Category Archives: Thriller

Notes on a Scandal-2006

Notes on a Scandal-2006

Director Richard Eyre

Starring Judi Dench, Cate Blanchett

Scott’s Review #793

Reviewed July 23, 2018

Grade: A

A British drama centering on the world of teachers, illicit affairs, and sexuality, Notes on a Scandal (2006) is a superlative effort with thrills and drama galore.

Featuring heavyweights like Judi Dench and Cate Blanchett, there is no way this film could be a dud based on the acting alone.

The chemistry between the women and the carefully crafted thrills created by director, Richard Eyre, make the film a compelling joy to view- perhaps multiple times for additional entertainment.

The story is told mainly from the perspective of Barbara Covett (Dench), a rigid and bored schoolteacher nearing retirement at a comprehensive school in London.

Barbara is a spinster and a closeted lesbian, constantly writing in her journal for comfort- this is the main narrative of the story and is tremendously effective.

When a young and attractive art teacher, Sheba Hart (Blanchett), arrives on the scene, Barbara fancies her and is determined to get closer.

After Sheba begins an illicit affair with a male student, Barbara discovers the shenanigans and uses the situation to her advantage.

The scandal results in both women’s careers being at risk, as well as Sheba’s troubled home life coming to fruition.

Notes on a Scandal is a good, solid psychological thriller/drama with enough twists and turns to keep the viewer engaged. The film is not very long- at one hour and thirty-two minutes, there is hardly any time for lagging.

The best achievements, however, are with the superior acting of the two leads. With other lesser talents, this film might have suffered from too much melodrama and not enough meat.

With great acting chops, Dench and Blanchett do not let this happen; instead, they treat the audience to a riveting affair.

As fantastic as Blanchett is, Dench’s Barbara is the standout, taking center stage throughout the film.

Interestingly, despite both actresses being leads, Dench received an Oscar nomination for Best Actress, while Blanchett was nominated for Best Supporting Actress.

But there is no question that both actresses deserved the praises they reaped- and then some.

Dench delivers such a delicious performance that she arguably makes the film worth watching. Wearing no makeup and dressed as conservatively as imaginable, the subject will cast an icy stare or thoughtful gaze that runs shivers up and down the viewer’s spine.

As conflict and drama unfold, Barbara proves she is nobody to be messed with.

Still, the character has an underlying vulnerable quality, simply yearning for affection and love from another woman. One wonders if she has ever really had the love she deserves.

Dench is brilliant at revealing Barbara’s nuances.

The film poses an interesting moral question that will leave some viewers undoubtedly not fans of Sheba’s.

The fact that she lusts after an underage male, Steven Connolly (Andrew Simpson), and has relations with him, while having a husband and disabled child at home, may be too much for some.

Surely, the character will not be championed by many, but I found Sheba complex and difficult to grasp.

This complexity is to the filmmaker’s credit and allows for a more layered character study of both Sheba and Barbara- neither is cut and dry.

An interesting aside of the film is what if the genders of the roles were reversed? Would the film have the same effect if Sheba were a male character and Steven were a teenage girl? What if Barbara were a straight woman? What if Barbara were a gay male character?

These other possibilities left me wondering as I watched the film. Wisely, I think director Eyre got things just right.

Notes on a Scandal (2006) is a film that reminds me of a British version of Fatal Attraction (1987) meets Single White Female (1992).

The story holds elements of each and was adapted from a 2003 novel of the same name. With frightfully good performances by both Dench and Blanchett, this film is a memorable thriller not to be missed.

Oscar Nominations: Best Actress-Judi Dench, Best Supporting Actress-Cate Blanchett, Best Adapted Screenplay, Best Original Score

The Killing of a Sacred Deer-2017

The Killing of a Sacred Deer-2017

Director Yorgos Lanthimos

Starring Colin Farrell, Nicole Kidman

Scott’s Review #774

Reviewed June 15, 2018

Grade: A

For fans of Greek director Yorgos Lanthimos, who created such disturbing and bizarre films as 2009’s Dogtooth and 2015’s The Lobster, The Killing of a Sacred Deer (2017) will be a treasure.

As with those films, the odd story and the peculiar acting styles are prevalent, making the film quite the experience.

I relish the film and its unusual nature. It offers a cinematic experience that is insightful, mesmerizing, extreme, and, quite frankly, brilliant.

Steven Murphy (Farrell) is an esteemed cardiac surgeon who “befriends” a troubled teenage boy named Martin (Barry Keoghan), whose father had died years earlier as a result of Steven’s negligence.

They fall ill when Martin slowly insinuates himself into Steven’s family life. Martin threatens to kill the entire family unless Steven kills either his wife Anna (Nicole Kidman) or one of his two children- the victim can be of his choosing.

The creepy premise is enormously intriguing as the conclusion cannot be foreseen.

A basic yet deep storyline is wonderfully spun, with many possible plot directions.

After forty-five minutes or so of the audience wondering why Steven and Martin meet secretly in diners, hospital corridors, or other remote areas, the teen boy’s true motivations come to the surface as he rapidly and calmly puts his cards on the table for Steven.

Surprisingly, none of the characters are particularly sympathetic.

One would assume that the Murphy family- wholesome, affluent, and astute, would garner audience support, but we slowly peel back the onion on each character.

With a gorgeous house in a quiet Cincinnati neighborhood, Steven and Anna (a doctor herself) are sometimes harsh and physical with their kids. In contrast, the kids (Bob and Kim) develop a strange fascination with Martin.

In this way, each character is peculiar and has dire motivations as the plot unfolds.

Lanthimos is quietly becoming one of my favorite new directors. He slowly churns out one disturbing film after the next. His clear Stanley Kubrick influences bubble to the surface, particularly in The Killing of a Sacred Deer.

The score is crisp with uniqueness, with plodding and sudden bombastic classical music pieces eliciting emotions like surprise and terror from the audience.

From a visual perspective, fans of Kubrick will no doubt notice the long camera shots and slowly panning camera angles. The hospital’s long and foreboding hallways are prominently featured as we follow a character walking along the corridors.

This is highly reminiscent of the Overlook hotel sequences in the 1980 Kubrick masterpiece, The Shining.

One particularly jarring nuance in the film is the speech patterns of most of the actors—clearly dictated by Lanthimos and also present in 2015’s The Lobster.

The character of Steven talks very quickly but with a monotone delivery and in a matter-of-fact style; Kim and Martin also speak this way. I didn’t notice the quality as much with Kidman’s Anna, but Farrell went to town.

I’m not sure this works throughout the entire film since the mannerisms give off almost a comical element.

This uniqueness makes the film more quirky and decidedly non-mainstream, which is to be celebrated.

The climax of the film is brutal.

As Steven brandishes a loaded shotgun, the family gathers in their family room, Anna fussing over her new black dress. As the group dons pillowcases, Steven goes Russian roulette-style on the family, randomly firing a shot until one member is killed.

When the remaining family members see Martin at the diner the next day, they give him icy, hateful looks.

The entire scene is done without dialog and is tremendously macabre.

Rest assured, I am eagerly awaiting Lanthimos’s next project (reportedly already in the works) and hope against hope he continues to use the superb Colin Farrell, the brilliant Nicole Kidman, and newcomer Barry Keoghan again.

Thanks to tremendous acting, a riveting score, and enough thrills and creeps to last a lifetime, The Killing of a Sacred Deer (2017) is at the top of its game.

Independent Spirit Award Nominations: Best Supporting Male-Barry Keoghan, Best Cinematography

Malice-1993

Malice-1993

Director Harold Becker

Starring Alec Baldwin, Nicole Kidman, Bill Pullman

Scott’s Review #765

Reviewed May 29, 2018

Grade: B+

Malice (1993) is only one of a slew of husband and wife-themed thrillers to emerge from the early 1990’s- Unlawful Entry (1992), Sleeping with the Enemy (1991), and Deceived (1991) are other similar films that made lots of money during this time.

This slick filmmaking genre was popular as the new decade emerged and more complex storytelling graced screens.

The myriad twists and turns are both a positive and a negative for this film.

Keeping the audience guessing and on pins and needles is a key to success, eliciting a fun tone, as well as the tremendous star power of the cast (George C. Scott and Anne Bancroft are big-time heavies).

Then again, a few of the plot points become red herrings and thereby meaningless, and the overall plot and endless subplots become way more complex than they need to be.

In a plot that is dizzying to explain, Associate Dean Andy Safian (Bill Pullman) and his wife Tracy (Nicole Kidman) are embarking on a life together in Massachusetts as they purchase a grand Victorian house and plan to begin a family.

As a serial killer stalks the campus where Andy works, and implausibly results in him being the prime suspect, Tracy experiences health turmoil and is operated on by cocky yet brilliant Dr. Jed Hill (Alec Baldwin).

When dire events occur, the plot escalates, and the main characters’ motivations are called into question as truths and deceptions unravel.

When I first saw Malice in 1993 (in fact, I saw it twice the same year), I adored the multitude of plot points and devices. The film had the same effect as a speeding roller coaster ride- with endless twists and story revelations.

And to be fair, the film holds up pretty well, never seeming dated or of its time like many mainstream films.

The two startling reveals- Tracy and Jed being in cahoots and the mysterious eye witness living next door being blind- are clever bits of writing that immerse the audience on many levels.

