Category Archives: James Franco

127 Hours-2010

127 Hours-2010

Director Danny Boyle

Starring James Franco, Kate Mara

Scott’s Review #967

Reviewed December 13, 2019

Grade: A

A biography of epic proportions, 127 Hours (2010) provides a stunning account of one man’s journey and near-tragic fate. If not for his resolve and determination this would surely have been the result.

Director, Danny Boyle casts the charismatic James Franco in the role of the hiker who was forced to amputate his arm after becoming pinned by a rock. The effective title gives a non-stop active feel, a five-day in-life production if you will, and a pulsating ninety minutes of crafty filmmaking.

The film starts a cheery story of an excited mountaineer, Aron Ralston, (Franco) who prepares to embark on a long-awaited adventure.

The time is April 2003.

His goal is to enjoy a few days of hiking, reveling in the freedom the fresh Utah air offers him. Somewhat of a daredevil, he happily anticipates adventure as he begins his journey.

He meets two attractive young women, Kristi (Kate Mara) and Megan (Amber Tamblyn) and the trio swims in an underground pool before going their separate ways.

Had 127 Hours been a horror film there would be a sense of suspicion or dread surrounding the female hikers, but the scene is enchanting and pure innocence.

Once again on his own, Aron suddenly slips and falls, knocking over a boulder that crushes his right hand and wrist against the wall. He calls for help but realizes that he is alone. Aron begins recording a video diary and reflects on his past, for example forgetting to leave a note of his whereabouts while becoming more and more desperate to escape.

Most of 127 Hours is set within a state of claustrophobic peril in the tiny walls of the rocks that Ralston is trapped between. The film quickly becomes an emotional and personal experience as the camera is focused on Franco, mostly in the close-up form.

At times the shots are too close for comfort, but this is a necessary way for the viewer to experience events the way that Aron did, the style is tremendously effective.

At the risk of diminishing the amazing direction, editing, and cinematography offered, the film belongs to Franco.

As Aron faces peril, growing frantic with each passing hour, but trying to remain calm and focused, Franco does a tremendous job of balancing and revealing the proper emotions. He whimsically recounts memories while forbidding himself to lose sight of escape, rationing what little food and water he has.

The gruesome amputation scene is gory and powerful and may necessitate closing one’s eyes.

The remainder of the elements come together perfectly. The editing, cinematography, and pacing of the story are all spot-on. The musical soundtrack is key to the pacing of the film. At first energetic and excitable, the music slowly becomes darker and more subdued, while at the end it is low-key.

Aron is thankful to simply be alive as he walks a lonely walk to help as the film concludes.

Since the real-life figure is still very much alive, the historical accuracy of the experience is preserved, as confirmed by the hero. He only showed Kristi and Megan basic climbing moves and they never swam together, but the remainder is a brilliant documentary-style film experience.

The real Ralston himself, along with his wife and son make cameo appearances at the end of the film, providing good authenticity.

127 Hours (2010) scores big, creating an experience that is breathtaking, disturbing, and real. Inspiration will be given to each viewer and a lesson in endurance and perseverance will resonate in their own life.

The film deservedly received Oscar nominations for Best Picture, Best Actor, Best Adapted Screenplay, Best Original Score, Best Original Song, and Best Film Editing, but sadly coming up empty-handed.

Oscar Nominations: Best Picture, Best Actor-James Franco, Best Adapted Screenplay, Best Original Score, Best Original Song-“If I Rise”, Best Film Editing

Independent Spirit Award Nominations: 1 win-Best Feature, Best Director-Danny Boyle, Best Male Lead-James Franco (won)

The Dead Girl-2006

The Dead Girl-2006

Director Karen Moncrieff

Starring Brittany Murphy, Toni Collette

Scott’s Review #794

Reviewed July 24, 2018

Grade: A

The Dead Girl (2006) is a unique independent drama with a moody, gloomy underbelly, and is quite the downer, however is also a masterpiece.

Reminiscent of David Lynch’s Mulholland Drive (2001), the remote and dark setting perfectly counter-balances the traditional image of sunny California as a young woman’s murder is discovered.

Writer and director, Karen Moncrieff spins a delicious tale in the mysterious and sinister.

