Category Archives: Meryl Streep

2009 Films, Adrien Brody, Animated, Bill Murray, Brian Cox, Children, George Clooney, Jason Schwartzman, Meryl Streep, Noah Baumbach, Owen Wilson, Wes Anderson, Willem Dafoe

Fantastic Mr. Fox-2009

Leave a comment

Fantastic Mr. Fox-2009

Director Wes Anderson

Voices George Clooney, Meryl Streep, Bill Murray

Scott’s Review #1,329

Reviewed December 30, 2022

Grade: B+

I have fond memories of, either reading or being read, Roald Dahl’s famous 1970 children’s novel entitled Fantastic Mr. Fox. The story involves the clever and hungry Mr. Fox and how he outwits his farmer neighbors to steal food from under their noses.

In 2009, it was adapted into a stop-motion animated film by Wes Anderson and includes the voice of George Clooney and Meryl Streep as Mr. and Mrs. Fox.  Anyone familiar with Anderson’s work knows well that an added dose of eccentricity will inevitably be included as well as a unique narrative.

I confess to either being in the mood for an Anderson film or not but at least I know to know what I’m in store for.

Anderson co-wrote the screenplay with Noah Baumbach known for making witty and intellectual comedies like The Squid and the Whale (2005) and Greenberg (2010).

Fantastic Mr. Fox pairs well with 2018’s Isles of Dogs if we are talking about Anderson films. Both include the thoughts and peculiarities of animals, similar stop motion, and a story about trickery and revenge pitting man against animals.

There is an eerie and prominent comparison to Animal Farm, a 1950s George Orwell novel and film adaptation, that I noticed.

The farm, animals, class system, and desire for power and authority.

When Mr. Fox’s nightly raids on three nearby farms raise the tempers of three selfish farmers who are losing their chickens, he must outwit the outrageous plans to catch him.

After all, in his mind, he is merely trying to feed his hungry family and neighbors, and Mr. Fox must find a new way to get his paws on the bounty.

Billed as a children’s film probably because it’s based on a children’s novel, Fantastic Mr. Fox contains aspects that will go way over kids’ heads. This suits me well however because I have a fascination for animation that pushes the envelope or moves beyond the overdone ‘safe genre’.

Think of it as a kid’s film for adults.

It would appear difficult to side solely with Mr. Fox since he is a thief. We are all taught at a young age not to steal but it’s difficult not to root for Mr. Fox. He steals not to gorge himself but to feed his family and community.

Of course, he is addicted to being a cad and quickly returns to his thieving ways finding his calling and strong satisfaction.

A good lesson for kids and adults is the neighborly aspect of Fantastic Mr. Fox. There is a camaraderie amongst the animals that I find lovely and inspiring. They band together and cohabitate in an underground community and later the sewer always having each other’s backs.

The farmers are portrayed as the villains though we can certainly understand their hardships at having their animals stolen and eaten. But Anderson hits home that the farmers are greedy and obsessed with their wealth, happy to kill any animals they see fit.

It’s satisfying to see them get defeated.

The story is outshined by the visuals though. It’s difficult not to focus on the technique and stunning attention to detail, especially in the tunnel sequences. The character performances and shadowy framework make one realize just how far stop motion has come.

The autumnal colors of red, orange, and yellow, perfectly enhance the visual style and season that Anderson and team create. Even the cue card titles between scenes are meticulous art that harkens back to sophisticated cartoons of yesteryear.

Fantastic Mr. Fox (2009) is a creative, edgy, and intelligently written and scored production. Multi generations are featured with means young kids, parents, and grandparents with a hunger for a left-of-center and thought-provoking approach will be well satisfied.

Oscar Nominations: Best Animated Feature, Best Original Score

2021 Films, Adam McKay, Ariana Grande, Comedy, Dark Comedy, Jonah Hill, Liev Schreiber, Mark Rylance, Meryl Streep, Paul Guilfoyle, Satire, Science Fiction, Timothée Chalamet

Don’t Look Up-2021

Leave a comment

Don’t Look Up-2021

Director-Adam McKay

Starring-Leonardo DiCaprio, Jennifer Lawrence, Meryl Streep

Scott’s Review #1,220

Reviewed January 16, 2022

Grade: A

In the times of the Covid pandemic, ‘water cooler’ films have ceased to exist. Once, employees would gather around the water cooler to discuss a current film or television show. These days, with many working from home this activity has waned.

Too bad, because Don’t Look Up (2021) is one of those films.

It was not on my radar until a flurry of scuttlebutt and controversy brought the film to the forefront of my mind and many others. Super topical and mired in irony, everyone should see it, but those who need to won’t.

It’s a brazen and in-your-face look at how science and facts are dismissed by some who can’t see the forest for the trees, or in this case, a giant comet speeding towards planet Earth. In the year 2021, with controversy over Covid preventing mask-wearing and preventative vaccinations, Don’t Look Up portrays those as simply stupid.

As they are.

Those viewers who are conspiracy theorists, Trump supporters, or I daresay even too self-absorbed to look past their own lives are the ones who should see the film the most. You will be mocked and used as fodder for the entertainment of the more intelligent species of human beings.

But, perhaps learn a thing or two?

Led by director Adam McKay, famous for satirical works such as 2015’s The Big Short, he satirizes the current state of worldly affairs masterfully, using political comparisons and the world-weary science versus non-science approach.

McKay also writes and produces.

He enlists an all-star cast who were chomping at the bit to be part of his relevant and brilliant project. Leonardo DiCaprio, Jennifer Lawrence, Meryl Streep, Mark Ryland, and Cate Blanchett are just a handful of participating stars.

Kate Dibiasky (Jennifer Lawrence) is an astronomy graduate student who along with her professor Doctor Randall Mindy (Leonardo DiCaprio) makes a discovery of a comet on a collision course with Earth. It is expected to arrive within six months and destroy most of the planet.

They are shocked and dismayed when their attempts to get anyone to pay any attention are hijacked by the media and the President of the United States of America, President Orlean (Streep). Instead, folks in high power attempt to use the ‘story’ for either ratings or political gain.

With the help of Doctor Oglethorpe (Rob Morgan), Kate and Randall embark on a media tour that takes them to the airwaves of The Daily Rip, an upbeat morning show hosted by Brie (Cate Blanchett) and Jack (Tyler Perry). While Randall embarks on an affair with Brie, the scientists attempt to gain the attention of the social media-obsessed public before it’s too late.

As the title states, just look up?!

President Orlean and her psychopathic son and Chief of Staff, Jason (Jonah Hill), are patterned after former President Donald J. Trump and his son. Their nastiness and dismissive attitude, only thinking of personal gain are despicable.

Hysterically and satisfying, they each get their proper comeuppance.

Orlean’s demise at the end of the film is particularly satisfying. Stay post-credits for this treat.

