Category Archives: Romantic Drama

Eismayer-2023

Eismayer-2023

Director David Wagner

Starring Gerhard Liebmann, Luka Dimic

Scott’s Review #1,427

Reviewed May 31, 2024

Grade: A-

Eismayer (2023) may be the first Austrian-language film I’ve ever and is the first Austrian LGBTQ+ film. Similar to German cinema there is a cold and stark naturalistic veneer to the filmmaking making it feel moody and foreboding.

I’ve said this many times before but the statement still has merit. The LGBTQ+ cinema genre has been saturated with offerings since the late 1990s, especially into the 2000s and it can be difficult not to tell the same story continuously.

As proof of the above, our Prime subscription contains numerous LGBTQ+ films to showcase so we decided on Eismayer which sounded interesting.

It focuses on the military, is Austrian, and focuses on a love story between two soldiers. The fact that it is based on a true story held special intrigue.

Sergeant Major Eismayer (Gerhard Liebmann) is known and feared as the toughest training officer in the Austrian Armed Forces. He is ruthless and unfeeling with recruits and a staunch disciplinarian, with order and macho toughness.

Unsurprisingly, the new batch of recruits despises him.

Surprisingly, in his personal life, he is a loving father to his son whom he adores and treats his wife respectfully.

But when he starts to fall in love with Falak (Luka Dimic), a recruit who is unashamedly out and proud as a gay man Eismayer must decide if his closeted existence is worth it.

The director, David Wagner, paints a lovely canvas of the love between two men that slowly takes shape. He wisely makes the running time less than an hour and a half so the film doesn’t drag.

It’s not a shock what develops between Eismayer and Falak because their embrace appears on the cover art but that doesn’t detract from the enjoyment.

I like the direction Wagner takes with this story. Eismayer being the title character the focus is on his character not the couple as a whole. The plot centers on his plight to come to terms with his sexuality and also make it publicly known.

He doesn’t have to come out naturally but if he wants to have an open and honest romance with Falak he must do this genuinely.

It’s unexplained why Eismayer is the way he is but one can easily guess why. His father was probably stoic and military-like he is and the expectation was to be macho and tough at all costs, showing no vulnerability.

To satisfy his urges he is reduced to having hot sex with willing recruits in the back seat of a car but it’s hardly candlelit dinners and romance nor satisfying.

In addition to being in love with Falak, he admires his courage to be out and proud in a traditionally masculine environment.

We know virtually nothing about Falak’s backstory. What made him come out? What was his father like?

While there has been a clear shift in acceptance of gays in the military a story like this hasn’t been told in film to my knowledge.

Gone hopefully are the days when LGBTQ+ filmmakers told stories of mere resistance to a gay character’s happiness as an obstacle to their joy and acceptance.

There is a raised eyebrow or two when Falak makes his homosexuality evident in the shower and one grizzled senior officer complains that ‘fags don’t belong in the military’ but the younger officers have little issue.

They even applaud at the end when Eismayer and Falak kiss and embrace, cementing their open and blossoming romance.

A fantasy? Possibly, but Wagner gives the likely predominately gay male audience something to admire and cheer for.

Understated, but packs an emotional punch and an uplifting and inspiring message, Eismayer (2023) is an Austrian film I hope will inspire more American filmmakers.

Spoiler Alert-2022

Spoiler Alert-2022

Director Michael Showalter

Starring Jim Parsons, Ben Aldridge, Sally Field

Scott’s Review #1,399

Reviewed September 15, 2023

Grade: A-

Spoiler Alert (2022) comes dangerously close to being classified as a Hallmark Television Movie of the Week tearjerker with standard cliches and a predictable storyline. While the ending is no surprise, the film works incredibly well and fires on all cylinders.

I laughed, cried, and felt an enormous connection to the central characters in what could become a seasonal holiday watch.

I recently reviewed another film that, on the surface, sounded saccharin and contrived but pulled me in nonetheless. The lesson learned is not to make assumptions about the quality of films.

The direction is conventional, but the story and characters are absorbing and heartwarming with spectacular acting, especially among the two lead actors, Jim Parsons and Ben Aldridge. An added gift is the appearance of Sally Field in a supporting role as an overbearing but lovable mom.

In 2001, Michael Ausiello (Parsons), a writer for TV Guide, begrudgingly goes to a gay nightclub with his best friend in Manhattan. There, he meets photographer Kit Cowan (Ben Aldridge), and the two instantly connect.

As they begin dating, Michael struggles with insecurities about not being attractive enough for Kit, since he was an overweight child. Kit is athletic and good-looking, oozing confidence. Michael was a ridiculed kid watching soap operas with his mother and creating a pretend sitcom family.

He also overindulges in the Smurfs collection.

They both admit their fears of being in a long-term relationship since neither of them has been in one before, but they decide to continue dating.

Hurdles then plague the couple as Kit must come out to his parents, Bob (Bill Irwin), and Marilyn (Field), to explain who Michael is, and ultimately they all must face Kit’s stage IV cancer diagnosis.

I recognize how Spoiler Alert doesn’t possess the most original screenplay, written by David Marshall Grant and LGBTQ+ advocate Dan Savage, and based on a story written by real-life Michael Ausiello.

The tried and true story point of a gay male character struggling to come out to his parents has been done for decades in LGBTQ+ films.

The insecure partner feels inferior to the more confident partner, and it affects their relationship. This point has also been discussed before. Michael is convinced that Kit will dump him for someone else.

Hell, we’ve seen both of these cliches as recently as 2022 in Bros., a fantastic LGBTQ+ mainstream film that used both.

In Spoiler Alert, they work because of Parsons and Aldridge and the chemistry they have together, and the nuanced delivery of the characters separately.

While they each want love and a relationship, neither is desperate. As they banter back and forth, Michael awkwardly removes his clothes during their first intimacy, and the actors playfully frolic immediately at ease with one another.

Many cute scenes follow.

Events then grow serious as we move beyond Kit’s uneven coming out to his parents (of course, they embrace Kit and Michael instantly!) and dive headfirst into Kit’s cancer battle.

The film makes no secret that Kit will die of cancer. It’s practically shown in the opening scene as he and Michael lie in a hospital bed together, and Michael narrates the story.

It’s called Spoiler Alert for a reason. But instead of ruining the film, it only enhances the love story to come. We know that Kit and Michael become soul mates, and the pleasure is watching them grow and flourish together.

Since Michael’s mother, and presumed best friend, died of cancer, it only strengthens the investment in the character.

As Kit becomes weaker, my fondness for the two men becomes stronger. The maturity and love for one another are apparent, especially when Michael selflessly invites a man whom Kit had an affair with to say goodbye to Kit.

It’s a touching scene, but not as touching as the scene where Michael and Kit’s parents sob over Kit’s hospital bed.

Yes, Spoiler Alert (2022) may have manipulated me with a conventional film, but Parsons and Aldridge have better chemistry than most opposite-sex couples.

I thoroughly enjoyed my way through the film without dry eyes.

Some Kind of Wonderful-1987

Some Kind of Wonderful-1987

Director Howard Deutch

Starring Eric Stolz, Mary Stuart Masterson, Lea Thompson

Scott’s Review #1,386

Review August 4, 2023

Grade: B+

Some Kind of Wonderful (1987) is one of many John Hughes-written teenage romantic dramas to emerge in the 1980s.

It’s familiar territory in terms of storytelling and quite similar to the 1986 hit Pretty in Pink.

I’ll call it what it is: essentially a remake of Pretty in Pink.

Hughes attempts to ‘right the wrong’ of the ending of Pretty in Pink, which he was forced to rewrite because of pesky test audiences. Truth be told, I was happy with who wound up with whom in the film, but I guess I’m in the minority.

A romantic quadrangle is front and center, with differing social classes explored amidst the already tricky teenage years. Characters battle for status as they deal with powerful feelings and angst with their parents and friends.

A fun fact about Some Kind of Wonderful is that Hughes assumed his muse, Molly Ringwald, would star in the film. When she turned him down for more adult roles, he never forgave her, which led to the dissolution of their film collaboration.

But the show must go on.

Keith Nelson (Eric Stoltz) is an artistic high school outcast who bravely tries to land a date with the most popular girl in school, Amanda Jones (Lea Thompson).

His tomboy best friend, Watts (Mary Stuart Masterson) is secretly in love with him while Amanda’s rich on-again-off-again boyfriend, Hardy Jenns (Craig Sheffer), vows revenge on Keith.

Watts tries to convince Keith to stop pursuing Amanda, while his father (John Ashton) is dead set on Keith attending business rather than art school.

Before you start thinking this sounds like a corny story arc from the afternoon soap opera Days of Our Lives, it’s a pretty well-written story with many ups and downs and good, sincere acting.

Stolz is compelling as the boy-next-door/leading man. He is relatable and, therefore, easy to root for to get the girl.

The main attraction and best part of the film is the triangle between Keith, Watts, and Amanda. Hardy is merely along for the ride, serving as both a foil and necessary eye candy. Every girl wants him, so why would Amanda want Keith and not him?

When Hardy refers to Amanda as his ‘property,’ it makes him unforgivable to audiences. It might have been interesting if Hughes had made the character a viable romantic option for Amanda or Watts by softening him.

There are arguments for Keith winding up with either Amanda or Watts, and a tantalizing mention is that Watts could be gay, but this story goes nowhere.

1987 would have been too early for this quality to be featured much in mainstream film, but at least the thought is there.

Despite being popular, Amanda is not a bitch. Her best friend, Shayne (Molly Hagan), is though.

In a bit of irony, the character Keith, at the end of the film, feels rushed, jagged, and like an added-on scene. The similarities to the reshoot they did with the ending of Pretty in Pink are uncanny.

Other characters are added purely for comic relief and to offset the romantic-heavy drama. Keith’s tough guy friend Duncan (Elias Koteas) and Keith’s younger sister Laura (Maddie Corman) provide the film with some cute moments.

Teenagers, whether in 1987 or today, can relate to the well-meaning pressure Keith’s father puts on him, so the message is universally appreciated.

Nothing will surpass my top ranking of The Breakfast Club (1985) as my favorite John Hughes film, but Some Kind of Wonderful (1987) does a good job of capturing a slice of teenage angst we can all relate to.

Pretty in Pink-1986

Pretty in Pink-1986

Director Howard Deutch

Starring Molly Ringwald, Andrew McCarthy, Jon Cryer

Scott’s Review #1,376

Reviewed July 10, 2023

Grade: B+

A ‘B+’ grade may surprise some who know that I’m not a big fan of generic 1980s films, romantic comedies, or dramas.

Formulaic or nostalgic doesn’t always sit well with me, but I was baited hook, line, and sinker for an implausible coming-of-age sweet story.

Pretty in Pink (1986) and its writer, John Hughes, epitomize the 1980s and teen-angst films in general, but beneath the surface, the film has a lot of heart.

Star Molly Ringwald was the ‘it’ girl of the decade, perfectly portraying the girl next door facing the trials and tribulations of ordinary sixteen-year-olds.

Of course, my favorite Hughes film is The Breakfast Club (1985), also starring Ringwald, but Pretty in Pink is hardly as daring as that film. It’s softer and kinder with a lovely message of individuality and romance.