The acting is top-notch- Kidman plays good and evil oh so well, and Bancroft’s cameo as Tracy’s mother is Oscar-worthy.

The chemistry between Pullman, Kidman, and Baldwin, and Pullman’s “nice guy” to Baldwin’s “jerk,” works quite well as the overlapping relationships play out.

Small yet meaningful roles by Bebe Neuwirth, Peter Gallagher, and Gwyneth Paltrow add layers to the wonderful casting.

And who can forget the often-parodied scene in which arrogant Dr. Jed launches into a monologue claiming to be infallible and to be God? This scene received tons of publicity and is arguably the defining moment of the film.

However, Malice’s strengths also sometimes become its weaknesses. As the events unfold, the plot becomes too confusing.

The school serial killer plot soon becomes a red herring as we realize it has little to do with the central plot- the Tracy/Jed alliance- except only to raise parenting questions.

Therefore, the big reveal of who the killer becomes is for naught. It’s the creepy janitor named Earl(Tobin Bell), hardly a surprise.

Furthermore, after the film ends and the viewer plays the events back to see if they add up, they will likely give up in frustration.

Malice is an above-average entry in a popular genre- who doesn’t like a good, solid thriller? With a talented cast and enough good medical thrills to balance with a college campus whodunit, there is plenty to please everyone who views this film.

Yes, some of the writing is preposterous and tough to believe, but Malice (1993) is a movie meant to escape with, sit back, and enjoy.

Witness-1985

Witness-1985

Director Peter Weir

Starring Harrison Ford

Scott’s Review #754

Reviewed May 7, 2018

Grade: A-

Witness (1985) is a slick crime thriller that may at first glance seem like a by-the-numbers genre film, but instead is well above average.

As the plot unfolds, there are key nail-biting, edge-of-your-seat scenes that build tension in a way that the suspense master himself, Alfred Hitchcock, would be proud of.

Decades later, it is tough to watch the film without noticing a slightly dated quality, but at the time, it was well regarded and terrifically paced.

Charismatic Harrison Ford and novice child actor Lukas Haas make the film more than it could have been.

The film’s setting is twofold, presenting two distinct cultures: rural Pennsylvania’s Amish country and bustling metropolitan Philadelphia.

The death of her husband leads Amish woman Rachel (Kelly McGillis) and her son Samuel (Haas) to the big city to see her sister. While transferring trains, Samuel witnesses a brutal murder in the men’s room- unbeknownst to the killers.

This riveting scene (explained in more detail below) sets the rest of the story in motion.

When Detective John Book (Ford) is assigned to the case and questions Samuel, he is unable to determine the assailants’ identities. After Samuel’s fingers, an unthinkable suspect, events escalate, and John uncovers a mighty corruption circuit within the police force.

John, now targeted, must assimilate into the Amish culture as he strives to protect both Samuel and Rachel (as well as keep himself alive) while embarking on a relationship with Rachel.

The story wisely focuses on the differing lifestyles of the principal characters.

What I enjoy most about Witness is the nice mix between both types of people and different cultures, and how they can learn from one another. John is so used to and desensitized by being in the midst of the rat race that he often forgets the nicer things in life- peace or even love.

Rachel and Samuel, of course, are highly sheltered, living in a bubble, and are fish out of water amid the bustling streets of Philadelphia. The counter-cultures offer a nice balance to this masculine film, bringing female sensibilities.

Not to be usurped by pure romance, Witness is, at its core, a fleshy, male-driven crime thriller. Adding some softer edges, Weir pleases both male and female audience members and appeals to the masses.

John’s precinct, filled with detectives, police officers, and criminals, gives the film appropriate “guy elements”.

So director Peter Weir offers a good balance here.

I like how Weir chooses to portray the Amish- not caricatures, stereotypes, or to be made fun of, they are sweet, stoic, and intelligent, accepting of John in their lives.

As John learns more about the Amish culture and becomes one of them, this is even more prevalent as an immersion in different cultures- a good lesson to even apply to other differences between people.

The acting is a strong component of Witness.

Charismatic and handsome, Ford is believable as a fast-paced, busy detective.

To add further substance, Ford transforms his character (often written as one-note in typical films of this nature) into a sympathetic and inspiring man as he slowly becomes a father figure to the wide-eyed youngster Samuel and falls in love with Rachel.

Ford is the standout, but the film would not work with fewer supporting actors. Both innocent and gentle characters, McGillis and Haas add layers to their roles with pronounced toughness and resilience- saving John as much as he saves them.

Two scenes are pure standouts and successfully elicit tension and dramatic effect.

As Samuel witnesses the murder in the bathroom, he is seen in a stall, peeking through a crack with only one eye exposed. When he makes a slight noise, the assailant violently goes through each stall, intent on shooting whatever he finds.

Samuel must think quickly to avoid being caught. The camera goes back and forth between Samuel’s looks of panic and the assailant getting closer and closer to catching him.

The viewer’s heart will pound during this scene.

Later, as Samuel sees a newspaper clipping framed among a case of awards, he recognizes one man as the assailant. Weir shoots it in slow motion so that the reactions of John and Samuel’s characters are palpable and effective.

The scene is tremendously done and cements the bond and trust between these characters.

Thanks to a wonderful performance by Ford and the cast surrounding him, Witness (1985) successfully widens the traditionally one-dimensional masculine crime thriller into something deeper.

Providing slick entertainment with a great story and substance, the film crosses genres and offers a substantial cinematic experience woefully needed in the mid-1980s.

Oscar Nominations: 2 wins-Best Picture, Best Director-Peter Weir, Best Actor-Harrison Ford, Best Screenplay Written Directly for the Screen (won), Best Original Score, Best Art Direction, Best Cinematography, Best Film Editing (won)

The Seduction-1982

The Seduction-1982

Director David Schmoeller

Starring Morgan Fairchild, Michael Sarrazin

Scott’s Review #749

Reviewed April 27, 2018

Grade: C

The Seduction (1982) is a slick, by-the-numbers voyeuristic thriller that could be a made-for-television Lifetime channel or Hallmark channel production- or something of that ilk.

A woman being stalked by a dangerous admirer is quite formulaic and episodic. Alas, at the time of its release, it was a major motion picture and a perfect vehicle for the upstart young actress of the time, Morgan Fairchild.

She is well cast, and the film has a smoldering,  glossy, sexy appeal, but is quite predictable in the story department, leaving little substance behind after the droll conclusion.

Gorgeous and sexy television news anchorwoman Jaime Douglas (Fairchild) has it all with a handsome beau on her arm (Michael Sarrazin); they swim, bathe, and make love many a steamy night as they reside in the lavish Los Angeles hills.

A photographer approaches Jaime, Derek (Andrew Stevens), eager to take her pictures. He slowly develops an obsession with her as events become more dangerous and sinister for the young woman, until she is finally forced to defend herself against the now-crazed stalker.

Jamie is Morgan Fairchild’s big-screen debut, and, being unaware that any other actresses were in the mix for the part, she is perfectly cast in a role that just “is her”.

In the glitzy and steamy world of Los Angeles media, how adept were the filmmakers at landing the blonde and leggy actress who screams plastic and glamour?

Posing on posters on the walls of millions of teenage boys everywhere in the 1980s, director David Schmoeller wisely incorporates multiple scenes of Jamie swimming naked,  soaping in the bathtub, or in other situations where the actress is semi-nude.

He certainly capitalizes on her looks and popularity with the sensual The Seduction.

The film’s perplexity, though, is clearly on the story front.

The chemistry between Fairchild and Stevens is readily apparent, and while chemistry is crucial between acting leads, it also makes the story far-fetched.

Call me crazy, but I did not get the fear Jaime would experience at the hands of Derek. Dashing and handsome, with much more appeal than her boyfriend, Brandon, I felt that Jamie and Derek should have been dating!

Arguably, the only reason Derek becomes obsessed with Jamie is that she refuses to give him the time of day.

I get that the film wanted a really good-looking male lead, but a homely or even average-looking actor playing Derek would have made more sense from a story perspective.

Stevens is way too handsome to elicit real terror- especially since his only crime is wanting a nice romantic date with Jamie.

The film offers a decent glimpse into the bustling corporate Los Angeles newsroom studios, where the offices exude 1980s glitz and glamour. The entire film is drizzled with sunny California excess, and it makes perfect sense to be set on the West Coast.

The Seduction does well by combining the dark voyeurism of lurking figures in the shadows and the hairspray, lipstick,  and shoulder pads shown under the hot lights of competitive L.A. television cameras.

The Seduction falls victim to being a predictable, poorly acted film, with its inevitable clichés and final scenes. As the police are of no help to her and her boyfriend brandishes a rifle, the audience knows there will be some sort of final stand-off between Jamie and Derek.

The film pulls out all of the possible female-in-peril stops- the nighttime scenes, Jamie being home alone, scantily dressed, and ready to be victimized, Derek continually lurks around (as he does through most of the film), secretly taking photos, sweating, and breathing lustfully.

The climactic conclusion was neither satisfying nor surprising.

A wise cinema friend once coined the term “craptastic” to describe an otherwise atrocious film that somehow contains some morbid appeal- perhaps being so bad it’s good?