Don’t Look Up is not a conventional film- it’s better than that. Its special sauce is its powerful message and reassurance for viewers to not take good old-fashioned common sense for granted. Despite the naysayers, the use of one’s brain is a valuable commodity.

The urgency of the matter is not meant to be taken for granted but there is enough comedy elements to classify it as such- a dark comedy.

DiCaprio is terrific in the lead role. Nervous and having difficulty expressing himself, his frustration is felt as he tries to warn the world of impending doom. The actor can play any character and it’s great seeing him add a sexy, middle-aged nerd to his repertoire.

Lawrence is a killer. Her character has no filter and is known to burst into rage making her lash-out scenes pleasing. Kate will call an idiot an idiot. Her outburst at the President is a particularly terrific scene.

Despite the laughter, Don’t Look Up (2021) sends a dire message. It mirrors the current times and what trouble we are in. The grim final sequence when Randall, Kate, and family sit around the dinner table enjoying a Thanksgiving-style meal is also a reminder to keep loved ones close and treasure every moment.

Oscar Nominations: Best Picture, Best Original Screenplay, Best Film Editing, Best Original Score

2020 Films, Best Film of the Year, Comedy, Keegan-Michael Key, LGBTQ+ Comedy, LGBTQ+ Films, Meryl Streep, Musical, Musical Comedy, Nicole Kidman

The Prom-2020

Leave a comment

The Prom-2020

Director-Ryan Murphy 

Starring-Meryl Streep, James Corden, Nicole Kidman

Scott’s Review #1,101

Reviewed January 17, 2021

Grade: A

Hollywood legends Meryl Streep and Nicole Kidman take on singing and dancing roles in the lovely and timely film, The Prom (2020). James Corden joins them in a prominent role in a musical based on the popular and recent Broadway production of the same name. The LGBTQ+ storyline is important and powerful but doesn’t overshadow the fun. The message is perfectly incorporated in the delicious comedy romp.

The Prom reminds me of John Waters Hairspray from 1988 or even the fun remake from 2007. Instead of racism, the topic is now homophobia, with a few characters rebuffing the lifestyle. Most of the performances are over-the-top, but the film works on all levels. The one-liners are crackling and polished, especially by Streep and Corden.

Director, Ryan Murphy, has become a favorite of mine for creating both extremely dark and light-hearted projects alike that usually slant towards LGBTQ+ recognition and inclusion. His treasured FX series American Horror Story (2011-present) and miniseries The Assassination of Gianni Versace: American Crime Story are excellent examples of this. I drool with anticipation over what his next offering might be.

High school student, Emma Nolan (Jo Ellen Pellman), wants to bring a female date to the upcoming prom. Chaos has erupted after the head of the PTA (Parent-Teacher Association), Mrs. Green (Kerry Washington) has canceled the prom. The setting is Indiana and the same gender coupling conflicts with the town’s traditional beliefs and values. Little does she know that her daughter, Alyssa (Ariana DeBose) is Emma’s secret girlfriend. The school principal, Tom Hawkins (Keegan-Michael Key) supports Emma and has leaked the story to social media outlets.

Meanwhile, in sophisticated New York City, snooty broadway stars Dee Dee Allen (Streep), Barry Glickman (Corden) are devastated when their new musical flops. They join forces with struggling performers Angie Dickinson (Kidman) and Trent Oliver (Andrew Rannells) and take a bus trip with the cast of Godspell to champion Emma’s cause, and drum up sympathy from their fans and critics.

The rest of the film is as one might expect with bursts of song and dance combined with teaching the stuffy residents of small-town Indiana to accept and even embrace Emma and her LGBTQ+ brethren. Amid a flurry of misunderstandings, mainly between newly dating Tom and Dee Dee, Emma and Alyssa, and Alyssa and her mother, a lavish prom is funded for the town, high school students straight and gay, to flock to and co-mingle in unity.

While The Prom is sheer fantasy and real-life doesn’t usually work out so perfectly, the sentiment is meaningful and the film takes a progressive stance.

2002 Films, Brian Cox, Catherine Keener, Chris Cooper, Comedy, Curtis Hanson, David O. Russell, Independent, Independent Comedy, John Cusack, John Malkovich, Judy Greer, Maggie Gyllenhaal, Meryl Streep, Nicolas Cage, Ron Livingston, Spike Jonze, Tilda Swinton

Adaptation-2002

Leave a comment

Adaptation-2002

Director Spike Jonze

Starring Nicolas Cage, Meryl Streep, Chris Cooper

Scott’s Review #1,064

Reviewed September 24, 2020

Grade: B+

Adaptation (2002) is a kooky film that is recommended for all writers or lovers of the written word, especially for those ever having suffered from writer’s block.

The film is wonderful for people who are either curious or obsessed (me!) with how a novel is turned into a screenplay.

With an A-list cast featuring Nicolas Cage and Meryl Streep, the offering is credible and not just a bumbling indie experiment with no budget. Stars must get paid, which allows the film a mainstream audience, and awards.

The film will be too weird for some. There is a measure of conceit and self-indulgence (it’s set in Los Angeles after all!) that is sometimes off-putting, but I adored the premise too much and chomped at the bit at what I was offered.

It’s quite non-linear and the characters sometimes do things that are weird or out of turn.

Adaptation is different (in a good way) and is recommended for its oddness as I cannot think of another film like it, though Being John Malkovich (1999) would be close. Director, Spike Jonze would later create Her (2013) and, of course, directed Malkovich too.

Charlie Kaufman wrote the screenplay and the central character is Charlie Kaufman, played by Cage, who also plays Kaufman’s brother Donald, a mooch. Charlie is self-loathing and disheveled but somehow likable. He struggles mightily to bring words into his head as he nervously sits at his typewriter day after day when he is tasked to adapt the novel, The Orchid Thief, into a film.

The novel’s author, Susan Orlean, played by Meryl Streep, intimidates Charlie, who decides to pay her a visit to New York City.

This film features the best work of Cage’s career. An actor who is “not for everybody”, the performance rivals that of Leaving Las Vegas (1995), in which he won an Academy Award.

A dual role is tough to play, but the actor does so with bombast and confidence, making the characters very different from each other and making me forget they were Cage.

Too often sinking to inferior action films like Face/Off (1997) or Con Air (1997), the actor wisely had an epiphany or something and made a wise decision. Cage does best when he goes for wacky- Raising Arizona (1987) is proof of that.

The supporting players, specifically Streep and Cooper are fantastic. Streep could fart through a film and still give a great performance and you can tell she enjoys the part of Susan, allowed to let loose. Her character loves sex and drugs and is not above devious shenanigans to get her way.

Cooper, who won the Oscar, is delicious as John Laroche, a theatrical character with missing front teeth, who is the secret lover of Susan.

Both provide great entertainment.

Adaptation simply feels good for a thought-provoking writer providing oodles of “writer things” to ponder and discuss with friends after the credits roll. Many scenes are rich with layered dialogue and rife with originality making the words sparkle with pizzazz.