Moncrieff, (a former daytime television actress), wisely carves the film into five chapters- each focusing on a different character. The clever approach, since at first it seems as if the stories are independent of each other, is all intertwined.

The mystery of who the woman is, why she was killed, and other major questions come into play as the chapters unfold. To twist the drama even further, one of the chapters is revealed to be a complete red herring.

The five chapters are each compelling in their way.

Chapter one focuses on Arden (Toni Collette) and her relationship with her abusive mother- deliciously played by Piper Laurie. Arden has a love interest in Rudy (Giovanni Ribisi), who she confides in when she discovers the “Dead Girl”.

The film then moves to various other chapters entitled “The Sister”, “The Wife”, “The Mother”, and finally “The Dead Girl”, which is from the perspective of the murder victim when final clues are revealed.

The last chapter is the best and most heartbreaking in my opinion.

The casting is just wonderful as a myriad of top talents appear in the film. With low-budget independent films, especially before 2006, finding big stars willing to accept little pay was quite difficult.

Moncrieff, however, scores big with the actors cast in her film.

Mainly an all-female cast, talents like Collette, Laurie, Mary Beth Hurt, Brittany Murphy, and Marcia Gay Harden round out the all-star cast. Names like these could fill up a Hollywood marquee let alone a small indie like The Dead Girl.

Speaking of Murphy, this may be the very best role of her career. Sadly, meeting death shortly after this film, she gives a mesmerizing performance in the title role- also known as Krista.

With heavy, gothic-style makeup, her character is vulnerable, having had a difficult childhood and struggling to send an enormous teddy bear to her daughter on her birthday.

Tragically, events do not go as planned for Krista, but what a bravura performance by Murphy.

The overall tone of the film is a great achievement and key to its success.  The film is small and does not need explosions, car chases, or police banter to achieve the message it relays.

The Dead Girl is a quiet film about struggles, decisions, and wounded characters dealing with the life that they have been given the best they can.

The mysterious identities of the characters and the loneliness and lack of identity of some of the characters make me think Moncrieff was at least somewhat inspired by Lynch’s Mulholland Drive.

Not quite as oddball as the former, but more of a downer, The Dead Girl shows elements by way of unusual characters and a melancholy vibe.

The latter focuses more on a serial killer subject matter.

Being a huge proponent of the genre of independent film (think modern 1970s films with directors who have a clear vision), The Dead Girl is an enormous achievement.

Despite a handful of Independent Spirit Award nominations, I still feel the film is under-appreciated and a decade later is largely forgotten, if anyone knew about it, to begin with.

Let’s hope that enough young, aspiring filmmakers were inspired by Moncrieff and what she created with The Dead Girl (2006).

Independent Spirit Award Nominations: Best Feature, Best Director-Karen Moncrieff, Best Supporting Female-Mary Beth Hurt

The Disaster Artist-2017

The Disaster Artist-2017

Director-James Franco

Starring-James Franco, Dave Franco

Scott’s Review #781

Reviewed July 2, 2018

Grade: B

The Disaster Artist (2017) is a biography-comedy that I found to be middle of the road to mostly good if I’m judging in overall terms- most I liked with a little criticism.

Due to the many accolades, I confess to having anticipated a bit more from the finished product and hardly found it any sort of masterpiece.

Still, I was both impressed and unimpressed by the performance of James Franco in the lead role, awed at the emergence of the actor as a director, and the Los Angeles setting is great.

At times the film teeters almost into bad slapstick or shtick, and a bit silly, and as much as I respect his performance, this criticism is directed at Franco. Nobody can deny his acting talent if he chooses the right films.

His attempt at making his character peculiar is noticeable within seconds so it seems Franco also makes him a bit of a goof and I was not able to take the character seriously all of the time.

And the weird accent threw me.

This film is based on the non-fiction book called The Disaster Artist. The work chronicles the making of 2003’s The Room, not to be confused with the 2015 film, Room. The Room was considered amateurish and one of the worst movies to ever have been made.

Told repeatedly that his acting stinks, oddball Tommie Wiseau (James Franco), a European-American aspiring actor decide to screw Hollywood and produce, direct, and star in his own film.

Mysteriously, Wiseau has an endless amount of bank funds, which he uses towards the film. Roommate and friend, Greg Sestero (Dave Franco), stars in the film and thus gets his big break. The duo, and various others, pitch in to create the project, which suffers from a level of ineptness on the part of Wiseau.