I think the 1982 film The Seduction falls perfectly into this category- predictable and trivial, the film is an intended watch for only those seeking something shamelessly awful, that holds little appeal, yet for the gorgeous stars Fairchild and Stevens, who hold the film together while looking great.

No Country for Old Men-2007

No Country for Old Men-2007

Director Ethan Coen, Joel Coen

Starring Tommy Lee Jones, Javier Bardem, Josh Brolin

Scott’s Review #745

Reviewed April 19, 2018

Grade: A

No Country for Old Men, made in 2007,  is arguably Joel and Ethan Coen’s greatest work save for the amazing Fargo (1996).

Achieving the Best Picture Academy Award and appearing on numerous Top Ten lists for its year of release, the film is one of their most celebrated.

Containing dark humor, offbeat characters, and fantastic storytelling, adding in some of the most gorgeous cinematography in film history, No Country for Old Men is one of the decade’s great films.

The time is 1980 and set in western Texas as we follow dangerous hitman, Anton Chigurh, played wonderfully by Javier Bardem.

He escapes jail by strangling a deputy and is subsequently hired to find Llewelyn Moss (Josh Brolin), a hunter who has accidentally stumbled onto two million dollars in a suitcase that Mexican smugglers are desperate to find.

In the mix is Sheriff Tom Bell (Tommy Lee Jones), who is pursuing both men. Moss’s wife, Carla Jean (Kelly Macdonald) in turn becomes an important character as she is instrumental in the web of deceit the chain of events creates.

The film subsequently turns into an exciting cat-and-mouse chase with a dramatic climax.

The crux of the story and its plethora of possibilities is what makes the events so exciting to watch. As characters are in constant pursuit of each other the viewer wonders who will catch up to whom and when.

One quality that makes the film unique with an identity all its own is that the three principal characters (Moss, Bell, and Chigurh) seldom appear in the same scene adding a layer of mystery and intrigue.

The hero and most well-liked of all the characters is, of course, Sheriff Bell- a proponent of honesty and truth while the other two characters are less than savory types, especially the despicable Chigurh.

My favorite character in the story is Chigurh as he is the most interesting and Bardem plays him to the hilt with a calm malevolence- anger just bubbling under the surface.

One wonders when he will strike next or if he will spare a life- as he intimidates his prey by offering to play a game of chance- the toss of a coin to determine life or death- he is one of cinema’s most vicious villains. With his bob-cut hairstyle and his sunken brown eyes, he is a force to be reckoned with by looks alone.

True to many other Ethan and Joel Coen films the supporting or even the glorified extras are perfectly cast and filled with interesting quirkiness.

Examples of this are the kindly gas station owner who successfully guesses a coin toss correctly and is spared his life. My favorite is the matter-of-fact woman at the hotel front desk, with her permed hair, she gives as good as she gets, and her monotone voice is great.

It is these smaller intricacies that truly make No Country for Old Men shine and are a staple of Coen Brother films in general.

Many similarities abound between Fargo and No Country for Old Men, not the least of which is the main protagonist being an older and wiser police chief (Marge Gunderson and Tom Bell, respectively).

Add to this a series of brutal murders and the protagonist being from elsewhere and stumbling upon a small, bleak town. Of course, the extreme violence depicted in both must be mentioned as comparable.

Having shamefully only seen this epic thriller two times, No Country for Old Men (2007) is a dynamic film, reminiscent of the best of Sam Peckinpah classics such as The Getaway (1972) or The Wild Bunch (1967).

The Coen brothers cross film genres to include thriller, western, and suspense that would rival the greatest in Hitchcock films.

I cannot wait to see it again.

Oscar Nominations: 4 wins-Best Picture (won), Best Director-Joel and Ethan Coen (won), Best Supporting Actor-Javier Bardem (won), Best Adapted Screenplay (won), Best Sound Editing, Best Sound Mixing, Best Cinematography, Best Film Editing

Death On The Nile-1978

Death On The Nile-1978

Director John Guillermen

Starring Peter Ustinov, Mia Farrow, Lois Chiles

Scott’s Review #714

Reviewed January 14, 2018

Grade: B+

Death On The Nile is a 1978 British thriller that follows up the successful 1974 offering, Murder On The Orient Express- both films based on the fabulous Agatha Christie novels of the 1930s.

This time around, Belgian detective Hercules Poirot (Peter Ustinov) investigates a string of deaths aboard a luxurious steamer carrying the lavishly wealthy and their servants.

The film is a good, old-fashioned whodunit, perhaps not on the level of storytelling as its predecessor, the murder mystery, does not contain the oomph expected, but features exquisite Egyptian historical locales, worth its weight in gold.

Featuring a who’s who of famous stars and tremendous actors of the day, Death On The Nile carves a neat story right off the bat in such a way that the murder victim is fairly obvious right away- most of the characters have reason to celebrate her demise.

Rich and reviled heiress, Linnet Ridgeway (Lois Chiles), has stolen best friend Jacqueline’s (Mia Farrow) beau, Simon, sparking a bitter feud between the women. While honeymooning in Egypt, the newlyweds are continually taunted by angry Jacqueline.

Once the cruise ship departs with all on board, Jackie is the prime suspect when Linnet is murdered.

Poirot must find the killer as numerous other suspects, all with grudges against Linnet, begin to emerge.

Death On The Nile features a stellar cast, including legendary Bette Davis as Marie Van Schuyler, an eccentric American socialite with an eye for Linnet’s necklace.

Davis’s casting is reason enough to watch the film, though the character is not center stage but rather a supporting role.

The lead female honor goes to Farrow, who has the meatiest and most complex role in the film.

Jackie’s unstable actions make her the most likely to commit the deed, but the fun is to figure out the “whys” and the “hows” of the murder. Is there more than one killer? Are they working in cahoots or independently? As the body count increases, these questions begin to resonate more and more.

The costumes and sets are gorgeous, and it is no wonder the film won the Oscar for Best Costume Design. At a ball, the women are dripping with jewels and gorgeous gowns.

Along with Davis, boozy author Salome Otterbourne, hilariously played by Angela Lansbury, is granted the prize of wearing the most luxurious and interesting of all the costumes. She drips with jewels and, with a cocktail always in hand, is the film’s comic relief.

Director John Guillermin makes the film an overall light and fun experience and, despite the murderous drama, does not take matters too seriously.

Offering humorous moments, this balances nicely with the inevitable murders.

The fun for the audience is deducing whodunit- most of the characters have the motive, and the cast of characters is hefty.

I had memories of the famous board game Clue- Was it Jackie in the ballroom with the revolver? You get the idea. The film makes for a good, solid mystery game.

Comparisons to 1974’s Murder On The Orient Express cannot help but be drawn, especially in the lead casting of Hercule Poirot.

Truth be told, Albert Finney’s portrayal in “Murder” is superior to Peter Ustinov’s Poirot in “Death,” and I am not sure what purpose Colonel Race (David Niven) as Poirot’s friend offers other than to be a loyal sidekick and present a character that Poirot can explain events to, think what Watson was to Sherlock Holmes.

Regardless, Finney is the superior Poirot, as he musters more strength and charisma than Ustinov.

How lovely and historic to witness the wonderful Egyptian locales- the Sphinx and the Great Pyramids are featured amid an attempt on the life of the romantic pair by way of falling rocks- this sets the tone for the perilous cruise about to be embarked upon.

Perhaps a perfect film for a Saturday stay-at-home evening with friends, complete with a serving of quality wine and cheese, Death On The Nile is a sophisticated, yet fun, British mystery film, fantastic to watch in a party setting where the audience can be kept guessing until the nice conclusion and the big reveal of who killed whom and why.

Oscar Nominations: 1 win-Best Costume Design (won)

The Shape of Water-2017

The Shape of Water-2017

Director Guillermo del Toro

Starring Sally Hawkins, Richard Jenkins, Michael Shannon

Scott’s Review #705

Reviewed December 16, 2017

Grade: A

Director Guillermo del Toro created a lovely Beauty and the Beast-style film, The Shape of Water (2017). It is gorgeous to look at, and the story is intelligent and sweet to experience.

Thanks to a talented cast led by Sally Hawkins, the film is part drama, part science fiction, even part thriller, but touching to one’s heart and a lesson in true love regardless of outward appearances.

Vanessa Taylor co-wrote the story, giving it a needed female perspective to perfectly balance the traditional male machinations.

The setting is Baltimore, Maryland, in the early 1960s. The Cold War is ongoing, pitting the United States and the Soviet Union against each other.

Both sides are mistrustful of the other.

Kindly and mute, Elisa Esposito (Hawkins) is a curious and whimsical young woman who works as a cleaning lady at an Aerospace Research Center.

When she stumbles upon a mysterious “shape” being held prisoner for experimentation, she slowly communicates with and befriends the creature, eventually falling madly in love with him.

The “asset,” as the scientists like to call him, is an amphibian/humanoid that needs saltwater to survive. Elisa sees an opportunity to help her love escape captivity, and off she goes.

Hawkins exudes warmth and fills Elisa with courage and astounding determination. Not uttering a word is a tricky feat for an actor to challenge, but instead of words, Hawkins successfully provides a vast array of emotions to reveal how Elisa feels.