And there are enough twists and turns to keep viewers guessing.

One of the most original and kooky films you will ever see, Adaptation (2002) pairs well with Being John Malkovich (1999) for an evening of the odd and absurd, but also films not altogether hard to follow.

The satirical Hollywood theme will both please and annoy but it’s all good fun and a lesson in creative art cinema.

Oscar Nominations: 1 win-Best Actor-Nicholas Cage, Best Supporting Actor-Chris Cooper (won), Best Supporting Actress-Meryl Streep, Best Adapted Screenplay

2001 Films, Ben Kingsley, Chris Rock, Haley Joel Osment, Jude Law, Meryl Streep, Robin Williams, Science Fiction, Steven Spielberg, William Hurt

A.I. Artificial Intelligence-2001

Leave a comment

A.I. Artificial Intelligence- 2001

Director Steven Spielberg

Starring Haley Joel Osment, Jude Law

Scott’s Review #1,052

Reviewed August 13, 2020

Grade: B+

A bit of a history lesson about the film A.I. Artificial Intelligence (2001).

The final cinematic version is based on the 1969 short story “Supertoys Last All Summer Long” by Brian Aldiss, which was purchased and developed by director Stanley Kubrick in the 1970s.

Left unfinished for years, and the subsequent passing of Kubrick after he had started to collaborate with Steven Spielberg, the film was finally carved into a final project by Spielberg.

Upon close study, the film possesses the mark of both directors with the edge going to Spielberg.

The tone of the story contains a creepiness and oddity familiar to fans of Kubrick, like he may have been thinking along the lines of a similar theme to the brilliant 2001: A Space Odyssey (1968).

Both center around robots and a futuristic world. Spielberg adds a humanistic, sympathetic, and slightly melancholy edge as he did with E.T. the Extra-terrestrial (1982) so that we adore the main character and want justice for him.

In contrast, Kubrick made his version of an extra-terrestrial in 2001: A Space Odyssey a scary villain. The results are mostly good, but uneven in parts.

The premise is solid and grasps our attention. The time is the twenty-second century when the polar ice caps have melted and submerged many coastal cities. It’s also a time when humans live side by side with “mechas,” or sentient robots.

Henry and Monica Swinton are suffering because their son Martin has a rare disease and is placed in suspended animation.

They are given a Mecha child capable of experiencing love. Henry and Monica fall in love with David and, in a plot twist worthy of a daytime soap -opera, Martin returns to life, becomes jealous of David in a plot reminiscent of The Good Son (1993), tries to frame David for monstrous deeds, and David is nearly shipped off to parts unknown.

This is Spielberg’s first crack at screenwriting in nearly twenty-five years, since Close Encounters of the Third Kind (1977) and he does a decent job. No secret is that both films, along with E.T. the Extra-Terrestrial have common themes so he feels comfortable with these subjects.

The humanity is there, but the screenplay is often too busy with story points coming and going at a rapid pace. I wanted a deeper dive into Henry and Monica to feel more about their characters and what makes them tick. I felt their pain of having (sort of) lost a child, but not why they needed to fill the void so quickly.

Osment is insanely good in a film so complex that his performance could have easily been overshadowed by the other elements.

Instead, he powers through adding complexities to a character the audience falls in love with, aching and yearning along with him. David is faced with terrible, life-changing news of not only being adopted but of not even being human.

His determination to find out who he truly is takes the viewer down a path of both entertainment and adventure, but also of bitter emotion.

A.I. Artificial Intelligence (2001) has a lot going on and critically speaking, maybe too much. Spielberg fleshes out the original short story and tasks the viewer with enduring a global warming message, important, but a trite overdone, and sympathizing with David, the lonely robot boy.

The story becomes an exciting adventure and the complexities between being human and being almost human are explored, but not quite satisfactory.

Osment and Law are terrific with dazzling chemistry and the visuals and musical score are astounding. Osment should have received a Best Actor Oscar nomination to follow the one he got for The Sixth Sense (1999).

Oscar Nominations: Best Musical Score, Best Visual Effects

2006 Films, Comedy, Independent, Independent Comedy, John C. Reilly, Kevin Kline, Lily Tomlin, Lindsay Lohan, Maya Rudolph, Meryl Streep, Robert Altman, Tommy Lee Jones, Virginia Madsen, Woody Harrelson

A Prairie Home Companion-2006

Leave a comment

A Prairie Home Companion-2006

Director Robert Altman

Starring Meryl Streep, Kevin Kline, Woody Harrelson, Lily Tomlin

Scott’s Review #1,033

Reviewed June 16, 2020

Grade: B

The final film by legendary and influential director Robert Altman is not his greatest work. If I were to compare A Prairie Home Companion (2006) to another of Altman’s pictures it would be Nashville (1975) both having grassroots entertainment similarities.

The latter combines satire amid a political rally in a southern city while the former celebrates behind-the-scenes events at a long-running radio show in Minneapolis.

Difficult to criticize anything a genius does, my expectation was much more than was given.

The film plods along with little excitement or juiciness ever happening so the experience is to enjoy the standard Altman fixtures like a huge cast, overlapping dialogue, and witty chatter.

A melancholy effort since no new material will ever be released by the cinema great, but a chance to celebrate his achievements all the same.

Set in present times, events take place in Saint Paul, Minnesota, a chilly city in the United States mid-west. A long-running live radio variety show, A Prairie Home Companion, prepares for its final broadcast.

The radio station’s new parent company has scheduled the show’s home, the storied Fitzgerald Theater, for demolition and dispatched “the Axeman” (Tommy Lee Jones) to judge whether to save the show. Prospects are grim as radio shows are deemed a thing of the past and irrelevant.

The many radio stars revel and reminisce in memories as they prepare for cancellation.

Led by the singing Johnson Girls, Yolanda (Meryl Streep) and sister Rhonda (Lily Tomlin), and daughter Lola (Lindsay Lohan) who are most prominent, other characters include cowboy duo Dusty (Woody Harrelson) and Lefty (John C. Reilly); pregnant PA Molly (Maya Rudolph) and the show’s creator and host, Garrison Keillor.

A spirit known as “Dangerous Woman” (Virginia Madsen) also joins the group.

Star power is not the issue here and it pleasing is to witness a bevy of A-list Hollywood stars duke it out for screen-time. Anyone possessing knowledge of Altman knows that he was an actor’s director, meaning he let his actors truly shine and interpret what the motivations of the characters were.

Garrison Keillor, who wrote the piece, follows Altman’s lead in this area letting the cast try and bring to life what is on the written page.

Unfortunately, they fail.

While meandering greatly, A Prairie Home Companion has an earthy and humanistic theater troupe quality. The stars of the radio show are like family and cling to each other for moral support during uncertainty.