The film’s secret weapon is the spectacular musical soundtrack featuring, among other songs, the groovy title track by Psychedelic Furs and the mega-hit ballad ‘If You Leave’ by Orchestral Maneuvers in the Dark.

Andie (Ringwald) is an outcast at her high school in the American Midwest. From a working-class household with an unemployed father (Harry Dean Stanton) and an absent mother, she makes her clothes and has an individual fashion sense.

She’s not exactly popular with the bitchy and materialistic cheerleaders.

She works at a record store for her older boss and friend, Iona (Annie Potts), and is usually seen with her best friend and fellow outcast, Duckie (Jon Cryer), who has a crush on her.

When one of the rich and famous kids at school, Blane (Andrew McCarthy), asks Andie out, it seems too good to be true. As Andie starts falling for Blane, she realizes that dating someone from a different social class comes with its challenges.

Pretty in Pink has a few different angles, including a social sphere, a romantic triangle, and themes of conformity.

The triangle is ultimately divisive. Should Andie choose a best friend and confidante, Ducky or Blane, the boy she is truly smitten with? Her choice has divided audiences since the film was released decades ago.

She has so much in common with Ducky, who also has blue-collar roots, but her heart belongs to Blane, who could offer her so much more. Andie is headed for University and couldn’t Blane be the proper sophistication for her?

I’m on team Blane.

Strangely and off-putting is Ducky. Meant to be cute, he all but harasses Andie, smothering her and pressuring her. His repeated phone calls would make me run the other way.

Social class is a wise topic explored and one that many audiences can relate to. The classic upper-class boy falls in love with a working-class girl, and family and friend pressures develop.

Hughes doesn’t delve much into the upper-middle-class parents, focusing only on the students, which I find interesting. The character of Steff (James Spader) is the villain, antagonizing Andie because he can’t get her into bed.

Andie has inspired, and continues to inspire, teenage girls everywhere who refuse to conform to norms and standards. The film offers a strong female character with real emotions and hopes, fears, and dreams.

Thanks to an outstanding performance by Ringwald, we see all her emotions, and a beautiful dynamic forms between father and daughter.

The conclusion of the film (related to the triangle) occurs at the high school prom, where a jilted Andie attends alone. A quick sequence where she reconnects with a character is very rushed, and the film ends quickly.

Unsurprisingly, this is the result of the finale being rewritten at the last minute after the original ending didn’t go over well with test audiences.

There is something to be said for the writer and director having complete creative control, but sadly, this isn’t the case in Pretty in Pink, and the audience can see the void.

Pretty in Pink (1986) may scream ‘1980s film’ and the tacky hairstyles and outfits that go along with the decade and the genre, but the messages relayed hit their mark.

Though dated in some ways, the film is timeless in others.

Camelot-1967

Camelot-1967

Director Joshua Logan

Starring Richard Harris, Vanessa Redgrave, Franco Nero

Scott’s Review #1,370

Reviewed June 21, 2023

Grade: A-

Camelot (1967) adapts the well-known Broadway spectacle and explores the creation of the Knights of the Round Table. Set in the Middle Ages, the film follows King Arthur as its main character.

Unfortunately, the original stage stars, Richard Burton and Julie Andrews, declined to participate. Still, their replacements, Richard Burton and Vanessa Redgrave, are more than adequate in their prominent roles.

At an epic length of nearly three hours, not every moment is on the edge of your seat, and some lagging exists, but the film does justice to the stage production, only with a big budget to add extravagance.

The setting and experience are pure magic, not only because of the far-removed time. The Shakespearean elements are strong as royalty and entitlement mesh with scheming, jealousy, and dangerous romance.

This creates juicy soap-opera drama.

After the arranged marriage of Arthur (Harris) and Guinevere (Redgrave), the king gathers the noble knights of the realm to his Round Table. The dashing Lancelot (Franco Nero) joins but soon falls in love with Guinevere.

When Arthur’s illegitimate and conniving son, Mordred (David Hemmings), reappears in the kingdom and exposes the secret lovers, Arthur finds himself, by his own rules, trapped into taking action against his wife and closest friend.

There are some dull moments to face at epic length, especially in the first half. I tuned out once or twice, but then I was whisked back into the action.

The great moments are genuinely outstanding, with enough punch to pack a emotional wallop.

During a sequence when Lancelot is challenged to a game of jousting with some knights, events turn deadly, and one knight, Sir Dinadan, is critically injured. Horrified, Lancelot pleads for Sir Dinadan to live, and as he lays hands on him, Dinadan miraculously recovers.

The scene is fraught with emotion as a decisive moment occurs between the men. It’s also pivotal to the storyline because it links Lancelot with Guenevere and sets off a romantic chain of events.

Guenevere is so overwhelmed and humbled that her feelings for Lancelot begin to change. Despite his vows of celibacy, Lancelot falls in love with Guenevere.

More than one song is lovely in Camelot, and as the production went on, I yearned for more musical numbers.

My favorite is the coy  “The Lusty Month of May,” which appears when Guinevere and the women frolic and gather flowers to celebrate the coming of spring. Later, Lancelot and Guenevere sing of their forbidden love and how wrong life has all gone in ‘I Loved You Once In Silence.’

In the eyes of the law, the lovers are to be punished so they are aware they are not long for this world.

Visually, Camelot is a spectacle rich in style and pizazz. Whimsical colors and a ton of vibrant and fragrant flowers appear regularly amid fields of greens and forests of trees.

The castles and battlefields also support Gothic structures and masculine power, which perfectly balance the exquisiteness of the other aspects.

This more than makes up for any drudgery the story might have. It’s nice to sit back and be fulfilled by the cinematic beauty, especially considering the romance at the heart of the picture.

So when the story drags, one can enjoy the visuals and escape for a moment.

Also impressive is the story of friendship, and how a woman’s affection for a man can tear two male friends apart.

Camelot (1967) is a behemoth epic that requires patience. Some parts flat-out drag. But the daring, compelling triangle among the three leads usually turns the experience into an above-average thrill ride.

Oscar Nominations: 4 wins-Best Art Direction (won), Best Cinematography, Best Costume Design (won), Best Costume Design (won), Best Original Song Score or Adaptation Score (won), Best Sound

Golden Globe Nominations: 2 wins-Best Motion Picture-Comedy or Musical, Best Actor-Comedy or Musical-Richard Harris (won), Best Actress-Comedy or Musical-Vanessa Redgrave, Best Original Score (won), New Star of the Year-Actor-Franco Nero

When Love Comes-1998

When Love Comes-1998

Director Garth Maxwell

Starring Rena Owen, Dean O’Gorman, Simon Prast

Scott’s Review #1,340

Reviewed February 3, 2023

Grade: B+

When Love Comes (1998) is a New Zealand film, spoken in English, by filmmaker Garth Maxwell.

It starts slowly and muddled, but quietly captures me with its thoughtful, humanistic tones of emotion, conflict, and sexuality.

There are no subtitles, which makes the dialogue hard to follow, given the accents, and may knock the film down a smidgen for me, but the main stories are enthralling with deep texture.

More or less an ensemble of six acquaintances, and three of the characters get the most screen time.

The main character is washed-up singer Katie Keen (Rena Owen), who struggles to create a new life for herself while coping with her absent admirer, Eddie, and living with her best friend, Stephen.

Stephen is in love with sexually confused ex-hustler Mark, while bandmates Fig and Sally, smitten with each other, yearn for success as they traipse around town and the beaches together.

The most interesting storyline is LGBTQ+ centered.

Given that the time was 1998, when gay films were starting to make their presence known, Stephen and Mark have the most depth.

Admittedly, a couple of story points are disjointed, like why the men have trouble admitting their feelings for each other and why Mark’s anger issues cause him to smash a window.

In the end, their story wraps up nicely, and Maxwell earns points for helping the audience appreciate the couple.

The lesbians get short shrift. Are they gay or bisexual? If bisexual, are they a couple, or what is their arrangement? Don’t get me wrong, they are fun to watch shred the guitar and beat mercilessly on the drums as they raucously perform, but little is known about their lives.

Even though When Love Comes is an ensemble, Katie is the lead character. I fell in love with her character because she is the most well-written. At one time, a big pop singer, her star faded, and she is at a crossroads.

As she whimsically gazes at the crashing waves, the expression on her face reveals the deep thoughts and regrets in her life.

Unfortunately, her love interest, Eddie, is heard from but does not appear in the flesh until pretty deep into the film. Therefore, there is not much rooting value for the couple, and we don’t know much about Eddie.

Surprisingly, despite this miss, I felt a connection to Katie and Eddie. Rena Owen is a terrific actress, revealing expressions and a veneer we deeply want to explore.

There is a decent amount of flesh in the sex scenes, which makes for some fun, but the wise move is to stick to the character motivations and watch them develop.

This can be said with only three of the characters, and I wished for more grit from Eddie, Fig, and Sally.

When Love Comes feels lopsided at times, but succeeds as a slow-build film. Nothing is done quickly or forcefully; instead, long scenes of dialogue are crafted, and the conversations have something to say rather than serving as filler or a bridge to more important scenes.

I respect the cinematography because it has a softer, independent-film look, which is, of course, what it is. A big budget is not needed for a film about people, and the Auckland sequences are wonderful.

Keeping the time frame in mind, I wish I had seen When Love Comes (1998) when it was released. It would have packed a harder punch than it does twenty-five years later, when plenty of similar-toned films have been made.

The Phantom of the Opera-2004

The Phantom of the Opera-2004

Director Joel Schumacher

Starring Gerard Butler, Emmy Rossum

Scott’s Review #1,336

Reviewed January 23, 2023

Grade: A-

Having been fortunate enough to see the legendary Broadway production of The Phantom of the Opera makes any film version seem impossible to compare to the live stage show.

The lights, the sets, the booming music, the dreaded chandelier, and presumably phenomenal acting all make for an unforgettable experience.

Since we are talking film, the cinematic version of The Phantom of the Opera (2004) is breathtaking and nearly twenty years late to the game; I should be scolded for not having seen it earlier, like when it was initially released.

It’s based on Andrew Lloyd Webber’s 1986 musical of the same name, which in turn is based on the 1910 French novel Le Fantôme de l’Opéra by Gaston Leroux.

Critics were not kind to the film, though most audiences liked it, so I almost didn’t see it, save for my hubby renting it and encouraging us to watch it.

I am glad I did because this film encompasses a feast of riches.

I wonder aloud if the fact that it was directed by Joel Schumacher, who created the dreadfully bad Batman & Robin, made seven years earlier in 1997, influenced the bad reviews.

After all, nobody likes their superhero movies butchered, and payback’s a bitch after all.

For the novice fan, the summary is as follows. Gerard Butler stars as the disfigured, reclusive Phantom who roams beneath the Paris Opera and takes budding star Christine (Emmy Rossum) under his wing.

But as he falls for her, she finds love with handsome and porcelain-like Raoul, played by Patrick Wilson, leaving the Phantom none too pleased.