Despite her “handicap,” she is a strong woman who speaks her mind on more than one occasion, using sign language to express her frustration. Hawkins gives a fantastic and believable performance.

In excellent and vital supporting roles are Richard Jenkins as Elisa’s friend and neighbor, Giles, a closeted gay man who works as a commercial artist. Jenkins fills this character with intelligence, heart, and empathy as he struggles with his issues of alcoholism and loneliness- unable to be accepted for who he is.

Octavia Spencer shines as witty and stubborn Zelda Fuller, Elisa’s best friend and co-worker. Zelda has her domestic problems but is forever there for her friend, and Spencer gives her character zest, humor, and energy.

Finally, Michael Shannon plays the dastardly and menacing Colonel Richard Strickland, the man who found the “asset” in the rivers of South America and has a lovely family.

Each character is written exceptionally well and has a storyline rather than simply supporting Hawkins’s character.

The audience becomes involved in Giles, Zelda, and Strickland’s private lives, and we get to know and care for them—or hate them, as the case may be.

Giles, harboring a crush on a handsome pie shop owner, is afraid to reveal his feelings. Zelda, with a lazy husband, dutifully takes care of her man, though she is as sassy as they come. And Strickland lives in an all-American family with a pretty wife and two kids, unaware of his shenanigans.

The film is a gorgeous and lovely experience with a magical element. The opening and closing sequences, shot underwater, resound in beauty as objects float along in a dreamy way.

The narrator (Jenkins) takes us on a journey to explain the events of the story.

At its core, The Shape of Water is a romantic love story, and my favorite scenes—those of Hawkins and the “asset”—are to be treasured. Yes, the two do make love, which may be too much for some, but the scenes are tasteful and important, showing the depth of the characters’ love for one another.

Cherishing is how Elisa uses music and hard-boiled eggs to communicate with the “asset.” When Elisa imagines the two characters dancing, the sequence is an enchanting experience reminiscent of Beauty and the Beast.

Other underwater scenes involving Elisa and the “asset” are tender, graceful, and filled with loveliness.

A key part of the film involves a story of intrigue between the Americans and the Soviets. While both are portrayed negatively, the Americans are arguably written as more unsympathetic than the Soviets.

Thanks to Strickland—abusive and vicious—and his uncaring superior, General Holt, we do not root for the government officials at all but rather for ordinary folks like Elisa, Zelda, and Giles, who are outcasts.

Interestingly, Dmitri (Michael Stuhlbarg), a Soviet spy scientist, is the only character working at the center who wants to keep the “asset” alive and is written sympathetically.

My overall assessment of The Shape of Water is that it is a film to be enjoyed on many levels and by particular varied tastes- the film will cater to those seeking an old-style romance, complete with some tasty French music.

Then again, the film can be considered a political espionage thriller, with a cat-and-mouse chase and other nail-biting elements.

Overall, the film has heart and truth and will appeal to vast audiences seeking an excellent movie.

Oscar Nominations: 4 wins-Best Picture (won), Best Director-Guillermo del Toro (won), Best Actress-Sally Hawkins, Best Supporting Actor-Richard Jenkins, Best Supporting Actress-Octavia Spencer, Best Original Screenplay, Best Original Score (won), Best Sound Editing, Best Sound Mixing, Best Production Design (won), Best Cinematography, Best Costume Design, Best Film Editing

Murder on the Orient Express-2017

Murder On The Orient Express-2017

Director Kenneth Branagh

Starring Kenneth Branagh, Johnny Depp, Michelle Pfeiffer

Scott’s Review #698

Reviewed November 25, 2017

Grade: B+

Kenneth Branagh leads and directs an all-star cast in a 2017 remake of the 1974 thriller Murder On The Orient Express.

The film is based on the famous 1934 Agatha Christie novel of the same name. With a ritzy cast that includes Judi Dench, Johnny Depp, Michelle Pfeiffer, Penelope Cruz, and Willem Defoe, top-notch acting is assured.

The cinematography is tremendous, and the film looks gorgeous from start to finish. The story is an effective, good, old-fashioned whodunit that will satisfy audiences.

We meet our hero, Hercule Poirot (Branagh), in Jerusalem. He has recently solved a murder mystery and is anticipating a good rest. A friend invites Poirot to travel back to his homeland of London via the lavish Orient Express.

Amid a group of thirteen strangers, all inhabiting the luxurious first-class accommodations, one of them is savagely murdered in the middle of the night as a blustery blizzard and subsequent avalanche derails the train atop mountainous terrain.

The strangers are trapped together with a murderer on the loose. Poirot must deduce who has committed the crime and why.

Murder On The Orient Express has all the trimmings for a good, solid murder mystery, and director Branagh sets all of these elements in motion with a good flow.

Paced quite nicely, each principal character is introduced intriguingly, so much so that each contains a measure of juicy intrigue. The film briefly describes each character as they board the grandiose train.

Judi Dench broods as rich and powerful Princess Dragomiroff oozing with jewels and a chip on her shoulder. Corrupt American businessman, Samuel Ratchett (Johnny Depp), is suave and shady as he seems destined to cause trouble.

Finally, Penelope Cruz gives her character, repressed Pilar Estravados, enough shame and guilt that we cannot think something may be off with her motivations.

The details of the characters are rich and compelling.

The playing field is set very high with actors such as Dench and Depp, and all actors play their parts with gusto.

An excellent experience with Murder On The Orient Express demonstrates the true nature of an ensemble cast—each character is relevant in his or her own way, regardless of screen time, and the casting works well.

The cast must have enjoyed working together on this lovely project. Each character is written so that the individual actor can sink his or her teeth into the role, and the wonderful reveal at the end of the film allows each a chance to shine, giving each part equal weight.

After the actual murder is committed, the story takes off as each character is interviewed by Poirot and given a glance of suspicion.

The first half of the film is just the buildup, and, at times, the story slightly lags, but this is fixed when the movie kicks into high gear midway through.

Sometimes, a climactic conclusion makes up for any slight lag in the film’s first portion, and Murder On The Orient Express is an excellent example of this.

My standouts are Branagh himself as Poirot and Pfeiffer as the sexy Caroline Hubbard, an American man-crazed older woman.  How wonderful to see Pfeiffer back in the game in 2017- with fantastic roles in Murder On The Orient Express and Mother!

She has the acting chops to pull off sex appeal, vulnerability, and toughness. Branagh’s acting never disappoints in any film he appears in, but seeing him in a leading role is fantastic, and he can carry a film with such a dynamic cast.

Branagh’s Poirot is classy, intelligent, and charismatic.

I adored the film’s conclusion and found the explanation and reasoning of the murderer or murderers quite effective and believable. The use of black-and-white flashback scenes perfectly balances the action aboard the grandiose yet slightly claustrophobic train scenes.

Furthermore, the explanation and motivations of the killer or killers make perfect sense, and much sympathy is evoked. The story is moralistic and not a black-and-white subject matter.

Murder On The Orient Express succeeds as a wonderfully shot and star-studded affair. The filming is grandiose, and the production values are high. It is a caper film with a mystique and class.

The film may not be a true masterpiece or necessarily remembered ten years from now, but what it does, it does well.

The original film from 1974 is a tad bit better, but as remakes go, the 2017 offering is quite good.

A rumored sequel, Death on the Nile, is planned.

Mother!-2017

Mother! -2017

Director Darren Aronofsky

Starring Jennifer Lawrence, Javier Bardem, Ed Harris, Michelle Pfeiffer

Scott’s Review #687

Reviewed October 4, 2017

Grade: A

Mother! is an intense, disturbing, and brilliant 2017 work by acclaimed director Darren Aronofsky.

Having crafted left-of-center works such as 2000’s Requiem for a Dream, 2008’s The Wrestler, and 2010’s Black Swan, I shudder to think this film rivals the other in the insanity department.

With four principal characters portrayed by Hollywood mainstays, this film generated much buzz upon its release.

The film is thought-provoking and analytical, and we will discuss it after the conclusion. I appreciate the complex watches and Mother! succeeds in spades.

The film is set entirely within the confines of one enormous house in the middle of a vast field of land. Aronofsky never reveals the location, adding mystery to the already intriguing premise.

A young couple known only as Him (Javier Bardem) and Mother (Jennifer Lawrence) cheerfully enjoy married life together and seem very much in love. He is a renowned author suffering from writer’s block, and his mother fixed the house after it had burned long ago.

One day, a Man (Ed Harris) arrives looking for a place to stay. While Him is delighted by the visitor and encourages Man to stay, the mother is not as pleased.

When Man’s wife, Woman (Michelle Pfeiffer) arrives, the houseguests turn Him and mother’s lives upside down. This is merely the beginning of a complex puzzle.

As the plot unfolds, Mother! is oozing with one bizarre event after the other. Mother witnesses unsettling images such as a beating heart within the walls and a bloodstain on the floor that will not go away.

When relatives of a Man and a Woman overtake the house, and a violent event occurs, things go from dark to downright chaotic.

Giving too many plot points away would ruin the element of surprise, making Mother! a difficult film to review. The film is polarizing and mesmerizing, and each of the principal characters’ motivations can be analyzed and questioned.

Why do he and his mother react differently to the visitors? What manifests their resentment towards the mother?