This feels nice to the viewer as common compassion is endearing, many of the individuals have spent decades together. Their stories and experiences resonate warmly, and one can’t help but be sucked into their lives.

The problem with this is that the stories go on and on and quickly seem pointless. There is little doubt whether the show will close. While the people are enamoring nothing much really happens in the film and it becomes a bore.

The character interactions lack any energy and do not carry the film in any direction. They merely are what they are.

I can appreciate a slow build if there eventually is a payoff. A Prairie Home Companion (2006) never achieves full-throttle or hits the gas pedal so the film exists but doesn’t shine.

With masterpieces such as The Long Goodbye (1973), Nashville (1975), and 3 Women (1977) my expectations were soaring so that may be a part of my letdown.

Prairie Home is not included in my go-to catalog of Altman greats and would teeter at the bottom of a master ranking of his films.

Independent Spirit Award Nominations: Best Director-Robert Altman

2019 Films, Drama, Feminist, Greta Gerwig, Meryl Streep, Period Drama, Saoirse Ronan, Timothée Chalamet

Little Women-2019

Leave a comment

Little Women-2019

Director-Greta Gerwig

Starring-Saoirse Ronan, Florence Pugh

Scott’s Review #982

Reviewed January 21, 2020

Grade: A-

Numerous creations of the illustrious 1860s classic novel by Louisa May Alcott have been forged upon the silver screen, some good and some not as good.

The consensus is that Little Women (2019) is one of the better offerings, if not the best.

Director, Greta Gerwig crafts a clear feminist, progressive version of the trials and tribulations of the March family, led by spirited spit-fire, Jo (Saoirse Ronan). Gerwig’s telling is fantastic, breathing fresh life into a classic story.

The story fluctuates heavily between 1868 and 1861, during and after the United States Civil War.

Liberal, the Marches reside in Massachusetts, led by matriarch Marmee (Laura Dern) mainly living life while their patriarch, Father March (Bob Odenkirk) is off at war. The rest of the household includes sisters Jo, Meg (Emily Watson), Amy (Florence Pugh), and the youngest daughter, Beth (Eliza Scanlen).

The family endures joy, hardship, romance, love, and death as they carry on through the decade.

The focal point is Jo, a determined young lady, who moves to New York City, frequently reflecting on her life through back and forth sequences.

She begins, as an aspiring writer as she grows up, eventually becoming a success and boldly having her novel published. She resists the tried and true and questions why a woman must rely on a man for success rather than her efforts and talents.

During the story, she is pursued by two young men, Laurie (Timothee Chalamet) and Friedrich (Louis Garrel).

Little Women is a fantastic and emotional story and a film that has no need for CGI, car chases, explosions, or any ingredients meant to enliven a film. It does not need them.

The excitement is in the plot, as we thirst for more of the ups and downs that the March family faces. With any successful drama, there are nuanced characters, each taking a turn at a story.

While Jo is the headliner, Amy, Meg, and Beth are much more than opening acts. They each have their own lives, dreams, triumphs, and hardships, and the audience cares about each of them.

To capitalize on this point, the casting is dynamite. In a small, but brilliant role, Meryl Streep gives a bombast to her character of Aunt March, the wealthy widow who owns a gorgeous house and vacations in Paris. She is cranky, but wise, only wanting the very best for her nieces, which is, of course, to marry rich!

Ronan is well cast and charismatic as Jo, the actress losing her Irish accent for an American one. She uses her acting chops to infuse Jo with determination and just enough empathy to win over audiences.

Gerwig assures that the audience is reminded of the times and what it meant to be female during the 1860s, with a minimal chance at self-achievement, having to rely on a man for nearly everything.

She is in no way demeans or ridicules the male gender though. She paints no villains in her film, instead of showing men as supportive at times, enamored at other times, but never exerting their power over women.

Little Women receives a small demerit in the pacing department. The film sharply plows back and forth, in a too rapid way, from period to period, at times leaving the viewer unclear as to what section in the film he or she is in.

Blessedly, this ceases about midway through, but the technique is jarring and unnecessary. One wonders what the action was intended for and why not a more straightforward approach to the storytelling was used.

A key facet of any outstanding film is the emotional reaction and Little Women had this viewer with tears streaming down his face. Sometimes for joy, sometimes for sadness, all in an organic way given oomph by a powerful musical score that resonates but never overwhelms.

The film is one in which most of the elements come together in perfect harmony.

The film was served up six nominations, including Best Picture, Best Actress (Ronan), Best Supporting Actress (Pugh), and Best Adapted Screenplay. Sadly, and in a never-ending slight for female directors, Gerwig was overlooked.

Before 2019’s Little Women, the novel was adapted six times for film, most successfully in 1933 and 1949. Seventy years later, the most modern version is arguably the best, with a left-leaning stance that is oh so necessary in modern times.

Oscar Nominations: Best Picture, Best Actress-Saoirse Ronan, Best Supporting Actress-Florence Pugh, Best Adapted Screenplay, Best Original Score, Best Costume Design (won)

2018 Films, Ben Whishaw, Children, Colin Firth, Disney, Emily Blunt, Julie Walters, Meryl Streep, Musical

Mary Poppins Returns-2018

Leave a comment

Mary Poppins Returns-2018

Director-Rob Marshall

Starring-Emily Blunt, Lin-Manuel Miranda

Scott’s Review #848

Reviewed December 29, 2018

Grade: A-

Mary Poppins Returns is a charming mixture of reboots and sequels to the immeasurably glorious original, Mary Poppins (1964).

Impossible to live up to the magic of that film, the 2018 version comes quite close with a delightful turn by Emily Blunt, numerous Hollywood stalwarts in small roles, and gleeful musical numbers sure to leave audiences humming upon their exit from theaters.

Events begin to percolate twenty-five years following the original story and the setting is 1935 London amid the Great Depression. His wife recently deceased, Michael Banks (Ben Wishaw) lives in the house he grew up in with his three children and housekeeper (Julie Walters) in tow. His sister Jane lives and works nearby as a labor organizer.

Faced with the dreary reality that the historic Banks house may be foreclosed, Mary Poppins (Blunt) arrives elegantly on her umbrella to resume order and save the day.

Though her character does not overtake the film, Emily Blunt is dynamic in the title role. Her prim and proper good British charm and sensibilities crackle with wit and poise. It is tough to imagine anyone but Blunt in the role as she does so well with putting her stamp on it.

With a smirk and a quick matter-of-fact tone, the character is both no-nonsense and utterly kind. The casting of Blunt is spot-on as she becomes Mary Poppins.

The London setting is both adorable and fraught with good culture and sophisticated manners. The inclusion of the storied Big Ben is meaningful to the tale in a major way and a teachable moment for children unfamiliar with London at all.

Furthermore, the inclusion of an important period in history-the inclusion of the Great Depression is immeasurably positive.

The supporting characters are rapturous and a treat for elders familiar with the original Mary Poppins film. Meryl Streep plays Topsy, Mary Poppins’s eccentric eastern European cousin to the hilt, but never teeters over the top.