If nothing else, and there is something else, the film is a spectacle. Gorgeous Parisian sophistication drips from the screen in nearly every scene, from the gloomy catacombs to the enthralling opera stage.

The costumes reek of French style, glamour, and texture, and the principal cast is easy on the eyes, to say the least.

These treats are merely a warm-up for the astounding, professional art direction, making the winter sequences dreamlike and gothic while perfectly capturing the tone.

This encapsulates the dire sequence of events and helps the viewer feel the Phantom’s pain.

The all-too-familiar numbers are modernized in just the right places, especially “The Music of the Night,” which could have been played on popular radio stations.

The lively “Masquerade” parleys into the lovely “The Phantom of the Opera” duet between the Phantom and Christine in his ugly lair.

I didn’t feel the chemistry between Rossum and Wilson the same way I did between Butler and Rossum, and maybe that’s the point. Wilson has little to work with, since the character isn’t the main attraction.

I never wanted Christine to ride off into the unknown with Raoul, but I ached for the pain that the Phantom felt for Christine’s kindness.

As much as I like Wilson the actor, I champion the casting of Rossum (unknown at this time) and Butler, who is the top draw in the talent department.

His loud, colorful musical numbers enrapture me as a viewer and grip me with their pain. The passion and magnificence are on full display.

Butler is my favorite actor.

Minnie Driver is perfect as the spoiled diva, and the supporting cast, including veteran Simon Callow, lends further credibility.

I was transported to another world while watching The Phantom of the Opera (2004) by the sheer extravagance on the screen. Schumacher more than deserves top accolades and respect for his production.

Oscar Nominations: Best Art Direction, Best Cinematography, Best Original Song-“Learn To Be Lonely”

Tender Mercies-1983

Tender Mercies-1983

Director Bruce Beresford

Starring Robert Duvall

Scott’s Review #1,279

Reviewed July 22, 2022

Grade: B+

Tender Mercies (1983) is a quiet, down-home film about a country musician struggling with alcohol addiction, god, and a tepid musical career.

Anyone who starts a yawn will have the same reaction I did when reading the premise.

It’s not the most original idea, but the film works surprisingly better than I initially expected. The 1983 film is largely forgotten now, but it has a Cinderella story as its legacy.

Funding and a marketing push were limited, resulting in low box-office returns, but the Academy sure took notice, heaving five nominations its way.

It’s quite a departure for those expecting actor Robert Duvall to mirror his characters in The Godfather (1972) and The Godfather: Part II (1974).

Tender Mercies is an actor’s film, and it belongs squarely to Duvall, who delivers a wonderful performance perfectly carved out for an Oscar nomination. He instills himself into the role of a drunken, washed-up country star vowing to stay straight.

Duvall does more than act in it, crafting and performing his songs in a role standing side by side with his role in The Apostle (1998) as his very best.

He won the coveted Academy Award for Tender Mercies.

Though the tone is low-key, filming was anything but, and reports of disagreements and blow-ups between Duvall and director Bruce Beresford surfaced.

The Australian director was later made famous for Driving Miss Daisy (1989) and, at one point, even considered quitting the production.

The story tells of alcoholic drifter Mac Sledge (Duvall), who awakens one day in the middle of rural Texas after a night of heavy drinking.

His surroundings are a run-down roadside motel and gas station.

He meets the owner, a young widow named Rosa Lee (Tess Harper), and offers to perform maintenance work at the motel in exchange for a room. Rosa, whose husband was killed in the Vietnam War, is raising her young son, Sonny (Allan Hubbard), on her own.

Mac and Rosa become smitten with one another, attending church and forging a life of solitude together. Demons surface when it is revealed that Mac is a once-famous country singer with a currently famous ex-wife, Dixie Scott (Betty Buckley).

When the opportunity for a career comeback surfaces, Mac must choose between his new life and the life he let slip through his hands.

The story is very good for several reasons. At the forefront, Mac is a likable guy whom the audience pulls for. Instead of the tried-and-true story of a man battling his demons and being ‘saved’ by a woman, Mac is already on the road to recovery and has the desire to stay sober.

Rosa Lee and Sonny merely serve as steady influences versus the bright lights and broken hearts of the country music world.

Mac also has a chance to be a father figure to someone. The bad stuff has already transpired in the past, so the audience is spared having to endure a pile of shit in exchange for a big payoff at the end of the film.

There are a couple of negatives that keep the film from being a masterpiece.

On the wagon, Mac is tempted to down a bottle of whiskey after a tragedy, but he resists the urge, choosing to pour the devil’s juice out onto the ground. Is that a big surprise?

Buckley does her best with a one-note character, clearly in existence as an obstacle to Mac’s happiness.

But, at its core, Tender Mercies is about relationships, and though a slow under texture, delicious are the low-key scenes between Mac and Rosa Lee, and Mac and Sonny.

The scenes prove that good crisp dialogue with grace and heart trumps car chases any day.

They discuss life!

The cinematography of remote Texas is magical in its vastness and its loneliness. Key expressions on Duvall’s face perfectly match the Western landscape.

I’m not a religious guy, and I’m not a country & western guy, but I enjoyed the story I was served up by Tender Mercies (1983) quite a bit.

The combination of superb acting, an emotionally charged, character-driven story, and a fabulous glimpse into the dry state of Texas made for a compelling ninety-minute viewing experience.

Oscar Nominations: 2 wins-Best Picture, Best Director-Bruce Beresford, Best Actor-Robert Duvall (won), Best Screenplay-Written Directly for the Screen (won), Best Original Song-“Over You”

A Star Is Born-1976

A Star Is Born-1976

Director Frank Pierson

Starring Barbra Streisand, Kris Kristofferson

Scott’s Review #1,276

Reviewed July 13, 2022

Grade: B

Four incarnations of A Star Is Born: 1937, 1954, 1976, and 2018 have been created. Strangely enough, the most recent film starring Bradley Cooper and Lady Gaga is worlds above the others, though I haven’t yet seen the 1937 version.

The fourth time is rarely the charm in film remakes.

The focus of this review, however, is largely on the 1976 film starring Barbra Streisand and Kris Kristofferson. A hit movie at the time, and nonetheless despised by some, the film is perfectly fine, though it bears multiple rewatchings, and it’s inferior to the 2018 film.

There is no question about that.

Amazingly, it was nominated for four Academy Awards and deservedly won for Best Song. The other nominations are generous.

Watching A Star Is Born circa 2022, the 1976 rendition suffers severely from a dated tone, mostly because of the jaw-droppingly hideous perm hairdo worn by Streisand.

Did somebody think it was flattering in 1976?

The chemistry between Streisand and Kristofferson starts tepid but intensifies as the film plods along. The ending is underwhelming, and I expected more emotional pizazz than I was given, leaving me with almost a ‘so what’ reaction to a devastating turn of events.

Until that is, Barbra sings her heart out in one unbroken, gut-wrenching shot of seven or eight minutes.

For those unfamiliar, the story surrounds John Norman Howard (Kristofferson), a troubled rock star on the decline, frequently indulging in excessive drugs and drinking and trying to write hit records.

He drunkenly wanders into a club one night and watches aspiring singer Esther Hoffman (Streisand) perform, and is instantly smitten. The two begin dating, and soon John lets Esther take the spotlight during his concerts.

However, even as Esther finds fame and success with her singing, John continues his downward spiral.

Let’s face it. The main draw is who is playing the lead roles in a film like A Star Is Born. To make a love story work, there must be sizzling chemistry so that the audience is invested in the romance. Streisand commands the center stage, and her singing is the selling point.

Otherwise, Ms. Streisand suffers another bout of miscasting as she did in 1969’s Hello, Dolly. She’s too talented and established to be believable as an aspiring singer.

Her singing saves the film.

The gorgeous song “Evergreen” is quite a powerful moment and a great strength. Without it, the film would have felt lacking and mediocre.

The tune raises the overall experience a notch.

The chemistry is merely the warm-up act. It’s ho-hum until a smoldering bathtub scene occurs where John and Esther soap each other down and fall madly between the sheets for a night of passion.

It’s Streisand’s sexiest scene, and the romance takes off.

Back to Streisand’s vocals, the scene is preceded by a gorgeous songwriting sequence at the piano between John and Esther, as they craft a new song. As they collaborate, a connection and bond between the characters form.

Those are the romantic highlights.

Otherwise, the scene in which John becomes infatuated with Esther lacks appeal, since he is drinking and arguing with another patron and barely has time to notice her. This was thankfully changed in the 2018 version when John was mesmerized by the rising talent.

Additionally, when John invites Esther to his concert, and she watches from backstage, nothing happens. In the 2018 version, he drags her out to perform with him, and it’s a moment. 

Some films are best reviewed on their own merits, but what great fun to compare renditions of the same film, because why not?

The supporting characters have little to do except for an impressive turn by Gary Busey as John’s drug-pushing manager.

There is little reason to watch A Star Is Born (1976) more than once, or at most twice, to confirm that the film lacks a bit. It’s not terrible, but hardly memorable unless the desire is to giggle over an incredibly bad 1970s hairstyle by one of the greatest divas.

Then, move on to the outstanding Cooper/Gaga 2018 version.

Oscar Nominations: 1 win-Best Cinematography, Best Original Score, Best Original Song-“Evergreen” (won), Best Sound

The Year of Living Dangerously-1982

The Year of Living Dangerously-1982

Director Peter Weir

Starring Mel Gibson, Sigourney Weaver

Scott’s Review #1,266

Reviewed June 16, 2022

Grade: B+

The Year of Living Dangerously (1982) is a solid political drama with enough intrigue, romance, and superior cinematography by Russell Boyd to recommend it.

It’s not an American film but an Australian one, which gives it an authentic flavor even though events are primarily set in Indonesia.

If Mad Max (1979) didn’t make Mel Gibson a full-fledged pinup star, The Year of Living Dangerously certainly did because it made him a romantic ladies’ man in addition to a rugged action star. He has a ton of good looks and charisma at this point in his career and arguably has never looked better.

One could say (okay, I flat-out will) that Gibson is upstaged, unintentionally so, by stage actress Linda Hunt, who gets the role of her life as a highly intelligent Chinese-Australian man with dwarfism who is key to the entire plot.

Hunt won the Academy Award for flipping gender norms on their head and making the film more progressive and memorable than it deserves. Her performance is timeless and rich in character flavor.

If not for Hunt and Gibson as the standouts, the film would be lost in the shuffle among the myriad similar political dramas that emerged in the 1980s.

Missing (1982), starring Jack Lemmon and Sissy Spacek, and Victory (1981), starring Sylvester Stallone, are the films that remind me of The Year of Living Dangerously.

Blow Out (1981) and No Way Out (1987) are two of the best political drama films of the decade, and are assuredly influenced by All the President’s Men (1976), one of the best in the genre.

There are so many others that The Year of Living Dangerously feels forgotten and too similar to a standard formula to stand out. It also suffers at times from being either a romantic drama or a political thriller, and it struggles to mesh the two in a satisfying way.

After journalist Guy Hamilton (Gibson) arrives in Jakarta, Indonesia, he forms a friendship with dwarf photographer Billy Kwan (Hunt), through whom he meets British diplomat Jill Bryant (Sigourney Weaver).