Each actor gives a compelling turn, and Aronofsky admits that the mother’s character is the one he most relates to. Logically, one might assume that Bardem’s Him might receive that honor since the character is a famous writer. How strange, and this revelation by the director will only result in more character analysis.

How wonderful to see Michelle Pfeifer back in the forefront of a Hollywood film—it seems eons have passed since we last saw her grace the silver screen, and she is back with a vengeance.

Her bitchy portrayal is purely delicious, and she encompasses Woman with the perfect amount of venom, toughness, and mystery. As she icily quizzes mother about her intentions of starting a family, she slowly immerses herself in mother’s life without missing a beat.

The film is unconventional and layered with symbolism and differing interpretations. Is Aronofsky’s message biblical? Is it political? Or could it reference the obsessions everyday folk have with celebrities?

After much pondering, all three possibilities came to mind. The biblical message seems the most solid and plausible explanation, but with Aronofsky films, the pleasure is in the analysis.

The film’s final act is particularly macabre, as the action has exclusively focused on the four principal characters until this point, and the setting is mainly bright.

A slow burn, if you will, suddenly, all hell breaks loose as mobs, blood, fire, death, and darkness take over. The brutality and cannibalism involved will churn anyone’s stomach.

Quickly note the lurid closeups of Jennifer Lawrence’s face during most scenes. Indeed, the camera loves her, but more is happening here. Is the intention to make the viewer focus more on her character or to sympathize more with her character?

Mother! has stirred controversy among film-goers. Some have ravished its elements and themes, while others have reviled and revolted against it.

Time will tell if Mother! (2017) holds up well, but my hope and guess would be that it will become a film studied in film schools everywhere.

Bullitt-1968

Bullitt-1968

Director Peter Yates

Starring Steve McQueen, Robert Vaughn, Jacqueline Bisset

Scott’s Review #660

Reviewed July 7, 2017

Grade: B+

Bullitt (1968) is one of the ultimate “guy movies”, hardly a stretch considering it stars the “regular guy” hero of the time, Steve McQueen.

With his macho, tough-guy persona and his cool, confident swagger, he was a marquee hero during the late 1960s and into the 1970s.

While the film is rife with machismo stereotypes and is not precisely a women ‘s-lib film, it is also a good old-fashioned action thriller with plenty of chase and fight scenes to make most guys (and some girls) happy.

The story is not particularly thought-provoking, but the film works as escapist fare and is an example of good late-1960s cinema.

Set in San Francisco, Lieutenant Frank Bullitt (Steve McQueen) is assigned to watch a Chicago gangster, Johnny Ross, over a long weekend, before the criminal is set to testify against his brother on Monday morning.

Robert Vaughn plays ambitious politician, Walter Chalmers, who is determined to see the case go off without a hitch and see convictions in the organized crime syndicate.

Predictably, the weekend does not go as planned, and hitmen attack Ross. This, in turn,  sets off a cat-and-mouse game of deception and intrigue. As expected, the action is virtually non-stop with many action sequences lighting up the screen.

The plot of Bullitt does not matter, and one does not need to completely understand what is going on to enjoy the film for what it is. The intent of a movie like Bullitt is not good storytelling, but rather good action.

This is not meant as a put-down, but rather good, honest critiquing. One can sit back, relax, and enjoy the testosterone-laden affair.

Bullitt contains some riveting scenes that raise it above an average, middling action flick. The muscle car chase involving a then-state-of-the-art, flashy Ford Mustang and a Dodge Charger is fantastic and one of the film’s high points.

The quick, edgy camera angles as the cars zip down the windy, narrow San Francisco roads build compelling tension.

Will one of the cars careen off the side of the road or blow up? Since one of the cars holds Frank Bullitt and the other car is the bad guy, it is not tough to guess how the sequence will end.

But it’s good fun all the same, and well filmed.

The other spectacular sequence is the finale: as Frank and company overtake a busy San Francisco airport in pursuit of a baddie about to board a transcontinental flight, the chase leads them throughout the airport, onto a taxiing plane, and finally onto the runway as a plane is about to take off.

It is action at its finest and a treat for the viewer, bringing us back to airport days, pre-9/11, when airports were just different—the luxurious flight crew, the innocence, and the glamour- all a distant memory.

The scene is such that it shows all of the airport elements- the people, the employees, the airport, and the planes, giving it a slice-of-life feel, circa late 1960s airport days.

Appealing is the period in which the film is made. 1968 was an excellent year for cinema; Bullitt capitalized on the newly liberal use of blood in films, making it an influential action film.

Dozens of imitators (some admittedly with superior writing) followed, including classics Dirty Harry and The French Connection (both 1971). These contain the exact basic blueprint that Bullitt has.

A negative of Bullitt is the trite way women are portrayed. Female characters are written as dutiful nurses, gasping in fear and helplessly running away when an assailant runs rampant in the hospital, praying for a man to save the day.

Or, they are written, in the case of Bullitt’s girlfriend, as a gorgeous yet insignificant character, given a laughable scene in which she questions whether or not she knows Frank after witnessing the violence in his job- hello?

He is in the San Francisco Police Department after all.

Bullitt is a meat-and-potatoes kind of filmmaking. An early entry into what would become the raw 1970s and the slick formulaic 1980s action genre, the film deserves credit for being at the front of the pack in style and influence.

The story and character development are secondary to other aspects of the film, and Bullitt (1968) is just OK as escapism fare.

Oscar Nominations: 1 win-Best Sound, Best Film Editing (won)

Escape from Alcatraz-1979

Escape from Alcatraz-1979

Director Don Siegel

Starring Clint Eastwood, Patrick McGoohan

Scott’s Review #656

Reviewed July 2, 2017

Grade: B+

Made during the heyday (the 1970s and the early 1980s) of a slew of action and thriller films starring popular actor Clint Eastwood, Escape from Alcatraz is a gritty, man-focused film with not a single female character in sight.

The film is directed by Don Siegel, who also directed Eastwood in several previous films, most notably Dirty Harry in 1971, and contains a grittiness frequently used in this genre of film during the period.

Reminiscent in style of 1975’s One Flew Over the Cuckoo’s Nest in its authority, repression, and exploitation of the victimized commoner, the film is also a good historical account of one of the most famous prison escapes ever achieved in 1962.

Having recently visited the long-since-shut-down Alcatraz prison near San Francisco, California, I found the film wonderful to watch, as much of it was shot inside and around the actual prison grounds.

We immediately meet Frank Morris (Eastwood) as he is unceremoniously led to the infamous Alcatraz prison on a stormy, chilly night in foggy San Francisco. The dark, harsh weather perfectly sets the tone for the dreary prison experience he will face.

Morris is stripped, searched, intimidated by the warden and the guards, and paraded around naked, finally taken to his tiny cell, where he will presumably spend the rest of his life.

The film does not reveal what crimes Morris committed to warrant his tenure at Alcatraz; as a result, the character is more sympathetic.

Slowly, Morris befriends other inmates and devises a plan to escape the impossible prison by digging through the concrete walls with spoons and using the pipes.

The other inmates featured in the film are the Anglin brothers, in for robbery, a kindly older man named Doc, who fervently paints the time away, nervous Charlie Butts, and English, an intelligent black man serving two life sentences for killing two white men in self-defense.

All of these men, in some way, aid Morris in his escape from the torturous Alcatraz.

A side story involves a bully named Wolf, who has designs on Morris from day one. Whether Wolf is actually gay or merely a menace is unknown and not explored.

Throughout the film, Wolf and Morris fight and spend time in solitary confinement, and their rivalry is an interesting subplot.

The film wants the viewer to be on the prisoners’ side, and I am not sure whether, in real life, the prisoners would be as sympathetic as portrayed in the film. Most of them seem to be confined to Alcatraz for robberies or crimes they did not commit, or for circumstances that deem the crimes inevitable in some way.

Furthering a liberal slant to the film is the friendship between Morris and English. An interracial friendship between the men reveals that our hero, Morris, is progressive-thinking and a “good guy”.

Conversely, most of the guards and certainly the Warden (Patrick McGoohan) are written as terrible, unsympathetic people. When an inmate drops dead of a heart attack, the warden coldly remarks, “Some men are destined never to leave Alcatraz alive”.

The Warden is the foil of the film, and in the final scene, the Warden gets a bit of comeuppance when a mocking souvenir is left for him.

To further compare Escape from Alcatraz to One Flew Over the Cuckoo’s Nest, the Warden is a similar character to the infamous Nurse Ratched in their mutual, diabolical sadism.

I am unsure if in “real life” the distinctions between the prisoners and the authority figures were so black and white, but it sure makes for good film drama. It is “the heroes versus the villains” but in reverse.

The inevitable escape sequence is predictable yet highly compelling as Morris and Company enact their escape plan over the course of an overnight.

The usage of papier-mache dolls to fool the guards is heavily dramatic and compelling.

Escape from Alcatraz (1979) is not high art, but it works as a historical account of a real-life incident in one of the most discussed prisons in United States history.

The film is also a perfect vehicle for Eastwood, as he is well cast in the gritty yet likable role of prisoner Morris.

The film is a good, solid late-1970s thriller.