Colin Firth adds snarky charm as the villainous bank president, and Angela Lansbury gives grandmotherly zest as The Balloon Lady, an ode to the original novel.

Finally, Dick Van Dyke is a delight as the heroic Mr. Dawes Jr. who comes to the rescue at the last hour.

The real winners though are the enchanting musical numbers. With the lovely London landscape in full view, Mary Poppins Returns gets off to a spectacular groove with “(Underneath The) Lovely London Sky”.

Performed by the charming Lin-Manuel Miranda in the role of Jack the Lamplighter, Mary Poppin’s sidekick, the star has what it takes to keep up with Blunt. This is evident as the duo mesmerize and entertains with a colorful number, “A Cover is Not the Book”, alongside an animated music hall.

Finally, fans will revel in the naughty and clever “Turning Turtle”, performed by Streep.

The costumes and lighting are both big hits. As Jack lights and defuses the street lights, we get to see the luminous dawn and the sunsets which give the film a nice luminous touch.

During the film’s conclusion and subsequent race against the stroke of midnight the moonlight is featured giving the film a warm glow.

The period piece costumes are lush, but not garish, adding flavor and capturing the period perfectly.

With not quite enough oomph to rival the original Mary Poppins (but really who expected that?) Mary Poppins Returns (2018) nonetheless is enchanting and inspiring in every way that a remake or sequel should be.

The film is polite, polished, and filled with an authentic zest given the mixing of humans and animations. A fine creation and splendid entertainment.

Oscar Nominations: Best Original Score, Best Original Song-“The Place Where Lost Things Go”, Best Production Design, Best Costume Design

2002 Films, Allison Janney, Claire Danes, Drama, Ed Harris, Eileen Atkins, Jeff Daniels, John C. Reilly, Julianne Moore, LGBTQ+ Drama, LGBTQ+ Films, Margo Martindale, Meryl Streep, Miranda Richardson, Nicole Kidman, Stephen Daldry, Toni Collette

The Hours-2002

Leave a comment

The Hours-2002

Director Stephen Daldry

Starring Nicole Kidman, Julianne Moore, Meryl Streep

Scott’s Review #803

Reviewed August 17, 2018

Grade: A

The Hours (2002) is a film containing the ultimate in acting riches. With names like Nicole Kidman, Meryl Streep, and Julianne Moore associated with the film this is not surprising.

Not solely belonging to the ladies, however, Ed Harris, in particular, is dynamic in his role as are all the other males who appear in the film.

Told in three different sections in chronological order, but going back and forth, the stories all share connections via the novel Mrs. Dalloway, written by Virginia Woolf.

One of the best films of the decade!

Each segment of the film takes place within a single day, but decades apart. Wisely, director Stephen Daldry switches between the stories frequently leaving sort of a cliffhanger, making the drama more compelling and spicy.

In 1923, a depressed Virginia Woolf is portrayed by an unrecognizable Nicole Kidman in a role that won her the Best Actress Oscar.

Woolf resides outside of London and struggles to complete her novel amid nervous breakdowns and the watchful eye of her husband, who is aware of her mental pain.

In 1951, Laura Brown (Julianne Moore) seemingly has it all, living the “American Dream”. Residing in a nice neighborhood with a loving husband, she is pregnant with her second child, spending the days at home raising her young son, Richie, whom she is very close to yet does not understand.

After a fleeting lesbian dalliance with a neighbor, Laura goes off to a hotel with bottles of pills, intending to kill herself. She changes her mind after reading Woolf’s novel and dozing off, deciding instead to make a different decision.

Finally, in 2001, Clarissa (Meryl Streep), is bisexual and in a same-sex relationship. She lives with Richard (Harris), whom she dated in college, now the best of friends. He is gay, stricken with the AIDS virus, and close to committing suicide as he plans to jump out of a window.

This story (present times) is crucial to the film because it involves two characters from the 1951 story. These characters intersect with others in a touching and heart-wrenching way.

The greatest parts of The Hours are the brilliant acting and the richly written storytelling. Arguably, Kidman, Streep, and Moore all could have won Oscars for their performances, and I must mention that as brilliant as Kidman is (she is the sole Oscar recipient), and Streep is just universally good, I would have given the Oscar to Moore- the standout in my opinion.

Glamorous and intelligent, warm to her son, she makes a monumental and controversial decision. The character should not be sympathetic- yet she is. This is a testament to Moore’s infusing the character with confidence, reasonable thoughts, and even some empathy. We finally understand why she does what she does.

May I boast for a moment about Harris’s performance? Richard, once known as Richie as a kid (this will give something away), has lived a difficult life.

Abandoned, wounded, and suffering much loss, he is a tragic figure, pained beyond belief. His suffering is so monumental that we almost welcome his demise, and Harris offers so much of himself in this difficult role. He is both physically and emotionally hurt and Harris portrays this in spades.

Uniquely, all three stories work independently of each other. Yes, characters from one appear in another, but they are like well-crafted vignettes. Similarly, they each begin with breakfast, then involve the planning of a party or celebration of some sort, and culminate in sadness.

Yet, the film does not feel like a downer or preachy in any way, but rather, good, solid, humanistic story-telling, which I adore.

Sure, the film is considered a drama, but it also contains multiple gay or bisexual characters and therefore must be included in the chambers of LGBT filmmaking.

With an A-list cast, the film helps lead the charge (successfully so) to bring more rich LGBT films to center stage and garner mainstream audiences.

The great aspect of The Hours is that it is a mainstream film- a good solid drama.

Based on a Pulitzer Prize-winning novel by Michael Cunningham, The Hours (2002) does not try to draw parallels with each story or necessarily connect them in an obvious fashion.

Rather, the film version provokes thought both with LGBT and feminist approaches. Each female central character lives in a world run by men, as Woolf argues in her novel.

The film brilliantly adapts the novel and brings it to large audiences in a fantastic, riveting fashion.

Oscar Nominations: 1 win-Best Picture, Best Director-Stephen Daldry, Best Actress-Nicole Kidman (won), Best Supporting Actor-Ed Harris, Best Supporting Actress-Julianne Moore, Best Adapted Screenplay, Best Original Score, Best Costume Design, Best Film Editing

2018 Films, Colin Firth, Julie Walters, Meryl Streep, Musical, Richard Curtis, Tom Hanks

Mamma Mia! Here We Go Again-2018

Leave a comment

Mamma Mia! Here We Go Again-2018

Director-Ol Parker

Starring-Lily James, Amanda Seyfried

Scott’s Review #797

Reviewed July 31, 2018

Grade: B+

My expectations for Mamma Mia! Here We Go Again (2018) was not lofty was I anticipating drivel. I expected (and was in the mood for) a summer popcorn musical flick with fun, dancing, and little in the way of analysis or requiring too much thought.