Bryant falls in love with Hamilton and gives him key information about an impending Communist uprising. As the city becomes more dangerous, Hamilton stays to pursue the story. However, he faces more threats as he gets closer to the government, putting him and others passionate about the political turmoil in great peril.

The romance between Guy and Jill is not bad, but Weaver has had so many better roles than this one that it feels throwaway. She’s a smart lady who falls madly in love with Guy so easily that the formulaic context is obvious.

The movie poster makes the pair look like Rhett and Scarlett in Gone with the Wind (1939), unintentionally providing humor and ambiguity about what the film is going for.

It does best when it sticks to the political message.

The film is laden with foreign mystique and intrigue largely due to the exotic locale of Indonesia (the film was shot in the Philippines, which is a good double).

The plot is absorbing for what it is, and the peril the journalists face is exciting. This parleys well with the real-life situation the film is based on. In 1965, Indonesia was a hotbed of corruption and danger, and director Peter Weir managed to pull these sequences together well.

The main flaw is that Weir doesn’t seem to know if he is crafting a political thriller or a romantic drama.

Back to the astounding Linda Hunt, the best scene of the film occurs when her character dies in Guy’s arms.

Forget Weaver, the emotional core of the film belongs to Gibson and Hunt, who have tremendous chemistry. The ambiguity of Billy, mostly because we know the gender of Hunt, is delicious.

In the end, the conclusion is mostly a happy one, albeit predictable, and the storyline feels unsatisfying.

A nice effort and relevant in 1982, The Year of Living Dangerously has energy and polish. It just feels too familiar and similar to other genre films to stand out, save for Linda Hunt and Mel Gibson.

Oscar Nominations: 1 win-Best Supporting Actress-Linda Hunt (won)

The V.I.P’s-1963

The V.I.P’s-1963

Director Anthony Asquith

Starring Elizabeth Taylor, Richard Burton

Scott’s Review #1,263

Reviewed June 4, 2022

Grade: B+

The V.I.P.’s (1963) is a sweeping drama set against a foggy London airport.

It’s a good film but hardly a masterpiece, as the trials and tribulations of the stranded passengers are explored and sometimes intersect in standard ways.

The film is formulaic and offers little surprise, but I enjoyed it and was entertained by the parade of stars shuffling through the vast airport.

Some stories are more interesting than others, and the film is in a soap-opera style with glamorous, rich characters.

One wonders if The V.I.P. influenced the creation of the film Airport (1970) seven years later. The film is patterned after 1932’s Grand Hotel, both of which were distributed by Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer.

Real-life couple and Hollywood A-listers Elizabeth Taylor and Richard Burton star and are the film’s main draws.

The all-star cast also features Louis Jourdan, Maggie Smith, Rod Taylor, Orson Welles, and the scene-stealing Margaret Rutherford.

Inclement weather has delayed a flight from London’s fabulous Heathrow Airport to New York City. A cross-section of elite passengers (V.I.P.s) impatiently wait to board the plane as they experience various life crises in the airport.

The main storyline revolves around Frances (Taylor), a gorgeous woman fleeing a loveless marriage to her millionaire husband, Paul (Richard Burton), and in love with the dashing Marc Champselle (Jourdan).

Supporting stories feature a dotty duchess (Rutherford) who has fallen on hard times and a handsome businessman (Rod Taylor) trying to thwart a hostile takeover.

At the same time, his secretary (Smith) lusts after him, and Gloria (Elsa Martinelli), an aspiring actress, and her money-grubbing producer, Max (Welles).

Despite the heavy-sounding plots, the film is not overly severe and provides comical moments in small doses, which secures the pacing and offsets too much doom and gloom.

Liz and Richard have big, soapy moments, and writer Terence Rattigan was reportedly inspired to write the screenplay by a real-life situation.

Actress Vivien Leigh was planning to leave her husband Laurence Olivier for another man but was delayed at Heathrow Airport.

How scandalous!

Nonetheless, Taylor stoically gives an acceptable performance as a conflicted actress in love with a man other than her husband.

The setup plays out as tired as it sounds, except for the juicy reality that Taylor and Burton were married, providing the only interest.

Taylor and Burton have terrific chemistry, though she also does with Jourdan. Still, there is something uncompelling and unsatisfying about the story.

Shockingly, they are all upstaged by Rutherford, who steals the entire film, resulting in her surprising Best Supporting Actress victory.

She may have won because of the Academy’s tendency to sometimes award an older actor with the prize for a lifetime body of work.

Her riveting story is my favorite as she desperately seeks a way to save her historic home.

The actress hits a home run, providing much-needed comic relief and the liveliest of performances. Her peril offsets her cleverness, and her performance is filled with heart.

Many critics hastily insisted that Rutherford was the only reason to see The V.I.P.s. Personally, the combination of an airport, peril, and big stars was more than enough to have me hooked.

The only addition that might have made the film better was an enormous fire or a hijacking crisis.

The V.I.P.’s (1963) will only appeal to fans of Taylor and Burton or those seeking something sudsy. Otherwise, the film is not too well remembered.

Oscar Nominations: 1 win-Best Supporting Actress-Margaret Rutherford (won)

Golden Globe Nominations: 1 win-Best Performance by an Actress in a Supporting Role in any Motion Picture-Margaret Rutherford (won), New Star of the Year-Actress-Maggie Smith

The Accidental Tourist-1988

The Accidental Tourist-1988

Director Lawrence Kasdan

Starring William Hurt, Kathleen Turner, Geena Davis

Scott’s Review #1,215

Reviewed January 1, 2022

Grade: B+

Reuniting stars William Hurt and Kathleen Turner from 1981’s smoldering Body Heat, director Lawrence Kasdan creates a triangle of sorts with the addition of Geena Davis in The Accidental Tourist (1988).

She brings a quirky character to the fold in a film about death, tragedy, and a disintegrating marriage.

Despite the subject matter, it’s not a downer at all but rather a romantic drama brimming with rich characters and relatable situations.

There are laugh-out-loud moments and tender moments, all about the human spirit and the choices we must make.

It’s an above-average flick that received several Oscar nominations and feels patterned after a Woody Allen-style film.

I didn’t necessarily relate to any of the characters, nor did I need to see the film a second time, but I respect that Kasdan creates a picture that doesn’t need car chases, gratuitous violence, or nudity.

The Accidental Tourist is a quiet film about life. It is based on the 1985 novel of the same name written by Anne Tyler.

When their young son is suddenly murdered, the marriage between Macon (Hurt) and his wife, Sarah (Turner), flounders, and she moves out.

After an accident puts him on crutches, Macon goes to stay with his quirky siblings at the family home, where he meets the high-spirited Muriel (Geena Davis). She is a dog trainer with a young son of her own.

Macon develops a slow friendship with them that, surprisingly, blossoms into something more with Muriel. When Sarah learns about the situation, she attempts a reconciliation with Macon, who is forced to make a painful decision.

The intention feels like we, the audience, are supposed to root for Macon and Muriel to get together and not feel much sympathy for Sarah, but I did. After all, she is the one ultimately ditched, and there is nothing like a woman scorned.

I didn’t feel like there was even much of a triangle because the film is centered around Hurt’s character and the choices Macon must face. It’s about how he deals with change and the unexpected turns life can throw at anyone.

Sarah and Muriel must also face the same choices and life circumstances, but the focus is primarily on Macon.

The viewer will likely immerse themselves in these characters as they reflect on their own life and the trials and tribulations they have faced.

Though I have never read the novel, I suspect it is a tad better than the film, which limits the time available to explore the characters. Novels always have more time to delve deeper.

With that said, I got a fair share of backstory about Macon, Muriel, and Sarah, but didn’t gravitate toward any of them over the others.

Regarding the earlier note about The Accidental Tourist being like a Woody Allen film, it has an upbeat, quirky tone that masks much of the heartbreak Macon suffers from with some added comedy.

When Muriel hops a flight to Paris to follow her heart and Macon, it’s something a character in an Allen film would do.

Since Macon is a travel guide writer, the film has a rich cultural and tourism flavor, which is pleasing. London and Paris are the central locales, and Kadan does a great job with the international stuff.

A tad long and dragging at times, The Accidental Tourist (1988) has enough juiciness to satisfy any viewer drawn to well-written screenplays about emotional characters and the ups and downs of life.

Oscar Nominations: 1 win-Best Picture, Best Supporting Actress-Geena Davis (won), Best Screenplay-Based on Material from Another Medium, Best Original Score

Edward Scissorhands-1990

Edward Scissorhands-1990

Director Tim Burton

Starring Johnny Depp, Winona Ryder

Scott’s Review #1,198

Reviewed November 20, 2021

Grade: B+

Edward Scissorhands (1990) is a Tim Burton creation, made possible only after the smash success of his 1989 film, Batman.

A creative and romantic fantasy, it is an unconventional project made as charming and whimsical as its stars were at that time.

The film is part sad, part magical, with enough science fiction and romance sprinkled in to make it work across genres.

The result was another box office hit for Burton, teen idol status for its lead stars, and an obvious Academy Award nomination for the deserving Makeup department.

As unconventional and original as it appears on the surface, the film suffers slightly from being a bit mainstream.

There is a safe, romantic comedy feel that takes the film away from a much darker tone it could (and should) have had.

Still, Edward Scissorhands is entertaining and fascinating.

An eccentric scientist, deliciously played by Vincent Price, builds an animated human being, the gentle and soft-spoken Edward (Johnny Depp).

He dies before he can finish assembling Edward, leaving the poor young man with a freakish appearance accentuated by the scissor blades he has instead of his hands.

Friendly suburban saleswoman Peg (Dianne Wiest) discovers Edward and takes him home, where he falls for Peg’s teen daughter Kim (Winona Ryder).

However, Edward’s hands make him an outcast despite his kindness and artistic talent.

This is a challenge for all of them.

By 1990, Johnny Depp was becoming a huge Hollywood star, and so was Winona Ryder. As the ‘it’ actors, this helps Edward Scissorhands tremendously by not only adding ticket sales but also a fascination with them as a couple.

The chemistry is palpable, and so is the classic good-girl-helping-boy reform. Depp’s Edward is a sympathetic hero and is instantly mysterious and likable.

Wiest, then in her prime, is a hoot as the comical Avon lady who introduces Edward to the joys and pains of suburban Americana. Particularly enjoyable are the perfectly manicured landscapes in Peg’s neighborhood, where she goes door to door selling her products.

As one can easily predict, the beautiful plants and bushes suffer at the hands of Edwards.

The Gothic mansion where Peg discovers Edward is a deliciously creative set piece that has the classic Burton stamp.

The director is so defined by his artistic sets and design that half the fun of the film is discovering and noticing these fabulous creations.

The mainstream part comes with the story, and a smattering of 1982’s E.T. sentimentality is included to win over middle-American audiences. This isn’t bad, but it does lighten the heavy drama and sinister approach that Burton could have honed in on.

Much of the credit must go to Depp because on paper the premise could easily be dismissed as silly, trivial, or outlandish. The actor brings pathos to the role and makes the audience believe in and fall in love with the character.