Elle-2016

Elle-2016

Director Paul Verhoeven

Starring Isabelle Huppert

Scott’s Review #644

Reviewed May 17, 2017

Grade: A-

Sure to evoke both disgust and intrigue from viewers brave enough to watch it all the way through and hopefully ponder the character dynamics, Elle is a titillating French film that was showered with heaps of praise upon its release in 2016.

Controversial without question, in large part by the film’s main character, Elle, will undoubtedly divide film fans- some heralding the picture as greatness, others detesting it as too exploitive.

It is not an easy watch by any measure, but one aspect is cemented in truth-Isabelle Huppert gives a fantastic performance in a complex and perverse role.

Unique even in its first scene, Michele Leblanc (Huppert) is a ruthless, alpha businesswoman who is raped and beaten by an intruder in her lavish Paris home.

The violent act occurs in the first scene, immediately giving the film an “in your face” presence. When the rapist, who wears a ski mask, flees, Michele shakes off the incident with nary an emotional scar.

Through backstory, we learn that years ago, Michele’s father brutally murdered many people and was imprisoned for life. Michele’s mother is an aging glamour girl who hires sexy male escorts. Michele’s son is engaged to a domineering pregnant woman, and her ex-husband is dating a younger woman.

Michele lives a complicated life.

At first, Michele seems sympathetic, and we feel her pain as she is taunted by a woman in a coffee shop for her father’s past deeds.

To say nothing of her rape, we cringe when Michele hears noises and imagines the masked intruder returning to rape again, empathizing with the character.

When the mystery man harasses Michele, he sends notes and leaves “gifts” in her home, and we are scared for her. However, as the film goes along, Michele’s obsession and other questionable actions make the character challenging to like.

I also began to wonder if Michele was perhaps dreaming the entire film!

As a fan of acclaimed film director Claude Chabrol, Elle appears to be heavily influenced by him.

Director Paul Verhoeven certainly must have studied his works. He is no slouch himself—female-empowering sex films such as Basic Instinct (1992) and Showgirls (1995) that he directed come to mind. He gives Elle a sleek and sexy feel.

The fact that it is set in romantic Paris helps make the film glamorous and cultured. Verhoeven even weaves a whodunit into the story for much of the movie until the rapist is revealed shockingly.

If the film had ended with the big reveal, this would have made for a compelling, if not mainstream, Lifetime television-type film, but Elle takes off from this point. Michele, already fancying her handsome rapist, actually begins a macabre relationship with the man, going so far as to act out the rape again- her fantasies coming true!

This story turn may repel the average viewer, but to me, this turns the film into a completely left-of-center, layered, psychologically themed story.

Elle is not a revenge tale or a film about a victimized woman; it is much more.

What a dynamic performance Ruppert gives, and here is why- she successfully makes Michele both sympathetic and reviled.

Besides the aforementioned rape complexities, she despises her mother and sleeps with her best friend’s husband. In a scene that arguably makes Michele cross the line in reprehensible behavior, she confesses her affair to a best friend, Anna, when Anna is at her happiest moment- this is downright cruel!

So, no, the audience does not entirely sympathize with this character, but how layered this makes the character, and what a treat it is for actress Ruppert to sink her teeth into a character like this one.

With a wounded yet cold central character, partly thanks to exceptional direction by Verhoeven and a brilliant portrayal by Huppert, he takes Elle into largely unchartered territory and brave waters to create a film that will make the viewer both think and loathe.

Part nymphomaniac wounded bird and vicious shark, Elle contains a complex and memorable leading character.

Oscar Nominations: Best Actress-Isabelle Huppert

Independent Spirit Award Nominations: 1 win-Best Female Lead-Isabelle Huppert (won)

Nocturnal Animals-2016

Nocturnal Animals-2016

Director Tom Ford

Starring Amy Adams, Jake Gyllenhaal, Michael Shannon

Scott’s Review #640

Reviewed April 30, 2017

Grade: A-

Nocturnal Animals (2016) blurs the lines between fantasy and reality in a revenge-themed thriller directed by Tom Ford, in only his second directorial effort- 2009’s A Single Man was his first.

While not constantly hitting the mark and, at times, very difficult to follow, the film is unusual, mesmerizing, and lovely to look at from a visual perspective. Some scenes blur together splendidly, so they seem interposed—a brilliant touch.

David Lynch influences the film in tone and style.

Events are divided between “The Real World” and “The Novel”.

The film begins strangely as a bevy of nude, obese women prance and dance on video screens during an art exhibit opening.

The gallery is owned by Susan Morrow (Amy Adams), a successful woman living a glossy life in Los Angeles. We quickly learn that Susan is involved in a loveless marriage with hunky Hutton (Armie Hammer), a business person who is inattentive towards Susan.

Before Hutton, Susan was briefly married to Edward (Jake Gyllenhaal), a novelist who dedicates his latest manuscript to Susan, received via mail. As Susan reads the manuscript, she is transported down a dark path of memories and fantasies concerning Edward and their past.

The film’s locales are mainly between Los Angeles (the real world) and western Texas (where the novel occurs). This compelling aspect of the film separates the two worlds.

Los Angeles is featured mainly at nighttime as Susan, presumed to be suffering from insomnia, is compelled by her reading. She also rubs shoulders with sophisticated artist types and colleagues at her studio.

Conversely, western Texas is worlds apart from the Los Angeles setting—like night and day. In Texas, we are introduced to the protagonist of the story Susan reads.

Tony, traveling through Texas with his wife, Laura, and their daughter, India, are accosted and terrorized, bypassing local motorists.

Clearly from out of town, the family is stranded in the middle of nowhere and kept at bay by the rednecks- the story has a tragic ending. The stories intersect interestingly as we see the differing worlds.

The scenes in western Texas were frightening and tense—so much so that my heart beat quickly. I pictured myself as Tony in a situation of peril and danger.

As the family attempts to reason with the thugs, they get deeper and deeper into trouble. The feeling of being vulnerable and unsafe with no help around is tremendous in the film.

The acting in Nocturnal Animals is excellent overall, which is no surprise given the tremendous cast. Adams and Gyllenhaal are especially worthy of mention. Through flashbacks, we see their scenes and find them both sympathetic and vulnerable (at first— he is a sensitive writer, and she is a college girl with aspirations of love and family life.

As the plot thickens, both characters become more nuanced and complex- the subject of betrayal and revenge certainly comes into play, and both characters, now older and more pessimistic, intersect again as mature adults.

Michael Shannon, though believable as Detective Bobby Andes, assigned to Tony’s case and suffering from stage four lung cancer, is not the standout for me. I disagree with his Oscar nomination for Best Supporting Actor.

Indeed, it is an acceptable performance. I would have much rather Gyllenhaal or Aaron Taylor-Johnson (as one of the rednecks) be awarded the nomination.

I was reminded of David Lynch’s masterpiece, Mulholland Drive (2001), mainly during the Los Angeles scenes. The slick night air and the trials and tribulations of the wealthy mirrored each other quite readily.

The sequences contain a gothic, haunting, moody vibe.

The central theme of revenge is present in both worlds. Tony and Bobby seek revenge on the criminals in western Texas, while revenge also focuses on Los Angeles, though much more subtly.

A hint is given several times in Susan’s art gallery, where a large ” Revenge ” exhibit is a focal point. However, what the Los Angeles revenge is is not revealed until the very last scene.

One thing is sure about Nocturnal Animals- the film is dreamy, complex, and worthy of conversation.

Tom Ford is an up-and-coming director with visual sensibilities and a dream-like vision. I hope we see more from this fascinating director.

Oscar Nominations: Best Supporting Actor-Michael Shannon

Hush…Hush, Sweet Charlotte-1964

Hush…Hush, Sweet Charlotte-1964

Director Robert Aldrich

Starring Bette Davis, Olivia de Havilland

Scott’s Review #632

Reviewed April 8, 2017

Grade: B+

The follow-up film, but not a direct sequel, to the surprise 1962 hit, What Ever Happened To Baby Jane? Hush…Hush, Sweet Charlotte (1964) is a psychological thriller directed by Robert Aldrich.

The film was intended to reunite Aldrich with stars Bette Davis and Joan Crawford. Crawford filmed several scenes, but the tension between the stars proved too much, and Crawford dropped out.

Olivia de Havilland took her place, and reportedly, the filmmakers scrambled to re-shoot the film nearly from scratch.

Shot in black and white, just like What Ever Happened To Baby Jane?, the film is very similar in style and tone, and, rather than Los Angeles as the setting, the setting is now the sprawling southern landscape of the deep south- Louisiana to be exact, a vast estate with a lavish mansion is the featured ominous setting.

The action begins in 1927 at a grand party at the well-to-do Hollis family mansion.

The night is fraught with tension, and secrets are harbored- most notably, southern belle Charlotte (Davis) and her married beau, John (Bruce Dern), plan to elope and steal away into the night together.

When John is threatened by Charlotte’s father, Sam (Victor Buono), he regrettably breaks up with Charlotte, destroying her. Later, John is decapitated and his hand severed, leaving all of the guests only to assume that Charlotte was murdered after she appears wearing a blood-soaked dress.

Due to a lack of evidence, Charlotte is set free.

The remainder of the film takes place during present times (1964) and in the same mansion, now slated to be demolished by the town in favor of a highway.