I can proudly say that my expectations were fulfilled with this film- it delivers what the intent is and sometimes that is exactly what the doctor ordered.

The film is enthusiastic and lively, with the musical numbers serving as the standouts.

In an immediate plot twist, it is revealed that the main character Donna (Meryl Streep) has died a year earlier and her daughter Sophie (Amanda Seyfried) is planning a lavish reopening of her hotel on the beaches of Greece.

The film serves as both a sequel and a prequel as events also go back to 1979 when a young Donna (Lily James) graduates from college and embarks on a journey to “find herself”. She travels extensively and meets her three beaus (anyone who saw the 2008 original will be familiar with this plot) and the film is great at connecting the events of both films in a pleasing way.

Mamma Mia! Here We Go Again is hardly high art and not intended to be. It is a bit sub-par to the original if truth be told as some of the musical numbers are “secondary” ABBA songs. The biggest hits were used in the 2008 film.

The overall plot feels a bit forced and not exactly compelling drama either- especially since we know what the eventual result of Donna’s relationships will be. The story seems geared towards a bombastic finish.

But the sheer fact that the song and dances are interspersed throughout the film makes it enjoyable enough.

The film plays more like someone’s fantasy than a real-life sequence and liberties must certainly be taken.  Everything always seems to go Donna’s way and events merely fall into place- if only real life were that way!

The introduction of Donna’s mother (Sophie’s grandmother) – explained to be a rich and famous singer residing in Las Vegas, is a way to add the legendary Cher to the story. Disappointing, the star does not appear until the end of the film, more like a cameo appearance.

This leads me to the best parts of the film, which occur during the final thirty minutes. As Sophie’s grand hotel reopening party comes to fruition (a devastating storm thrown into the story is purely for dramatic effect), all details fall into place in magical form.

Hundreds of party guests show up, Donna’s beaus reunite, and the aforementioned absentee grandmother (Ruby) makes a grand entrance via helicopter (in stiletto heels naturally). In this way, the grand finale is superior to the rest of the film.

Cher, still looking gorgeous at age seventy-two, is the pure highlight of the film and it kicks into high gear when she appears. Considering all of the hype and press surrounding a film reunion between Cher and Meryl Streep- they starred together in 1983’s Silkwood- it should come as no real surprise that Streep’s deceased Donna makes an appearance.

The two best scenes come at the end of Mamma Mia! Here We Go Again! As much as the lavish Cher demands the grand finale in terms of glamour and song, it is Streep’s touching duet with Sophie that will bring tears to the viewer’s eyes and capture the emotional element of the film.

As Streep and Seyfried churn out a gorgeous rendition of “My Love, My Life”, the mother/daughter relationship between the actresses is lovely and will fondly remind audiences of the chemistry in the 2008 film.

In regards to Cher, the revelation that Ruby is a long-lost lover of the hotel manager, Fernando (Andy Garcia), is sweet and romantic. Despite limited screen time, the duo shares wonderful on-screen chemistry, so much so that I yearned to know the back story of their relationship.

Do we only know that they were madly in love in 1959? Why did it not work out?  Regardless, Cher’s version of the song “Fernando” is both appropriate and enchanting.

Mamma Mia! Here We Go Again (2018) is a summer film sure to please audiences eager for a fluffy musical.

With bright and cheerful Greek island locales, lavish oceans, and bombastic feel-good pop sensibilities, this film was marketed well and shares enough connection with 2008’s Mamma Mia! to enrapture and please audiences who enjoyed the first version.

2017 Films, Bradley Whitford, Drama, Jesse Plemons, Meryl Streep, Michael Stuhlbarg, Political Drama, Tom Hanks

The Post-2017

Leave a comment

The Post-2017

Director-Steven Spielberg

Starring Meryl Streep, Tom Hanks

Scott’s Review #715

Reviewed January 15, 2018

Grade: A-

Amid the current political upheaval occurring during the year 2017 comes a fresh and quite timely film named The Post, created by esteemed director, Steven Spielberg, and starring two of today’s biggest Hollywood film stars- Tom Hanks and Meryl Streep.

The film is a political, historical thriller set during the tumultuous time of 1971, as the controversial Vietnam War raged on, and tells of the bravery of a female newspaper owner (Streep), who risked everything to publish the truth, along with her team of mostly male editors and staff.

The film is an intelligent piece of writing, with a crisp script and quick editing allowing for a believable foray into a different time, when newspapers were hot and rotary telephones, telephone booths, and polyester outfits were all the rage. Spielberg is brilliant at setting just the right mood and tone to transport the audience back to 1971- on the eve of the enormous Watergate scandal.

While all of the elements are in play, and the truthful story is important, the film is very good, but not quite brilliant- falling just shy of that bombastic one or two scenes that would land it over the top.

The Post begins in the jungles of Vietnam in 1965, as military analyst Daniel Ellsberg documents the progress of military activities among the soldiers during battle.

On the journey home, he briefs then-President Lyndon Johnson that the war is hopeless and should be stopped. As history unfortunately shows, the brutal war continued on with thousands of lives lost.

The film then continues on a journey of the uncovering of top-secret Pentagon papers documenting the White House’s knowledge of the useless nature of the war, but each administration chose to continue with the bleeding to avoid the United States being “humiliated”.

Streep gives her best performance in years as Katharine Graham, Washington Post newspaper heiress, a woman who struggles to be taken seriously in a man’s world- especially given the time period- many men were uncomfortable taking direction from a woman.

Streep infuses the perfect amount of emotion, insecurity, and charm into the role. Despite her wealth and her control, she is frequently overruled by the all-male board of directors, so much so that she often doubts her confidence.

Hanks, however, underwhelms as gruff editor in chief of the Post, Ben Bradlee. Given the enormous talents of the actor, I was expecting a meatier performance, which does not materialize. I also anticipated an equal balance of Hanks and Streep, but the film belongs to Streep.

Perhaps because Hanks (the ultimate nice guy) portrays Bradlee as a tough, yet family man, the performance does not quite work.

Also, the chemistry between Hanks and Streep is not the specialty of the film.

Evident is the correlation between 1971’s President Nixon and 2017’s President Trump- both administrations shrouded in controversy.

A neat trick Spielberg creates is to only show Nixon in shadows, wildly gesturing and threatening, similar to Trump’s mannerisms- this is no accident. The entire work of The Post seems a big call-out by Spielberg, a devout liberal, to the Trump administration.

This comparison of past and present makes The Post incredibly timely and topical for 2017.

Clever is the intriguing ending- as the Watergate scandal begins with a security guard catching intruders at the complex, Spielberg seems to be saying “watch out Trump!”

In 2017, the current state of the media versus the White House has never held more controversy, disdain, and even hatred as the “truth” is often tough to come by or even to distinguish.

“Fake news” is now a thing and Twitter rants are now a daily occurrence, making the “truth” a precious commodity.