He makes Edward even more relatable by adding some obvious clichés: Kim’s jealous boyfriend, Jim, played by Anthony Michael Hall, and the eccentric religious fanatic who believes Edward is evil incarnate, played by O-Lan Jones.

Adding these villains and most of the rest of the neighborhood as either clueless or misunderstanding townsfolk further reduces most of the supporting cast to standard stock characters.

Burton, along with Depp, Ryder, and Wiest, gives Edward Scissorhands (1990) heart.

It’s a beautiful fairy tale that feels magical and adventurous, save for some mediocre storytelling. It’s an above-average film that won over audiences at the time of its release.

Oscar Nominations: Best Makeup

Salmon Fishing in the Yemen-2011

Salmon Fishing in the Yemen-2011

Director Lasse Hallstrom

Starring Ewing McGregor, Emily Blunt

Scott’s Review #1,152

Reviewed June 15, 2021

Grade: B-

Despite exceptional chemistry between leads Ewing McGregor and Emily Blunt, who were also bankable stars in 2011, the romantic comedy Salmon Fishing in the Yemen (2011) is predictable, dull, and lacks a good identity.

It is the feel-good film of the year, and that is not meant as a compliment.

Don’t get me wrong, it’s above par as compared to the usual drivel emerging from one of my least favorite genres, the rom-com, but it should offer more than the by-the-numbers plot it churns out.

Someone either felt lazy or was instructed to create a banal film.

With good actors and fabulous locales, I expected more edge from Swedish director Lass Hallstrom. But, alas, we get something merely adequate.

Doctor Alfred Jones (McGregor) is a fisheries scientist who one day receives an unusual request from a strong businesswoman named Harriet Chetwode-Talbot (Blunt). She wants his help in fulfilling a request from a wealthy sheik, played by Amr Waked, who wants to bring sport fishing to Yemen.

Jones declines at first, but when the British prime minister’s spokeswoman (Kristin Scott Thomas) latches on to the project as a way to improve Middle East relations, he joins in.

Romance blooms as Jones and Harriet work to make the sheik’s dream come true.

If this brief synopsis sounds like it’s taken from a novel, that’s because it is, and it is as straightforward as you can imagine. The film is based on a 2007 novel, which must have been better than the film.

Let’s be fair and clear. McGregor and Blunt are as good as they can be with the material they are given, and they succeed in bringing some life to the big screen.

The trouble is, there isn’t much to do with their characters. Harriet is a businesswoman with a task at hand. Alfred is a handsome doctor with something she needs. Did I mention he’s a doctor?

Harriet’s romantic interest is hardly a surprise, and Hallstrom puts nary any real obstacles in their path towards getting together.

The fact that, early in the film, Harriet is dating British Special Forces Captain Robert Meyers (Tom Mison) and Alfred is married to a woman named Mary (Rachael Stirling) is laughable after Robert is quickly killed off and Mary is sent away to Geneva for a conference.

Predictably, Alfred and Mary realize their marriage is over.

But wait, there’s more! Robert resurfaces from the dead, alive and well. Harriet struggles with her emotions and quickly realizes her feelings for him have changed, leaving her with Alfred.

The setup for Harriet and Alfred is as predictable as peanut butter and jelly sandwiches.

Poor Kristin Scott Thomas, a fantastic actor, is reduced to playing the cliched role of Public Relations Patricia Maxwell. She straightforwardly plays her as aggressive, impatient, and bitchy.

The performance doesn’t work well.

Second, to the sweetness of McGregor and Blunt, the locales are thankfully plentiful. Visits to London, Scotland, and Morocco are blessed treats.

A silly subplot about salmon being removed from British rivers and something about farming goes nowhere and isn’t worth the effort.

Suffice it to say, it does little for the film or as a companion to the main plot. The only thing viewers should focus on is Harriet and Alfred’s romantic involvement.

I only recommend Salmon Fishing in the Yemen (2011) for those fans of either McGregor or Blunt, or who yearn to escape to a fantasy world with a happily ever after ending.

If you enjoy fishing or fly-fishing (is there a difference?), that may be enough reason to give the film a twirl, too.

Otherwise, the film offers nothing that hasn’t been seen countless times before. By the conclusion of the film, I felt weary and bored for so much unchartered potential left on the cutting room floor….or somewhere else.

Yentl-1983

Yentl-1983

Director Barbra Streisand

Starring Barbra Streisand

Scott’s Review #1,144

Reviewed May 20, 2021

Grade: B+

Feeling slightly dated nowadays, perhaps for the year it was made, Yentl (1983) is nonetheless a very good watch, if only for Barbra’s performance alone.

Who else could I be talking about other than superstar Barbra Streisand?

It is astounding that she also directed the film, which was rare for a female to do in those days. Even in 2021, only two women had won the coveted Best Director Oscar.

Mind-blowing. Streisand was snubbed in this category and was understandably miffed.

But I’ll get down from my soapbox.

Streisand plays the title role.

Yentl is a bookish girl and the daughter of a respected Talmud teacher who instructs her, even though he is female, not male. This is forbidden in their culture.

Her father dies, leaving Yentl to her own devices and determinations.

She disguises herself as a boy to gain entry to a yeshiva and meets Avigdor (Mandy Patinkin), whom she becomes fascinated by. But he only has eyes for Hadass (Amy Irving), whom he is supposed to marry.

This results in a triangle of sorts, but not in the traditional sense. Hadass develops feelings for Anshel (really Streisand as Yentl in drag). After they marry (unconsummated), Anshel falls in love with Avigdor.

This may sound like a comedy rather than a drama, and it does contain a bit of each, but the romantic interludes, misunderstandings, and misinterpretations are not the film’s best parts.

The main themes of faith and romance are center stage. Streisand may have had feminism on her mind with the film, but I didn’t find this a major point, except for Yentl refusing to marry a man.

She pretends to be a boy because females are repressed in the religion. A real win would have been Yentl embracing faith as she is, but for 1983, the message isn’t a bad one.

Still, we are supposed to want Yentl and Avigdor to live happily ever after, but I never felt very much of a connection to the couple.

The best parts of Yentl are the musical score and the songs the audience is treated to. The highlight is the emotionally charged “Papa, Can You Hear Me?” which is a gorgeous moment for Yentl.

Yentl leaves Europe aboard a boat bound for the United States, where she hopes to lead a freer life. With a smile on her face, she rises above and into a new day.

It’s a dynamic singing performance that elevates the film beyond what it would have been without the number. It’s like the perfect culminating Streisand moment.

The romantic moments are unfulfilling and predictable, but the film is about Streisand and Streisand alone. As good as Patinkin and Irving are, they take a backseat to the illustrious star. We never even get to see Patinkin sing.

I’m okay with this. I watched Yentl (1983) for the enormous talents of its star. Her singing, acting, and directing all make the film a worthwhile and engaging experience.

It’s not a great film, and other Streisand films are better- I’m thinking of Funny Girl (1968) and Hello, Dolly (1969), but it’s way above average.

Oscar Nominations: 1 win-Best Supporting Actress-Amy Irving, Best Art Direction, Best Original Score (won), Best Original Song-“Papa, Can You Hear Me?”, “The Way He Makes Me Feel”

Portrait of a Lady on Fire-2019

Portrait of a Lady on Fire-2019

Director Céline Sciamma

Starring Noémie Merlant, Adèle Haenel

Scott’s Review #1,114

Reviewed February 19, 2021

Grade: A-

A film with tremendous artistry and a cool LGBTQ+ vibe, gay director Céline Sciamma delivers the goods with interesting finesse in Portrait of a Lady on Fire (2019).

She takes modern-looking actors and transplants them to the era of France during the late 18th century.

The film tells the story of a forbidden affair between an aristocrat and a painter commissioned to paint her portrait.

The viewer will ask themselves the following questions. What would become of two young gay women in this long-ago age? How many people repressed their true feelings and desires because of the times they lived in?

Would their different classes and backgrounds cause strife within their burgeoning relationship? I know I constantly asked myself these questions.

To those with limited cinematic patience, be forewarned. A Portrait of a Lady on Fire is plodding.

I didn’t mind this aspect, but some might. The payoff is not bombastic in an act of violence or an explosion sort of way, but it’s well worth the effort put in.

In a common approach in modern film that is feeling more standard than special, the first scene often precedes the events in the rest of the movie, so that we know how the events will turn out. But we do not know the hows and the whys.

It is immediately assumed that one character has suffered some loss or misfortune related to a painting.

Painter, Marianne (Noémie Merlant), is summoned to a remote island inhabited by very few people. She is commissioned to paint the wedding portrait of Héloïse (Adèle Haene), who is destined to be married to a nobleman in Milan, Italy.

Héloïse is depressed and despondent, wanting nothing to do with her intended, whom she has not met.

The portrait is a gift to the never-seen husband-to-be. It is revealed that Héloïse’s sister leaped to her death from the cliffs on the family estate, so it’s suggested throughout that she may suffer the same fate.

Needless to say, Marianne and Héloïse fall madly in love.

Their love is hardly ever a question, as the chemistry is immediately noticed. Sciamma, who wrote the screenplay, avoids stereotypes that would give away the sexuality of the main characters. They are not butch nor do they possess masculine qualities.

Do we wonder if they are bisexual? They never struggle with their sexuality, a dramatic cliche in other LGBTQ+ films.

I adore this because it makes the love story more powerful, rather than one character pursuing the conflicted other.

As brilliant and artistic as I found Portrait of a Lady on Fire to be, there are a couple of unexplained or unclear aspects. I am not even sure how they relate to the main story.

Waifish housemaid Sophie has an abortion with assistance from Marianne and Héloïse. Later, the three go to a bonfire gathering where women sing, during which Héloïse’s dress briefly catches fire (just as shown in the painting featured in the beginning).

When Sophie is having the abortion, there is an infant and a child nearby. Are they her children? Who are the women who sing?

I didn’t understand the point of these items.

Fortunately, these missteps can be forgiven for the grander piece is exceptional filmmaking. The final shot of Héloïse sitting in a theater is phenomenal and borrowed from Call Me By Your Name (2017), which featured an identical scene.

The camera focuses on the face of actress Haene as she conveys a range of emotions during the flawless scene. What a win for an actor!

Despite some side story flaws, I adored Portrait of a Lady on Fire (2019).

The film is exceptionally shot, and almost all shots could be portraits in their own right. Charming are the beach sequences, as when Marianne and Héloïse first ignite the flames of their passion.

My takeaway is that it tells the story of fate, but doesn’t feel like a downer. Instead, it feels like life.

Independent Spirit Award Nominations: Best International Film

Keep the Lights On-2012

Keep The Lights On-2012

Director Ira Sachs

Starring Thure Lindhardt, Zachary Booth

Scott’s Review #1,100

Reviewed January 16, 2021

Grade: A

With such a healthy dose of LGBTQ+ films released during the 2010s, enough independent productions exist to please nearly everyone striving for good diversity in film.

Over the years, it was tough to find specific genre films without having to hunt for subtle clues filmmakers incorporated.

LGBTQ+ films are now a dime a dozen, which is good but makes some films fall under the radar.