Charlotte is old and haggard, having lived a life of seclusion. Her father is long dead, and her only company is her dedicated and faithful housekeeper, Velma (Agnes Moorehead).

Frantic at the thought of leaving the safety of her estate, Charlotte asks her cousin Miriam (de Havilland) to visit. Events then become stranger and stranger as past secrets and jealousies are revealed.

Taking nothing away from the talents of Olivia de Havilland, I cannot help but imagine how much better Hush…Hush, Sweet Charlotte would have been if Joan Crawford had settled into the role of cousin Miriam.

The real-life rivalry between Crawford and Davis made What Ever Happened to Baby Jane? It is a compelling work, and the angry emotions are fresh and authentic.

Interestingly, the characters are reversed in this film—Davis plays the victimized Charlotte, while Crawford would have played the villainous Miriam, and the results would have been delicious.

The plot is decent, but nothing spectacular, and not nearly as splendid as What Ever Happened To Baby Jane? , although certain similarities abound between the two films: a giant mansion, black and white cinematography, a mentally unstable (or assumed to be) character, a character being either drugged or victimized, and two female characters who are related.

To compare the two films, which is impossible not to, What Ever Happened To Baby Jane? Wins in spades. It is the more compelling of the two films.

What sets Hush…Hush, Sweet Charlotte, well above mediocrity (with fewer actors, it may have been), is the casting of one of the greatest actresses to grace the big screen.

Bette Davis’s portrayal of the victimized Charlotte is fantastic. She encompasses vulnerability, anger, fear, and energy. Her facial expressions and those passionate eyes give so much to Charlotte.

The clever resolution to the film and the plot twist after the film is pretty well-written and surprising, given that the characters assumed to be involved in the murder are not as guilty as one might think, or at least not in the way one might think, and by the time the credits roll, the story has a satisfying, hopeful ending.

Another success of the film is its use of two gruesome scenes, which is surprising since the film predates the lifting of the film censorship rules.

When a severed head comes tumbling down the grand staircase of the mansion, it frightens and is not in the least campy or over-the-top. As John is hacked to death in the opening sequence, his hand is severed from his arm, and it dramatically tumbles to the floor.

The scenes resonate because they were rarely done in mainstream film as early as 1964.

Hush…Hush, Sweet Charlotte is a fantastic companion piece to the superior What Ever Happened To Baby Jane?

Watching back-to-back is a fantastic late-night viewing.

Successful to the film are top-notch talents such as de Havilland, Victor Buono, Bruce Dern, Agnes Moorehead, and the superior film queen, Bette Davis, which makes any film worth watching.

Oscar Nominations: Best Supporting Actress-Agnes Moorehead, Best Song-“Hush, Hush, Sweet Charlotte,” Best Music Score-Substantially Original, Best Art Direction, Black-and-White, Best Cinematography, Black-and-White, Best Costume Design, Black and White, Best Film Editing

London Has Fallen-2016

London Has Fallen-2016

Director Babak Najafi

Starring Gerard Butler, Aaron Eckhart

Scott’s Review #608

Reviewed January 13, 2017

Grade: D

Save for many enjoyable, incredible London shots of mostly aerial views, London Has Fallen (2016) is a complete drivel of an experience.

The film’s attempt at being a red-blooded, patriotic film comes across as insulting and racist, with a machismo that is cringe-worthy.

The dialogue is terrible, and the “us against them” mantra has been done to death in film, mainly in the 1980s and 1990s. To quote one reviewer, “London Has Fallen is Donald Trump in film form.”

I don’t understand how the film convinced such a talented cast to appear (it must have been money), and several parts are so small (Robert Forster, Melissa Leo, Jackie Earle Haley) that they are nearly glorified extras.

The plot is painfully contrived, to say nothing of the ludicrous nature of the entire story.

To retaliate against a drone strike killing a Pakistani leader, terrorists take advantage of the death of the UK Prime Minister to assassinate several world leaders who have gravitated to London to attend funeral services.

The President of the United States (played by Aaron Eckhart) is naturally in attendance, and his murder is thwarted by top Secret Service official Mike Banning (Gerard Butler), our film’s hero.

The rest of the film involves the President and Mike running throughout London, attempting to catch the terrorists and bring them to justice while avoiding death.

The London locales are superb, but sadly, they mainly appear at the film’s beginning and end. The London Eye, the Thames River, the Underground, and various metro stations are featured.

The numerous London bridges also get some exposure.

The best part is how the film showcases London’s vastness, not just the up-close shots of historic places like Westminster Abbey or Buckingham Palace.

Undoubtedly, London is known for those gems, but the aerial views give the viewer an appreciation of all London offers.

I loved only this aspect of the film.

The supporting roles are abysmal, and given the more artistic parts they’ve received in the past; one imagines the actors cringing as they read the scripts for some of them.

I hesitate to think what possessed Leo, Forster, and Haley to accept meaningless roles save for a hefty paycheck. Each played a member of the President’s staff and was reduced mainly to reactionary shots.

As an ill-fated Secret Service Director, Angela Bassett and Radha Mitchell, as Banning’s weary-looking, pregnant wife, get more screen time but are treated to equally uninteresting roles.

Overall, the performances are forgettable. Respectable actors Butler and Eckhart merely phone in their vapid, dull lines, failing to make any of them believable.

The film never bothers with character development or anything beyond fundamental good and evil roles. Every character is either 100% good or 100% bad.

It is made crystal clear that the Americans are the good guys, and the foreigners (all Middle Eastern or Asian actors, of course) are simply the bad guys.

The motivations of the “bad guys” are never explained, and one cheesy line after another is written for the “good guys.”

During the finale, Banning professes that “we have been here for thousands of years and always will be” as he beats a lousy guy senselessly. Good grief. I’ve seen better dialogue on a network television drama.

And there is never any doubt about how the film will end. There is an American mole who has used his power to enable all of the assassinations, but when the mole is revealed, it is a character we have never seen before, so who cares?

Indeed, the film will soon be forgotten for its poor story, cliche-ridden script, and numerous stereotypes, but the fantastic London shots were inspiring and lovely.

I would have been happy with one hour and forty minutes of those.

Snakes on a Plane-2006

Snakes On A Plane-2006

Director David R. Ellis

Starring Samuel L. Jackson

Scott’s Review #607

Reviewed January 11, 2017

Grade: B

Snakes on a Plane, the surprise internet bruhaha sensation of 2006, has much to criticize.

The plot is inane, the acting way over the top, and the subject portrayed in such a dumb manner that I could see the results being horrific, but there is just something I enjoyed about the film, too, as admittedly stupid as it is.

I could not help but sit back and enjoy it.

I enjoyed the setting of an airplane- trapped at 35, 000 feet, in peril, has always enamored me (think Airport disaster films of the 1970s).

The story involves a plot to release hundreds of deadly snakes on a passenger flight, to kill a witness to a murder trial.

Of course, innocent passengers meet their dire fates as the cartoon-like characters are offed one by one, in a horror-film style.

Sadly, the film did not live up to expectations, commercially or critically, and was considered something of a dud after all the hype, but I rather enjoyed it for what it was.

Hardly high art, it entertained me.

The Fourth Kind-2009

The Fourth Kind-2009

Director Olatunde Osunsanmi

Starring Milla Jovovich, Will Patton

Scott’s Review #583

Reviewed January 4, 2017

Grade: B-

I went into the theater to see The Fourth Kind (2009) not expecting a classic, but rather, a few frights, chills, and something compelling. I ended up completely entertained and believing it was a good movie.

However, after the credits rolled, I was left with an unsatisfying and misrepresented feeling.

The premise of the film is admittedly a bit trite. An Alaskan female psychiatrist, Dr. Abigail Tyler (Milla Jovovich) videotapes her therapy sessions with patients and discovers some sort of alien has possibly abducted them.

Yes, this sounds crazy, but the film is well-made and rather believable.

The look of the film is similar to the Paranormal Activity films, a craze that was happening when the film was released in 2009.

The documentary look and the interviews with the actors will be looked back on as “of its time”, to be sure.

The style and interspersing of “real” events with fictitious events were interesting. However, I was disappointed when I read that the supposed “real” events were entirely made up, a fact the movie never admits, and, in fact, time and time again reminds the audience are real events.

I enjoyed the movie but felt duped afterward, rendering The Fourth Kind (2009) trivial and forgettable.

Shutter Island-2010

Shutter Island-2010

Director Martin Scorsese

Starring Leonardo DiCaprio

Scott’s Review #567

Reviewed December 27, 2016

Grade: A-

Shutter Island (2010) is a great, psychological thriller, that being a Scorsese film, I had high expectations for. Lo and behold, I was not disappointed in the slightest.

Scorsese has a knack for making taut films, very violent, and with an edge. This film does not have the gore nor the blood that some of his other films have- especially since the subject matter is not mafia-related.

After Teddy Daniels (DiCaprio), a World War II veteran, turned U.S. Marshall investigates the disappearance of a female patient at a local psychiatric hospital, the case develops unforeseen layers.

The time is the 1950s.

Shutter Island is not your typical, run-of-the-mill thriller- it is much more than that and the complexities build and build. Not to be secondary to the interesting web of plot, but the art and set designs and visual effects are quite impressive- particularly during the storm scenes.