For this reason alone, The Post must be a film to celebrate and model ourselves after- how timely indeed.

Oscar Nominations: Best Picture, Best Actress-Meryl Streep

2016 Films, Biography, Drama, Hugh Grant, Meryl Streep, Rebecca Ferguson, Simon Helberg, Stephen Frears

Florence Foster Jenkins-2016

Leave a comment

Florence Foster Jenkins-2016

Director Stephen Frears

Starring Meryl Streep, Hugh Grant

Scott’s Review #613

Reviewed January 30, 2017

Grade: B

Director Stephen Frears loves to direct films starring vehicles for mature actresses. Judi Dench, Helen Mirren, and Meryl Streep have benefited vastly from his direction (all received Oscar nominations).

In Florence Foster Jenkins (2016), Frears crafts a warm-hearted tale about a famous real-life opera singer, the title character of whom is played by Meryl Streep.

The film is likable but not up to par with other Frears’ gems, specifically Philomena (2013) or The Queen (2006).

Given the subject matter, the film is too safe for my tastes and should have been darker.

Florence Foster Jenkins was a New York City socialite and heiress who flourished in 1944. She founded the Verdi Club and did a great deal of good for music, specifically opera, which she adored.

Her husband, Bayfield, played by Hugh Grant, nicknames her “Bunny.” He reveres her, but not physically—he resides elsewhere with a girlfriend.

This is due to Bunny being afflicted with long-term syphilis, causing her to be medicated and rendering her bald and unable to engage in sexual relations.

Bunny is a wretched, flat singer; despite her passion for singing, everyone convinces her how wonderful she is because she is so well-regarded in her social circle. Many people are paid off in exchange for their support.

Due to Bunny’s medication, it is assumed that she cannot hear properly, leaving her unaware of how badly she sings. Bunny is now determined to sing at Carnegie Hall, and Bayfield must scramble to make sure no critics are anywhere in sight for the big show, saving his wife from humiliation.

Any film starring Meryl Streep is assured to be fantastic from an acting standpoint, and, per usual, she does not disappoint. Streep envelopes the role of Bunny, giving her charm and a vulnerability that only Streep can do.

Although the character knows what she wants and is stubborn, she is also kind, and we see passion oozing from her pores.

Streep is the highlight and the draw of the film.

Hugh Grant deserves kudos, and I liked the chemistry between the two actors. Although seeking physical relations with another woman may make him appear a cad, Grant also gives Bayfield sensitivity and genuine care for his wife.

They have “an arrangement,” but he hides his girlfriend when Bunny shows up unexpectedly, not wanting Bunny to be embarrassed.

Grant’s and Streep’s scenes together are tender and believable.

Like Bunny’s pianist, McMoon, Simon Helberg also positively influences the film. Hired to accompany Bunny’s singing, he is initially appalled and bemused but finally understands Bunny, coming to love and respect her for who she is.

The character is clearly gay (the film never comes out and says this), but gay themes are common in Frears films, and it is a non-issue among the principal characters, excellent, but perhaps unrealistic for that time.

A flaw of the film is the lack of any purely great moments. I suppose the climax at Carnegie Hall should have been it, but I did not wholly buy the entire film.

Even the crowd’s laughter and mocking of Bunny seem to be done in a soft, light way.

Nonetheless, Florence Foster Jenkins (2016) is a decent offering, and Streep is the ultimate selling point.

The costumes are also great.

Oscar Nominations: Best Actress-Meryl Streep, Best Costume Design

2009 Films, Amy Adams, Biography, Chris Messina, Comedy, Dan Aykroyd, Drama, Jane Lynch, Mary Kay Place, Meryl Streep, Nora Ephron, Stanley Tucci

Julie & Julia-2009

Leave a comment

Julie & Julia-2009

Director Nora Ephron

Starring Meryl Streep, Amy Adams

Scott’s Review #588

Reviewed January 7, 2017

Grade: A-

Julie & Julia (2009) is a darling film about cooking that centers and centers on the legendary chef Julia Child. It is for the foodie or culinary geek in all of us.

The film is lighthearted and will ruffle no feathers, but it is a delicious well-told treat.

The film tells of the life of Julia Child (Meryl Streep), at one time an aspiring chef, contrasted with the life of a young New Yorker, blogger Julie Powell (Amy Adams), who is determined to cook all five hundred twenty-four recipes in Child’s famous cookbook, Mastering the Art of French Cooking, within one year.

The film, of course, would not be half as good without the amazing talents of Streep, who portrays Julia Child herself. All of Julia Child’s personality characteristics are portrayed exceptionally well by Streep.

Her laugh, voice, and zest for life, are all perfect. Of course, since Streep is not nearly as tall a woman as Child was, liberties had to be taken by way of camera trickery.

Regardless of Streep’s performance, props for a nice performance by Adams, too.

Julie & Julia (2009) is a cute, charming, light, fun movie. I thoroughly recommend it.

Oscar Nominations: Best Actress-Meryl Streep

2012 Films, Comedy, David Frankel, Drama, Elisabeth Shue, Jean Smart, Marin Ireland, Meryl Streep, Romantic Comedy, Romantic Drama, Steve Carell, Tommy Lee Jones

Hope Springs-2012

Leave a comment

Hope Springs-2012

Director David Frankel

Starring Meryl Streep, Tommy Lee Jones

Scott’s Review #434

70230548

Reviewed June 30, 2016

Grade: B

Hope Springs (2012) is a cute, lighthearted romantic comedy-drama with enormous talent (it is tough to go wrong with heavyweights like Meryl Streep and Tommy Lee Jones).

The story tells of a middle-aged, married couple who reach the point of boredom in their long marriage. They decide to go away on a retreat to repair their marriage and add some spark.

That’s the movie in a nutshell.

There are no surprises to speak of and I expected a bit more from this film given the talent involved. It has safely written all over it, and while nice, it could have been much more.

What’s the reason for the conflict? They suddenly reach a point of boredom for no reason.

Props to Steve Carell for an against-type performance.

Hope Springs (2012) has great acting all around, but too safe of a story.

2015 Films, Ben Whishaw, Brendan Gleeson, British, Carey Mulligan, Drama, Helena Bonham Carter, Meryl Streep, Sarah Gavron

Suffragette-2015

Leave a comment

Suffragette-2015

Director Sarah Gavron

Starring Carey Mulligan, Helena Bonham Carter

Scott’s Review #291

80046819

Reviewed December 1, 2015

Grade: A-

Led by an excellent performance by Carey Mulligan, Suffragette (2015) is a British film that tells the true story of the fight for women’s suffragette, as a team of women fought endlessly to obtain their right to vote, a vote that today most (men and women) take for granted.

Several characters are real-life portrayals, however, Mulligan’s central character Maud Watts is fictional. She is assumed to be a hybrid of other real-life characters.