Keep the Lights On (2012) is a romantic drama, rather mysterious, about two men and the nine-year-long love affair they share. It’s not a happy watch because drug addiction is a large part of the story.

It portrays the men as human beings with passion and feelings, experiencing joys and pains, rather than as caricatures or comic relief.

This is progress, and worthy of much praise.

The only issue with the film is that by 2012, and the decade as a whole, so many similar films were being made that it’s hard to distinguish it from other high-profile works.

The LGBTQ bar was set very high with Brokeback Mountain in 2006, and recent offerings like Carol (2015) and Moonlight (2016) thrust the LGBTQ+ community into the spotlight.

Keep the Lights On has many positives, especially cinematically, but it risks getting lost in the shuffle against other genre films.

It’s worth checking out this gem.

It’s best compared to the exceptional same-sex love story Call Me by Your Name (2017). Both are character-driven and are both happy and tragic.

Keep the Lights On is technically an American film. It feels like an international film, though, because it centers around a Danish filmmaker who lives in New York City.

Erik (Thure Lindhardt) is a troubled, creative soul who struggles to complete a documentary about an artist named Avery Willard.

He meets and enters into a loving but complicated long-term relationship with Paul (Zachary Booth), a lawyer in the publishing industry who struggles with drug addiction.

That’s what makes their relationship so complicated. They are bonded but plagued with outside challenges. It began in 1998 and ended in 2006.

They meet via a phone sex chatline, which adds to the sexual mystique. Erik is gay and happily out, but Paul indulges in both men and women and is sexually conflicted.

He gets Erik high. Will he lead Erik down a dark path? Will Paul clean up his act or die? Erik and Paul bed numerous other men throughout the story. This is an intriguing addition to the complicated events.

Since the film is about a filmmaker, it should include cool, inventive camera angles and editing, and it does. Ira Sachs, an American director, delivers lush shots of New York City and looks through the lens of a true creative spirit, which justifies Erik’s character.

The story builds slowly, and plenty of times I waited for something exciting to happen. But real life is made up of many small moments, and I loved how the film is, instead of adding big, momentous scenes for effect.

The audience is meant to root for Erik and Paul to trot into happily-ever-after territory. This may or may not happen.

Keep the Lights On has a vague ending open to interpretation.

Erik and Paul look similar, which I found very interesting. They say that many same-sex couples are attracted to individuals who look like themselves. I’m not sure how true this is, but I wondered if Sachs had a point to make.

Can a person have multiple sides that they see in other people? Keep the Lights On is told more from Erik’s perspective, and he sees in Paul the dark side of himself.

The honesty that exudes from Keep the Lights On comes from Sach’s relationship with a publisher he met and fell in love with. The truthfulness comes across on screen, which is the main appeal of the overall experience.

I love the title, which can be interpreted in a few different ways, especially once the conclusion arrives.

I admire that Keep the Lights On (2012) was made, and the characters convey a longing and yearning that feels quite humanistic. It feels like it was created based on fact rather than a studio idea conjured up around a boardroom table.

Ira Sachs creates an excellent, quiet film about two men and the love story they share. Their troubles come and go, but their passion and bond never waver.

Independent Spirit Award Nominations: Best Feature, Best Director-Ira Sachs, Best Male Lead-Thure Lindhardt, Best Screenplay

Alice Doesn’t Live Here Anymore-1974

Alice Doesn’t Live Here Anymore-1974

Director Martin Scorsese

Starring Ellen Burstyn

Scott’s Review #1,075

Reviewed October 27, 2020

Grade: A-

Deserving of the Best Actress statuette she won for her role, Ellen Burstyn carries the film Alice Doesn’t Live Here Anymore (1974) from start to finish with drama and comedy.

I can’t watch any performance of Burstyn’s without smarting that she lost the same award years later, after her frighteningly good performance in Requiem for a Dream (2000).

She lost to Julia Roberts, who delivered an adequate, though unexceptional, performance in Erin Brockovich (2000).

But, I digress.

A character study, Alice Doesn’t Live Here Anymore, tells the powerful story of a woman (Burstyn) forced to begin a new life and forge her path after her husband is killed in a car accident.

She is thirty-five years old and wary of the approaching middle age as she pursues a singing career.

She is joined by her young son, Tommy (Alfred Lutter), and faces fear and loneliness as they embark on a journey through the southwestern United States.

She dates, fights, and does a soul search, finally landing a job as a waitress at a roadside diner.

On paper, this film could have been reduced to a TV movie, since the premise sounds kind of corny and sentimental.

Shocking to me is that Martin Scorsese directed it. Best known for male-driven mobster pictures like Goodfellas (1993), Gangs of New York (2002), and The Irishman (2019), Martin Scorsese’s introspective female-journey film doesn’t seem like his thing.

A fun fact is that he agreed to direct at Burstyn’s urging, since she wouldn’t have starred otherwise. The actress surmised that the script needed more darkness and grit, which it contains without losing its heart.

A strange yet lovely photographed scene kicks off the picture and seems to be an homage to The Wizard of Oz (1939). With a dusty, golden backdrop, a young Alice looks like Dorothy with an idyllic life.

Suddenly, Alice’s mother bellows for her to come home for dinner. She responds with salty language. The scene feels out of place compared to the rest of the film, but it still looks good.

Burstyn made me care about Alice from the first scene featuring adult Alice. Alice is a good person. She is hard-working and strives to please her husband, hoping he will enjoy the delicious dinner she has prepared for him.

He barely grunts at the meal and has a tumultuous relationship with Tommy, whom Alice spoils.

This plot point returns later in the film.

Alice is not a doormat; however, she provides humor and comic relief during tense moments. She also shares a warm friendship with her neighbor. We do not know what the husband’s demons are (depression?).

He and Alice share an emotional moment in bed one night before he dies the next day.

With her marriage behind her and limited financial means, Alice and Tommy take to the road. I adore their relationship. Tommy isn’t always easy to parent, and he exhausts his mother with typical young-adult nonsense.

It’s easy to forget that he has lost his father and has no direction. Their relationship is complicated, but it’s full of love.

The juiciness comes when Alice finally lands a singing gig at a seedy lounge bar and meets the maniacal Ben, played flawlessly by Harvey Keitel.

At first, he is charming and attentive, wooing her like she’s never been wooed before. When she learns he is married, he turns psycho, and she is forced to leave town.

The meat of the film comes when Alice begins working at the diner and meets her new friend, Flo (Diane Ladd), and her new love, David (Kris Kristofferson). After some trials and tribulations, Alice realizes her life is not so bad.

As much as there are dramatic elements, Alice Doesn’t Live Here Anymore is not a soap opera or overwrought. The scenes and situations bristle with energy and authenticity, thanks to the great acting and fluid direction.

My favorite scenes occur at the diner. With greasy blue-plate specials and dishes piled with ham, eggs, and hash browns, the working-class extras are perfectly positioned around the diner.

In the background, they create a sense of rush, chaos, and family tradition. The diner scenes are where Alice bonds the most with Flo and David, and they are delicious.

Alice Doesn’t Live Here Anymore (1974), a lighter, wholesome production, was turned into a popular television sitcom in the late 1970s, titled Alice.

It’s a progressive story about a woman on her own, getting it done, and mustering the courage to face whatever life throws at her.

It’s an inspiring story for both women and men.

Oscar Nominations: 1 win-Best Actress-Ellen Burstyn (won), Best Supporting Actress-Diane Ladd, Best Original Screenplay

Golden Globe Nominations: Best Actress- Drama- Ellen Burstyn, Best Supporting Actress-Diane Ladd

Adventureland-2009

Adventureland-2009

Director Greg Mottola

Starring Jesse Eisenberg, Kristen Stewart

Scott’s Review #1,066

Reviewed October 1, 2020

Grade: B-

Adventureland (2009) is a cute film.

That may seem like a compliment, but it’s not. There is nothing wrong with this film, but it’s a rather safe experience.

In a word, it is fine, nothing more, nothing less.

It plays like a romantic comedy and is mixed with a coming-of-age theme about two young adults merging from kids to adulthood.

It’s a story that most of us can appreciate, though it’s been done too many times in cinema for this film to do much more with.

However, the selling point is the excellent acting.

The theme park (aka Adventureland) and the nostalgic 1980s time is a nice touch, though it feels like a 2009 film with the actors fitted into retro costumes and hairstyles.

Greg Mottola directed Superbad in 2007, so you can see the influence. He has a knack for directing films with a light comedic touch that will appeal to young adults going through some angst or young, blossoming feelings of love.

The stars of the film, Jesse Eisenberg and Kristen Stewart, terrific actors in their own regard, have little chemistry together, and that weakens the picture.

They are helped immensely by a talented supporting cast, who pick up the slack and improve the film. Bill Hader, Kristen Wiig, Wendie Malick, and Ryan Reynolds give a comic boost to the events.

Unfortunately, despite positive trimmings, the film feels like your standard, everyday, independent comedy with little left to separate it from other contemporaries.

It just has big stars.

Likable James Brennan (Eisenberg) anticipates a fabulous trip to Europe after graduating from Oberlin College, having earned it for his achievements.

Unfortunately, his parents Mr. and Mrs. Brennan (Jack Gilpin and Malick) break the bad news to him. They are in dire financial straits and can no longer support him. He must get a part-time job immediately.

The disappointing news disappointed me as well. I was savoring a nice adventure in London, Paris, and Rome.

Sadly, the rest of the film takes place in an amusement park in Pennsylvania.

Predictably, Mottola, who wrote the screenplay as well, offers banal and stereotypical characters such as Mike Connell (Reynolds), the resident mechanic, who is a rival for the affections of Em (Stewart), James’s love interest.

Thrown into the mix are various characters who are a bitch, a sarcastic college student, and a nerd. And, for good measure, James is a virgin. Naturally.

The film nosedives with some slapstick humor and misunderstandings worthy of American Pie (1999).

When Adventureland was made, Eisenberg was on the brink of breaking out into a fantastic role in The Social Network (2010) that garnered him an Oscar nomination and credibility.

Stewart, meanwhile, was in the middle of her Twilight (2008-2012) years, which made her a household name but was undoubtedly creatively very unfulfilling.

This film is a reminder that actors need to work and make the best of the material they are given.

Truth be told, the main attraction of watching Adventureland is to sit back and admire what was to become of Stewart and Eisenberg. Since the film’s release in 2009, they have traversed meatier and better projects.

Eisenberg has a Tom Hanks or James Stewart-like likability. He is someone to whom the average young male can relate, and the problems that James must face could easily be challenges the viewer might also have.

In the case of Stewart, what a star this girl is with the right roles. Since 2012, she has declined roles in big-budget films in favor of independent productions for the next few years.

She took on a terrific supporting role in the drama Still Alice (2014) as a troubled daughter. Still young, the future looks very bright for the talented actress.

But, back to Adventureland (2009). This film is only suggested for a glimpse at the early work of Eisenberg and Stewart—two young stars who went on to enormous critical cinematic success.