The Los Angeles setting really resonates with me as did the recurring theme of struggle within the Hollywood scene. These are major pluses to the film as a whole.

Los Angeles can appear to be a sunny and glamorous town but always contains a gloomy dark underbelly beneath the shiny exterior.

The film realistically depicts struggle and success- from the central characters to the supporting players making the film resemble an ensemble.

Thousands struggle daily for a break with no respect or appreciation given and The Disaster Artist scores a win focusing on this.

When Tommie brazenly approaches a powerful producer in a restaurant, he is unceremoniously dismissed for having no talent and told he will never get anywhere. In addition to Tommie, several actors associated with the film struggle.

In a wonderful scene, an older actress states that being on a bad movie set beats any other job by miles. The message here is that people in Hollywood are there because they truly love it.

The sweet, empowering theme of friendship and empowerment are also to be celebrated, nice especially given the cut-throat backdrop. Tommie and Greg are best friends and have each other’s backs through thick and thin. Neither gives up on the other, even during the tortuous initial audience reaction to The Room premiere.

Could the film have been slightly darker? Yes, certainly, as very few scenes of drug destruction or the porn that many hopeful talents turn to are mentioned. But the film is not really about that, it’s an enchanting tale of hope and fun.

Interesting to note and not evident to me while watching the film is that brothers James and Dave Franco play opposite one another. While there is somewhat of a physical resemblance, the chemistry works between the two actors as best friends.

James delivers a worthy portrayal of an unusual character with a strange dialect and long, stringy brown hair, and seemingly cross-eyed. The role is comedic and perfectly suited for an unusual actor such as Franco- he must have had a ball with the part.

Movies about movie-making always fascinate me. What goes on behind the scenes?

The Disaster Artist (2017) provides enough good film meat to make it an overall good experience. Staying true to some fine Hollywood history- the famous James Dean is referenced and the spot where he died even visited- nice touch! Franco is both good and disappointing in the main role.

All-in-all, for those who enjoy film making, Hollywood, or L.A. set films, give this one a chance.

Oscar Nominations: Best Adapted Screenplay

Independent Spirit Award Nominations: Best Male Lead-James Franco

Goat-2016

Goat-2016

Director Andrew Neel

Starring Ben Schnetzer, Nick Jonas

Scott’s Review #762

Reviewed May 23, 2018

Grade: D

Goat (2016) is a film that made me angry for one hour and forty minutes. I deride it completely.

Incorporating outrageous and unnecessary scenes for no other reason than to offend, the film fails to achieve either a lesson learned or any central point.

I understand what the filmmakers were going for by portraying fraternities as evil and their members as monsters. Goat never provided logic, much character development, or any good intentions.

I was left disturbed by what I had just seen.

College student Brad Land (Ben Schnetzer) is viciously attacked by two peers following a party one summer night. As the police search for the assailants, Brad begins the fall semester at a college attended by his older brother Brett (Nick Jonas).

There, he decides to pledge a fraternity during “Hell week,” enduring one humiliation and degradation after another. When a fellow pledge dies following the fraternity’s abuse, someone rats the fraternity out, with Brad as the likely suspect.

Brad is an interesting study. The protagonist makes his first mistake by giving ominous-looking strangers a lift home. At this point, we feel sympathy for the character and should root for him throughout the film, but I didn’t.

As nasty as the fraternity brothers are, it is not until nearly the end that Brad ever stands up to any of them, and he oddly refuses to point the finger at his assailant despite being right in the police lineup.

I found the character all over the place and never knew his motivations.

Most other characters (including the victimized pledges) have little rooting value and are primarily one-dimensional “frat boys” written poorly.

The writers of the script do their best to make fraternity brothers look awful- they beat, berate, humiliate, and degrade not only the pledges, but they barely treat females or animals any better.

This isn’t comforting to witness since there is little point. The humiliation scenes continue as if we are watching the same scene repeatedly.

Ludicrous scenes of the guys drinking, acting belligerent, using anti-LGBT slurs, and taunting each other commenced almost from the get-go.