Leonardo DiCaprio is quite the gem, carrying the film in a demanding role, and working so well with Scorsese, as proven by his being a repeat player in his films.

All the performances (even tiny roles) were played with perfection- with flawless nuances- I mainly mean the hospital staff and patients.

The unpleasant violent images may upset some as well as the ending, but I found it to be an edge-of-your-seat, extremely well-made film. I hope that it is remembered for some time.

The Secret in Their Eyes-2009

The Secret in Their Eyes-2009

Director Juan Jose Campanella

Starring Soledad Villamil, Ricardo Darin

Scott’s Review #565

Reviewed December 26, 2016

Grade: A

The Secret in Their Eyes is a wonderful film and one of the best of the year 2009- deservedly it won the Best Foreign Language Film of that year.

Argentinian-spoken, the film is a multi-faceted story with twists and turns, leaving the audience guessing.

The remarkable characteristic of the film is that it crosses genres. It lies somewhere between a thriller and a romantic film, with much depth.

The story concerns a criminal investigator who decides to write a memoir of a case that happened twenty-five years ago as he reflects on the present as well as the past. This story angle in itself is highly appealing.

The film contains many flashbacks- a young newlywed was raped and murdered years ago in an unsolved case, and the film is influenced heavily by both Alfred Hitchcock and Dirty Harry.

The tale has a few surprises and twists, especially as the plot moves along. I adored the use of mirrors, reflections, shadows, and eyeglasses. Hitchcock lovers will know all about that.

I was fortunate to see this film at my local art theater and close to three hours, it can be slow-moving at times, but well worth the payoff.

The Secret in Their Eyes (2009) is a very, very well-made film.

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

Splice-2009

Splice-2009

Director Vincenzo Natali

Starring Adrien Brody, Sarah Polley

Scott’s Review #564

Reviewed December 26, 2016

Grade: B-

If you are looking for a realistic, character-driven movie, this film is not for you. Rather, Splice, a 2009 effort, is a science-fiction, thriller, that must be viewed while suspending all disbelief.

It’s not a work of art and has lots of plot holes, but it provides decent entertainment, bordering on fluff.

The two main characters, Clive and Elsa, played by Adrien Brody and Sarah Polley, while admittedly neurological scientists are not the brightest people in the world, and their motivations change with the weather.

The basic plot involves a married couple (above-said scientists) who conduct an experiment to splice human and animal DNA into a new creation, a female hybrid named Dren.

Predictably, things go awry, once Dren is let loose on the world.

The plot is thin and there are questionable actions, motivations, and subplots, but somehow I still found it entertaining once I simply went with it.

There are cliches such as the scientists ignoring instructions, the one-dimensional supporting characters, and so on.

As a comical aside, I overheard the guy sitting behind me in the theater mutter as the closing credits rolled,  “This was the worst movie ever”. I understand where he is coming from, but did not think the film was that bad.

For fans of horror or thrillers I recommend it, anyone else might want to skip this one.

Inception-2010

Inception-2010

Director Christopher Nolan

Starring Leonardo DiCaprio, Ellen Page

Scott’s Review #558

Reviewed December 22, 2016

Grade: A-

Inception (2010) is the type of film that will leave you astounded, baffled, confused, bewildered, and many other adjectives. To put it more simply, this film needs to be pondered after the fact.

This is a high compliment as it is tough to remember such a complex (in a good way!), savory film.

Inception is visionary and meant to be processed.

A highly intelligent film, of sorts, that will leave you thinking afterward. The story is immeasurably complex and will leave many completely confused, but just go with it.

In a nutshell, it tells the story of a man who intercepts people’s subconscious minds through dreams. Different layers of their minds are revealed as the film goes along. There are also virtual levels to each person’s mind- complex, yes.

The film reminds me quite a bit of The Matrix- but better.

The film has many twists and turns throughout and will keep the viewer both perplexed and fascinated. My only slight criticism is the dream sequences do not feel like dreams at all but are highly stylized action sequences.

Many props have been given for being so inventive, though.

Oscar Nominations: 4 wins-Best Picture, Best Original Screenplay, Best Original Score, Best Sound Editing (won), Best Sound Mixing (won), Best Art Direction, Best Cinematography (won), Best Visual Effects (won)

Repulsion-1965

Repulsion-1965

Director Roman Polanski

Starring Catherine Deneuve

Scott’s Review #554

Reviewed December 21, 2016

Grade: A

Repulsion is an excellent British film, an early film by the great director Roman Polanski, made in 1965. The film was shot on a low budget, and the action mainly takes place inside a small London apartment.

Repulsion is part of Polanski’s “Apartment Trio,” along with Rosemary’s Baby (1968) and The Tenant (1976), which are all set in apartments.

The film tells the story of Carol (Catherine Deneuve), a beautiful young woman who slowly goes insane throughout a weekend while left alone by her vacationing sister.

Carol is a beauty parlor worker who is seemingly sweet and shy but gradually becomes violent, volatile, and unbalanced. She experiences hallucinations, and it is alluded to that she may have been sexually abused as a child.

She loathes men.

The film is shot in black and white, with eerie camera shots, background noises, and very little music. Its claustrophobic atmosphere makes it all the more disturbing.

These characteristics make the film a challenging experience to watch, but that is to its credit.

We see Carol unravel and are mystified by the aspects that make her this way. The bathtub scene and the scene with Carol’s landlord are highlights of their brutality.

Repulsion (1965) is challenging to watch but an excellent piece of cinema. It is an in-depth character study of an unhinged woman reaching her psychological breaking point.

The Bridesmaid-2004

The Bridesmaid-2004

Director Claude Chabrol

Starring Benoit Magimel, Laura Smet

Scott’s Review #548

Reviewed December 14, 2016

Grade: B+

A more modern offering by Claude Chabrol (many of his films were made in the 1960s and 1970s), his 2004 film entitled The Bridesmaid, continues the tradition of compelling, macabre storytelling.

It immerses the viewer in the strange behavior of the central characters as they obsess over each other in one way or another.

The film is in French.

The Bridesmaid contains two plots, one explored fully, the other not explored as much as might have been hoped- the latter being the more interesting of the two.

Philippe is his mother Christine’s only son and the only male in the household. His two other sisters live there as well.

Christine is divorced and works as a hairdresser.

The family is a rather typical one, save for a creepy, incestuous bond between Philippe and Christine, their very romantic conversations, and Philippe’s penchant for carrying around a head statue carved to resemble his mother.

He regularly sleeps with the statue and kisses it on the lips.

As the youngest daughter is to be married, Philippe meets and bonds with one of the bridesmaids, Senta.

The two embark on a torrid love affair and become inseparable. As their love flourishes, Senta becomes obsessed with her undying love for Philippe and asks him to kill a stranger as a way of proving his love for her.

This leads to confusion as Senta kills another character, thinking this is what Philippe wants. Philippe becomes both afraid and titillated by the young girl.

The main plot is very reminiscent of the Hitchcock classic Strangers on a Train (1951), in which one party is bloodthirsty and the other a more innocent victim, yet in Chabrol’s film, the other party suffers from emotional issues of their own.

Senta is unbalanced, and a mysterious figure from her past, Rita, described as her stepmother, appears a few times as she dances with her much younger partner.

A local girl mysteriously disappears early in the film, which may be a red herring or may be related to the events of the film.

I was more intrigued by the mommy/son angle, but perhaps that is Chabrol’s way of confusing the audience. Oddly, the duo has simmering chemistry, yet each character never fesses up to being obsessed with the other.

It is merely implied.

Philippe dislikes Christine’s beau, who figures prominently in the main story of Senta’s machinations, but I wanted more of Christine and Philippe.

Stylistically, The Bridesmaid is dreamy and builds at a slow momentum, similar to Chabrol’s earlier films. We are aware that the story will play out in a strange, interesting fashion, but we do not always know which road Chabrol might take, nor which plot points may or may not be revealed.

Perhaps less developed than some of his fantastic earlier efforts, but a recommended watch for someone in the mood for a morbid, left-of-center story to sink one’s teeth into.

Claude Chabrol is a director I admire greatly for his use of fascinating elements that keep the audience guessing about what is coming next, and that is a joy in itself.

The Believers-1987

The Believers-1987

Director John Schlesinger

Starring Martin Sheen, Helen Shaver

Scott’s Review #547

Reviewed December 12, 2016

Grade: B

The Believers is a very obscure film that I had never heard of before viewing it. Given that it was made in 1987 (not a great time for movies), I was skeptical about this one but was pleasantly surprised.

It has some edge to it, is mysterious, and is set in New York City- always a plus for me.

Martin Sheen- merely a youngster when this was made-plays a police psychologist, Cal Jamison, involved in a voodoo serial killer cult.

He moves from Minnesota to New York City following the death of his wife by electrocution when her coffeemaker malfunctions.

Is this key to the case or a red herring?

The plot is a bit convoluted as the serial killer targets Cal’s son, and when a frazzled police officer, Tom Lopez (Jimmy Smits),  takes center stage.

I did not find Smits all that believable in this role, and the film has a striking 1980s feel.

The locales, since it was shot in New York, are fantastic, and the plot contains some scares, surprises, and spooky effects along the way.

I was also very impressed by the satisfying ending.

The Believers (1987) is a very good thriller/horror film.