Across the Universe-2007

Across the Universe-2007

Director Julie Taymor

Starring Evan Rachel Wood, Jim Sturgess

Scott’s Review #1,057

Reviewed August 27, 2020

Grade: A

Across the Universe (2007) is a film that some will deem sappy or trite or classify as a cliched love story, and admittedly, some of those elements exist.

But the film offers so much more. Truthfully, the romance genre is not usually for me, for those very reasons.

Somehow, the inclusion of The Beatles’ songs and the psychedelic backdrop of musical compositions makes the film beautiful, lovely, and charismatic.

The war effects and the healthy dose of chemistry by the lead actors make this a winner in my book.

I adore the pairing of lovebirds Lucy and Jude, played by Evan Rachel Wood and Jim Sturgess. The chemistry between them sizzles from the moment they appear together, though this takes a while to happen.

When it did, over a savory Thanksgiving meal and while bowling, I was hooked, and most audiences were too. The beauty is that we experience the characters separately first and get to know them well.

The love story is the meat and potatoes of Across the Universe. If the connection between Jude and Lucy were not there, the film would not work.

This is far from merely a love story, though. That is only one facet. A hefty thirty-four Beatles compositions are included throughout the film, all strategically placed cleverly to match the scene.

For example, when Jude is working in a Liverpool shipyard in the 1960s, he reminisces about a girl he has loved and lost to the tune of “Girl”.

In a matching sequence, Lucy frets about her current boyfriend heading off to the Vietnam War while singing “Hold Me Tight”.

The 1960s period is brilliantly placed to add not only a clear juxtaposition to when the Beatles ruled the world, but also during a frightening time in world history when many young soldiers died needlessly during the ravaging war.

The mixture of the war, the songs, and the hybrid of live-action and animation provides a magical, other-worldly quality that is perfect. It provides a feeling of escapism from the deadly war.

The visuals and the gorgeous colors are a complete contrast to the grey and dark war elements.

Julie Taymor takes an anti-war, activist stance through the main characters, as Jude and Lucy proclaim themselves revolutionaries.

This occurs when the war hits home after Lucy’s brother is drafted. They sadly realize they may never see Daniel again, and they are right.

Taymor gives a personal touch to the characters, and a political decision is made that shapes the film. I found the stance perfectly logical given the characters and their viewpoints, but some audience members could be turned off or feel slighted depending on their beliefs.

I love the point she makes that war is bad.

Twenty-five of the vocal tracks are performed by one or more of the six lead cast members. My favorite treasures are the new takes on classic songs, especially “Come Together” and “With a Little Help from My Friends,” which are unusual and elegant.

When Daniel is killed in Vietnam and Detroit, a young boy is killed in the 1967 riot (combined “Let It Be”), the moment is sentimental and powerful.

A dry eye will not be left.

Locales such as Greenwich Village and New York City show the creative artists who inhabit those streets. The riot-fueled streets of Detroit, Michigan, are featured, and finally, the dirty and jungle-killing fields of Vietnam provide a diverse slate of experiences.

The love story and musical soundtrack provide exceptional emotion to an important and timeless film.

Across the Universe (2007) is artistic and inspirational.

Oscar Nominations: Best Costume Design

(500) Days of Summer-2009

(500) Days of Summer-2009

Director Marc Webb

Starring Joseph Gordon-Levitt, Zooey Deschanel 

Scott’s Review #1,002

Reviewed March 20, 2020

Grade: B

(500) Days of Summer (2009) is an unconventional love story that deserves props for being different, but never completely catches fire as a film effort.

What it tries to do left-of-center from most conventional romantic comedies is to be admired, but I did not feel much connection to the characters, and the result seemed pointless.

The independent film garnered some praise for being unique and clever. Still, it’s overshadowed by a gnawing, forced feeling, like the filmmakers are trying to be edgy for the sake of being edgy and adding contrived story elements.

The lead characters conveniently both like an obscure band and an obscure artist, throwing them immediately together.

The film is a modest effort but will only be remembered as an indie project with a bit of unfulfilled potential.

When his girlfriend, Summer (Zooey Deschanel), unceremoniously dumps him, greeting card copywriter and hopeless romantic Tom (Joseph Gordon-Levitt) spins into depression and begins reflecting on the year-long relationship the pair spent together, looking for clues as to what went wrong.

As he rummages through the good times and the bad times, his heart reawakens to find what is most important.

The Los Angeles backdrop sets the tone for the five hundred days of Tom and Summer.

Director Marc Webb, a first-time director at this point, now known more for The Amazing Spider-Man reboot franchise (2012-2014), steers in an experimental direction.

Shown somewhat like a “year in the life” of the young lovebirds’ blossoming relationship, the film is presented in a nonlinear narrative, jumping between various days within the five hundred days of Tom and Summer’s relationship.

There is an on-screen timer showing the day, which is a nice addition.

Props are given for the creativity Webb infuses. The romantic comedy genre, not my favorite, is constantly saturated with formulaic films, predictable from the start.

Frequently told from the female perspective, (500) Days of Summer tells the story from the male perspective, even reversing the traditional gender stereotypes. Tom is the lovesick romantic, and Summer is the rough-and-tumble, one-night-stand type.

This is nuanced and throws the entire genre upside down.

The characters are questionable, and the one easiest to relate to is Tom. There is some confusion and mystery with some motivations. The audience can understand how Tom falls head over heels for Summer, immediately smitten.

His depression is deep and to be taken seriously, but he is depressed because of Summer, and any history or previous causes of depression are not mentioned.

It feels like his depression is a convenient way of adding a story element.

Summer is even more perplexing and not deeply explored. Is she merely playing the field? After a song-and-dance scene where she explains she is not looking for anything serious and wants a casual romance, she suddenly marries another man.

She hurriedly tells Tom that she discovered her husband was her true love and that she now believes in love, whereas Tom doesn’t anymore.

Again, this feels more like storyline-dictated writing versus anything character-rich.

Despite receiving a Best Screenplay Independent Spirit Award nomination, two Golden Globe Award nominations, and oodles of praise, (500) Days of Summer (2009) is a non-conformist piece with some nice moments but feels irrelevant.

The lead actors are talented and do a decent job with the material given, but meander through the experience since it is more about the film than the acting.

The result is not a pure dud, but neither is it a pedigree winner.

Independent Spirit Award Nominations: 1 win-Best Feature, Best Male Lead-Joseph Gordon-Levitt, Best Screenplay (won)

Love Story-1970

Love Story-1970

Director Arthur Hiller

Starring Ryan O’Neal, Ali MacGraw

Scott’s Review #950

Reviewed October 23, 2019

Grade: B+

Love Story (1970) was an enormous blockbuster hit at the time of release, with two good-looking stars of the day immersed in a tragic romance.

Almost fifty years later, the story feels contrived and watered down with a “been there, seen that” result.

While reviewing the film, one must keep in mind the period in which it was made (before similar films hit the circuit), and the chemistry between the leads holds up quite well.

Perhaps the film works best when seen as it was made, as it now feels dated.

Handsome Oliver Barrett IV (Ryan O’Neal) is a star ice hockey player attending Harvard University in Cambridge, Massachusetts. He is heir to the wealthy Barrett family, led by his father, Oliver Barrett III (Ray Milland).

While at school, he meets the blue-collar Jenny Cavilleri (Ali MacGraw), who attends Radcliffe College, a neighboring college, and studies classical music. The couple falls madly in love and becomes inseparable.

Oliver faces anger after he proposes to Jenny. She accepts, and they travel to the Barrett mansion so that she can meet Oliver’s parents. They are judgmental and unimpressed with her, thinking she is nice, but hardly a companion for their son.

Later, Oliver’s father tells him that he will cut off his financial support if he marries Jenny. After graduation, Oliver and Jenny marry nonetheless and begin a life of economic struggle, but filled with happiness.

When they attempt to conceive, they learn that Jenny is terminally ill and has weeks to live.

The film’s primary appeal is the romance between Oliver and Jenny, which feels primal and honest. They are the cliched rich boy and poor girl equation, but in this film, the dynamic works.

O’Neal and MacGraw are good-looking and were on the cusp of Hollywood A-list status, so the casting aligned.

They ebb and flow at the beginning of the film with Jenny’s sarcasm and Oliver’s quiet arrogance, but there is never a doubt that the pair will fall madly in love, and we, the audience, are hooked from the start.

On an atmospheric level, the icy northeastern climate and the myriad of exterior scenes throughout Massachusetts give the film a proper ambiance.

For anyone who has studied at a university in this area or has an interest in it, the film succeeds, adding a robust flavor to the surrounding events.

The youthful wonder and promise of a bright future are central to the story, and the foreshadowing works well.

The film lacks guts in its pacing, though. Most of Love Story focuses on the newness of Oliver and Jenny’s romance, their hurdles with family members, and a brief nod to class and societal roles.

At a brief one hour and thirty-five minutes, there is very little time left for the shocking turn of events surrounding Jenny’s illness.

Coming out of nowhere, the character is alive and well, has a brief fainting spell, and is then seen lying on a gurney before dying off-screen.

There is no bedside death scene, no suffering or deteriorating health, and the entire tragedy is glossed over. Hence the title: the focus is on the “love story,” but this seems like a scam.

So much is invested in the couple that the loss seems skimmed over. How can one die from leukemia (blood cancer) within a few days anyway?

The filmmaker’s clear attempts to play it safe come at the expense of the overall film experience.

Love Story (1970) deserves praise for being one of the first of its kind- the romantic tearjerker. The genre would soon be overrun with imitators so cliched that they bring the original down a notch, making it feel trite.

The ‘chick flick’ contains good acting and lovely scenery, but lacks the emotional depth I was hoping for.

Melodramatic to a fault, the leads’ appeal drives the overall effort far more than it should.

Oscar Nominations: 1 win-Best Picture, Best Director-Arthur Hiller, Best Actor-Ryan O’Neal, Best Actress-Ali MacGraw, Best Supporting Actor-John Marley, Best Story or Screenplay Based on Factual Material or Material Not Previously Published or Produced, Best Original Score (won)

Golden Globe Nominations: 5 wins-Best Picture- Drama (won), Best Director-Arthur Hiller (won), Best Actor-Drama, Ryan O’Neal, Best Actress-Drama-Ali MacGraw (won), Best Supporting Actor-John Marley, Best Screenplay (won), Best Original Score (won)

The Umbrellas of Cherbourg-1964

The Umbrellas of Cherbourg-1964

Director Jacques Demy

Starring Catherine Deneuve, Nino Castelnuovo

Scott’s Review #911

Reviewed June 17, 2019

Grade: A

The Umbrellas of Cherbourg (1964), translated in French as Les Parapluies de Cherbourg, is a daring film. It is unique in that all dialogue is sung recitatively, like an opera or a stage musical.

But wait, there’s more.

The film features colorful, dazzling set designs that enrich the experience amid lovely French culture and atmosphere.

Interspersed with a melody, the result is a stoic treasure.

The film received an Oscar nomination for Best Foreign Language Film and several other nominations.

The film is divided into three parts and progresses chronologically over six years. Part One is The Departure; Part Two is The Absence and Part Three is The Return, each representing a meaningful part of the story.

