to be believable as college-aged students.

Many other film noir or heist films released before or after this film are superior and better crafted.