Perfectly shot and giving a fantastic impression of life in England in 1912, the film centers around a bevy of working-class women- many of whom work endless and thankless hours in a sewing factory, working for and forced to tolerate a vicious, unkind man.

Their lives are bleak.

A women’s movement has developed, led by the mysterious Emmeline Pankhurst (Meryl Streep) and Edith Ellyn (Helena Bonham Carter), both financially successful, but very passionate women, spearheading the “women’s movement”.

The main character is Maud. The film is told from her perspective.

She is a hard-working laundress in her early twenties, married to her husband, Sonny, and with a young son. Plain, yet pretty, the audience knows this is all her life will ever be.

She has worked at the same sewing shop since a young age and has been sexually abused by her boss for years. While delivering a package, she witnesses a co-worker smashing a window protesting the women’s movement.

Initially reluctant to join the movement, Maud realizes the importance and loses her family and job because of her devotion to the cause.

When women were finally granted the right to vote in England in 1928, sixteen years after the movement began,  this took a brave group of women who risked (and lost) their families, and jobs and were imprisoned, and in one heartbreaking scene, loss of one’s life, all in powerful devotion to what they felt was right and just, despite numerous powerful figures beating them down.

How sad to think this happened.

The film accurately portrays the might and courage that the women possessed.

One of two of the most powerful scenes in the film is as follows and belongs to Mulligan. Left by her husband and community and having been imprisoned more than once, Sonny decides to give their son away to an affluent couple. The boy is ripped from Maud’s arms and we realize she will likely never see the boy again.

It is tragic and painful to watch and Mulligan nails it from an acting standpoint. I have always admired Carey Mulligan, she chooses wonderful and challenging parts, never succumbing to mainstream mediocrity.

Think portrayals in Shame (2011), Never Let Me Go (2010), and An Education (2009).

The second powerful scene comes at the end of the film. When a character sacrifices her life (a real-life person, mind you) at the Epsom Derby where King George V is present, simply so that the women’s movement can get major exposure by running onto the track and wielding a sign, she is brutally trampled to death.

Subsequently, a funeral parade results, finally leading the masses to take notice and realize how important an issue this was.

The filmmakers of Suffragette wisely dedicated real-life footage of the parade that occurred at the time.

An important film with a message, Suffragette (2015) is beautifully shot and led by bravura acting and a true, real-life historical story, to be appreciated for its honesty.

2014 Films, Anna Kendrick, Billy Magnussen, Chris Pine, Christine Baranski, Disney, Emily Blunt, Fantasy, James Corden, Jon Bernthal, Meryl Streep, Musical, Rob Marshall, Tracey Ullman

Into the Woods-2014

Leave a comment

Into the Woods-2014

Director Rob Marshall

Starring Emily Blunt, Meryl Streep

Scott’s Review #241

70305948

Reviewed May 8, 2015

Grade: B

Based on the stage production of the same name, Into the Woods (2014) is a feature-length Disney film that incorporates several different fairy tales into the main story.

The film is a fantasy musical with numerous songs performed by the cast, featuring a large ensemble of seasoned actors.

The classic fairy tales are modern versions of Little Red Riding Hood, Rapunzel, Jack and the Beanstalk, and Cinderella.

The action mainly revolves around a baker and his wife (James Cordon and Emily Blunt) who are sad and lonely because they cannot conceive a child due to a long-ago curse put upon the baker’s family by a witch- played by Meryl Streep.

Circumstances surrounding the baker’s father caused the once beautiful witch to be turned ugly. The witch offers a bargain to the baker and his wife- if they bring her four items (a white cow, a red cape, yellow hair, and a gold slipper) for a special potion, she will lift the curse, enabling them to conceive a child and live happily ever after.

This prompts the couple into the dark forest to obtain the requested items. From this point, the couple intersects with other characters from the fairy tales as they all question various aspects of their lives.

There are subsequent stories- the witch is Rapunzel’s adoptive mother and keeps her locked in a tower to prevent her from being hurt by the world.

Cinderella (Anna Kendrick) escapes her taunting stepsisters and attends a ball only to flee when noticed by the handsome prince (Chris Pine).

Jack attempts to sell beans to provide food for his mother- and Little Red Riding Hood brings sweets to her Grandmother but is confronted by the Big, Bad, Wolf (Johnny Depp), a strange Woman Giant is stomping through the forest searching for Jack.

All these stories revolve around the baker and his wife’s efforts to retrieve the witch’s requests.

The production and art direction in the film is great. I love the dark, gloomy forest, which translates so well on the screen and gives the magical effect of a mysterious, secret forest.

I enjoyed the songs quite a bit- especially the catchy “Into the Woods”. However, some of the songs are quite one-dimensional and bland and not discernible from each other, let alone memorable.

The duet of the Prince’s, “Agony” is silly and useless to the plot, with gyrations, and dance moves.

Meryl Streep- dynamic in anything she appears in again steals the show as the vile witch turns beautiful at the end. She has a fantastic solo number mid-story, entitled “Stay with Me”.

One drawback I found with the film is, at times it drags a bit and I was not sold on the casting of Anna Kendrick as Cinderella.  Something about her performance was lacking, perhaps she was not as sympathetic or convincing as another actress might have been.

Also, I would have enjoyed seeing Johnny Depp as the Wolf be more prominently featured and a larger role for the Woman Giant. As integral as she is to the plot, it was tough to get a clear glimpse of her face let alone anything more substantial.

An entertaining feast of fairy tales immersed in one film, Into the Woods (2014) has some compelling moments but lost opportunities that bring it far from the reaches of a masterpiece level.

A solid film, but not a great film.

Oscar Nominations: Best Supporting Actress-Meryl Streep, Best Production Design, Best Costume Design

2013 Films, Abigail Breslin, Benedict Cumberbatch, Chris Cooper, Dermot Mulroney, Drama, Ewan McGregor, George Clooney, John Wells, Julia Roberts, Julianne Nicholson, Juliette Lewis, Margo Martindale, Meryl Streep, Sam Shepard

August: Osage County-2013

Leave a comment

August: Osage County-2013

Director John Wells

Starring Meryl Streep, Julia Roberts

Scott’s Review #32

70276334

Reviewed June 17, 2014

Grade: B+

Based on the play of the same name, August: Osage County (2013) is a family drama led by the incomparable Meryl Streep.

The family reunites after the patriarch disappears and drama and sniping ensue in no time.

The setting of stifling hot Oklahoma is effective and lends a smothering, suffocating, aspect to the film, much like many of the characters.

It’s a bleak, depressing film, and reminded me of Who’s Afraid of Virginia Woolf-1966, or A Streetcar Named Desire-1951 in tone.

This film has exceptional acting all around, especially Streep and Julia Roberts, as well as Chris Cooper and Margo Martindale.

It’s a raw, angry movie, and the intensity builds throughout.

Oscar Nominations: Best Actress-Meryl Streep, Best Supporting Actress-Julia Roberts