Madame Emery (Anne Vernon) and her sixteen-year-old daughter Genevieve (Deneuve) own a struggling umbrella boutique in Cherbourg, France. Genevieve falls in love with Guy (Castelnuovo), a local mechanic, and they have sex the night before he is drafted to war, resulting in an unexpected pregnancy.

Madame Emery and Genevieve must decide which option is best when wealthy jeweler Roland (Marc Michel) courts her, unaware of her pregnancy. Genevieve and Guy continue to write letters to each other as she softens towards Roland and makes a decision.

An injured Guy returns from the war, and events kick into high gear as the lovebirds face an uncertain future amid surrounding barriers to their happiness.

To embrace the flavor and pacing of the film takes a few minutes of patience- like some viewers becoming accustomed to subtitles in general, which the film also possesses; the singing is initially quite jarring but, before long, is to be embraced and appreciated for its unique nature.

To stress the point, the film is not a standard musical. Songs are mixed in with conventional dialogue, and each line is sung.

With this role, Deneuve gained wider recognition beyond a French audience already familiar with her work. She shines brightly in the lead role and never looks lovelier.

The young lady, hardly appearing to be sixteen (in truth, she was twenty-one), carries the film with a chic, sophisticated style that feels perfectly in tune with the 1960s.

Her magnificent grace and elegance make her the primary reason to tune in. She sings her lines flawlessly and with unforced precision.

The story is unequivocally a basic one: a girl meets a boy, the boy is drafted into the army, the girl becomes pregnant, the girl meets another suitor, and the boy returns home as conflict arises.

The magic is what director Jacques Demy does with the piece.

Everyday life is presented in situational scenes, adding substance and commonalities. Genevieve and Guy are in love and face external and internal obstacles.

At the same time, Madeleine (Ellen Farner), a quiet young woman who looks after Guy’s aunt, is secretly in love with Guy, as she adds a secret weapon to the film.

The audience cares for the characters, especially Genevieve and Guy, but the supporting characters add a strong quality worth mentioning.

Anne Vernon is pivotal as Madame Emery. She is stylish and lavish, concerned for her daughter’s well-being, and slyly sees opportunities to save her boutique. Guy’s sickly Aunt Elise provides security and love to those who heed her advice.

Actress Mireille Perrey plays her.

The vivid colors and sets make The Umbrellas of Cherbourg challenging to forget. Stark and fluorescent painted pinks, greens, and blues, mainly on the walls, provide zest and flavor, a grand style all its own.

The bright, crisp designs evoke a lavish Hollywood musical with a cultured French twist. The result is perfect, and one can easily immerse themselves in the singing and the artistry.

The recurring main song, “I Will Wait for You” (the central theme, also known as “Devant le garage”), is delicious and emotional, appearing in many poignant scenes.

Those seeking a charismatic, distinctive experience with nuance and a hint of experimentation will undoubtedly enjoy this fruity, tasty treat.

With a French atmosphere for miles, the film encompasses all that is good and cultured about French cinema.

The Umbrellas of Cherbourg (1964) will entertain and unabashedly knock your socks off with grand, sizzling flavor.

Oscar Nominations: Best Foreign Language Film, Best Story and Screenplay Written Directly for the Screen, Best Song-“I Will Wait for You,” Best Music Score-Substantially Original, Best Scoring of Music-Adaptation or Treatment

Golden Globe Nominations: Best Foreign Film-Foreign Language

South Pacific-1958

South Pacific-1958

Director Joshua Logan

Starring Rossano Brazzi, Mitzi Gaynor

Scott’s Review #903

Reviewed May 29, 2019

Grade: A-

South Pacific (1958) contains a magical and romantic aura that will mesmerize the dreamy viewer seeking exotic paradise and cinematic escapism.

Marveling at distinctive and experimental color hues that shift from sequence to sequence, usually from romantic to ordinary scenes, the film has otherworldly appeal and lavish locale sequences, some actual, others studio manipulations.

The surrounding war story is relevant, the interracial relationship is more progressive than the times were, and the two leads share tremendous chemistry.

Combined with catchy songs, these qualities make the film a darling watch, providing tremendous enjoyment and an impassioned payoff.

The film may not be the best of all musicals, but there is little to criticize.

Attractive Navy nurse Nellie (Mitzy Gaynor) falls head over heels for suave French plantation officer Emile (Rosanno Brazzi) as the pair enjoy an excellent date amidst the gorgeous beach landscape.

The feeling is mutual, and Nellie and Emile seem destined for happiness.

He confides to her that he once killed a man in his native France, causing him to flee his country, never to return. The Navy requests Nellie spy on Emile to utilize him against their hated Japanese enemy.

In a separate but just as romantic story, Tonkinese trader Bloody Mary (Juanita Hall) is determined to marry her beautiful, dark-skinned daughter Liat (France Nuyen) to handsome Lt. Joseph Cable (John Kerr).

However, he refuses to marry her due to prejudicial feelings, throwing away a chance at lasting happiness.

Despite his best efforts, he cannot get her out of his mind, and the couple reunites briefly before tragedy strikes.

The World War II backdrop plays heavily into the story, and atmospheric elements make the film ooze with sensuality and sunny desire. The result is good, escapist fun, with brazen musical numbers added to set the perfect tone.

They contrast the island where most events occur with foreboding military airplanes flying overhead, some manned by the main characters dangerously, with a hint of foreshadowing.

South Pacific has much to be treasured for, especially with its songs.

For one thing, all of Rodgers & Hammerstein’s immortal songs from the stage productions “Some Enchanted Evening,” “Bali Hai,” “There Is Nothing Like a Dame,” “I’m in Love With a Wonderful Guy,” “Younger Than Springtime” is retained, and, as a bonus, a song cut from the original stage production, “My Girl Back Home,” is revived herein.

The songs are integral to the plot and hold up well, especially the robust “I’m Gonna Wash That Man Right Outa My Hair,” which is naughty as Nellie sings it from the shower.

After the successful release of the film version of Oklahoma! (1955), Rodgers & Hammerstein decided to tackle South Pacific as their next big project. The stakes were high due to the success achieved by the former, but the latter did not measure up.

Some thought Gaynor was miscast, but I personally like her just fine.

Nonetheless, the production is gorgeous and entirely on par with Oklahoma! Because the films were produced by the same people and were released close together, many similarities can be ascertained between them.

Although South Pacific may be a far cry from the midwestern USA, both films have an outdoorsy feel. Numerous scenes use luscious natural landscapes to add beauty to the big screen.

A key point to remember is that the South Pacific is far from fluff despite the tendency for comic scenes or light-sounding numbers.

The film distinguishes itself quite well with a strong anti-war slant, as Emile decries killing and promotes harmony in more than one scene, almost like the film encourages us to learn from a Frenchman rather than an American.

To this end, the critical subject of racism is brought up not only in the Liat/Cable story but also when Nellie struggles with the notion of raising two children of a different race.

Although not revisited as often as unforgettable genre contemporaries like West Side Story (1960) or The Sound of Music (1965) and justifiably not as dynamic, South Pacific (1958) is a lovely film with impressive key production values, a worthy story, and enough sing-along tunes to keep one humming for days.

The picture never feels dated and exists as a timeless member of the stage productions magically brought to the big screen club.

Oscar Nominations: 1 win-Best Scoring of a Musical Picture, Best Sound (won), Best Cinematography, Color

Golden Globe Nominations: Best Actress in a Leading Role-Musical or Comedy-Mitzi Gaynor, New Star of the Year-Actress-France Nuyen

The Sandpiper-1965

The Sandpiper-1965

Director Vincente Minnelli

Starring Richard Burton, Elizabeth Taylor

Scott’s Review #897

Reviewed May 12, 2019

Grade: B+

The Sandpiper (1965) is a film that stars Elizabeth Taylor and Richard Burton and was released at the height of their fame.

It capitalized on their notoriety as one of the world’s most famous couples and their well-known romantic tribulations. Although they portrayed adulterous lovers, they were married shortly before filming began.

The film’s theme of adultery closely mirrored their own lives at the time, as each very publicly conducted an affair with the other while married to spouses.

The film is a lavish and sweeping production. It is one of the few major studio pictures ever filmed in Big Sur, and the story is expressly set there.

Big Sur is a rugged, mountainous section of California’s Central Coast where the Santa Lucia Mountains rise abruptly from the Pacific Ocean.

It is often praised for its dramatic scenery and is the perfect location for a romantic film.

The Sandpiper (1965) is a romantic drama featuring the two stars’ chemistry. It is a pure case of art mimicking real life, at least in some way.

Watching the actors work off one another is fascinating and wonderful. It makes me wonder what life would have been like on set, amid the dreamlike, steamy locale and the fresh romance.

The story isn’t dynamic but quite theatrical, with the actors as the main reason to watch.

Taylor plays Laura Reynolds, a bohemian, free-spirited single mother who lives in Big Sur, California, with her young son, Danny. Laura makes a living as an artist while homeschooling her son, who has gotten into trouble with the law.

When Danny is sent to an Episcopal boarding school, Laura meets the headmaster, Dr. Edward Hewitt (Burton). The duo falls madly in love, even as Edward marries teacher Claire (Eva Marie Saint).

The melodrama only escalates as those close to the pair catch on to their infidelity.

The gorgeous locale of Big Sur is second to none and exudes romance and sexual tension, with crashing waves against the mountainous terrain symbolizing a passionate love affair.

As the characters give in to each other, the lavish weather only heightens the titillating experience.

Taylor is lovely to look at throughout the film, and the erotic nude chest of the character plays a significant role. I wondered if the inclusion had the desired effect or resulted in unintended humor, as the endowed sculpture is quite busty.

The film belongs to Taylor and Burton, but the supporting cast deserves mention for creating robust characters that add flavor.

Eva Marie Saint plays the amiable wife, distraught by her husband’s infidelity but later coming to an understanding. Charles Bronson plays Cos Erickson, Laura’s protective friend, who despises Edward’s hypocrisy.

Finally, Robert Webber is effective as Ward Hendricks, a former beau of Laura’s, eager for another chance with the violet-eyed bombshell.

The film’s title represents a sandpiper with a broken wing that Laura nurses as Edward looks on. The bird lives in her home until it heals and flies free, though it returns occasionally.

This sandpiper is a central symbol in the movie, illustrating the themes of growth and freedom. Its sweetness suits the love story between Laura and Edward.

The Sandpiper is an entertaining film but not a great one. It suffers from mediocre writing and clichéd storytelling, but it serves as a vehicle for Taylor and Burton.

The fascination is watching the actors, not for a great cinematic experience; the film is not very well remembered except by fans of the supercouple.

The film was made one year before the dreary yet brilliant Who’s Afraid of Virginia Woolf? (1966) starring the same husband-and-wife duo as does The Sandpiper (1965).

Laura and Edward are worlds apart from George and Martha, and when watched in close sequence, one can marvel at the acting chops of each star.

The film won the Academy Award for Best Original Song for the sentimental “The Shadow of Your Smile.”

Oscar Nominations: 1 win-Best Song-“The Shadow of Your Smile” (won)

Golden Globe Nominations: Best Original Score-Motion Picture, Best Original Song-Motion Picture-“The Shadow of Your Smile”