A ridiculous cameo by James Franco goes nowhere and makes little sense other than his character being a former frat boy the current members looked up to. If I had a nickel for every “bro,” “dude,” or “man” used in the film to show machismo, I’d be a rich man.

In the final segment, the film makes a feeble effort to humanize Brett, who is hot and cold towards his brother all along (this is never explained).

They also write a few of the frat boys as feeling sorry for the sudden heart attack suffered by one of the pledges, but this only fueled me with rage as unknown was whether they were genuine or wanted to save their asses (they caused his death!).

My vote goes for the latter.

The only prop I will give to Goat is that it is not a middling glossy Hollywood affair and goes for the jugular in its intensity and brutality.

But the point I thought the film was trying to make (that of a thought-provoking look at the problem of fraternities) only made me hate fraternities and develop a negative view of them.

From the despicable scenes where the frat feeds a poor goat chocolate laxatives and forces a blindfolded pledge to eat what’s thought to be excrement to the concussion they give a pledge before he succumbs to a heart attack, the film is not an easy watch.

Too many scenes feel overly hammered home and redundant, and the conclusion is unsatisfying. We are left with Brett and Brad gazing out at the spot where Brad was attacked, and this scene does nothing to wrap up the film.

From the onset, I squirmed uncomfortably during Goat and never felt connected to the film or any of the characters.

Perhaps Goat (2016) would have succeeded or appreciated more with more development and purpose, but the film failed me.

Milk-2008

Milk-2008

Director Gus Van Sant

Starring Sean Penn, Josh Brolin

Scott’s Review #744

Reviewed April 18, 2018

Grade: A

Milk is a 2008 film that successfully teaches its viewers both a valuable history lesson about the introduction of gay rights into the United States culture, as well as to the prolific leader associated with this, Harvey Milk.

The film belongs to Sean Penn, who portrays Milk, but is also a fantastic biopic and learned experience appreciating his wonderful journey through the 1970s- mainly in San Francisco and New York City.

Moreover, Milk portrays a gay character not played for laughs as many films do but portrayed as a hero.

Harvey Milk was the first openly gay person ever to be elected to any political office, winning a seat on the San Francisco Board of Supervisors in 1977.

The film, however, opens in 1978, after a stunning announcement of Harvey Milk’s assassination along with the Mayor of the city, which was met with much heartbreak.

The film then returns to 1970 as we meet Penn as Milk and follow his decade-long battles and prosperity of changing the gay culture.

Having seen actual footage of Harvey Milk, Penn perfects the mannerisms and the speech patterns of Milk giving him an immediate passionate and likable persona. The political figure had such a whimsical and innocent style all his own that Penn perfectly captures.

His determination for honesty and fairness is admirable and inspiring and Milk seems like he was an innately good person.

Particularly heartbreaking is Penn’s facial reactions during his assassination scene-a scene that director Gus Van Sant brilliantly shoots as a follow-up to a joyous scene when Proposition 6 is defeated.

As a troubled colleague, Dan White (Brolin), (rumored to be himself closeted and struggling with self-identity), fires several shots into Harvey at City Hall, the scene is filmed in slow motion for additional dramatic effect and poignancy.

The look of pain and sadness on Milk’s face will undoubtedly bring tears to even the most hard-hearted viewer.

The film shows the many close relationships that Milk formed throughout the 1970s, including his steady lover Scott Smith, played by James Franco. The two actors share solid chemistry as they are both fun-loving and driven in what they hope to achieve.

Sadly, Milk’s drive eventually outweighs Smith’s as they ultimately drift apart, but retain a special bond. Emile Hirsch is nearly unrecognizable as Cleve Jones, a young man who Harvey inspires and mentors throughout the pivotal decade.

A minute criticism noticed while watching Milk is that, except for Penn, many of the supporting characters (Hirsch, Franco, and especially Alison Pill) seem to be “dressed up” in 1970s costumes, giving a forced rather than authentic feel.

The costume designers seem intent on making them look so realistic that it backfires and looks more like actors made up to look like they are from the 1970s.

Penn, however, looks and acts spot-on and stands out from the rest of the cast by miles.

An inspiring biography of a legendary political figure, Harvey Milk, led by a fine lead actor (Penn), deserving of the Best Actor Oscar he was awarded, Milk is an astounding story of both triumph and tragedy.

The film successfully portrays a time when a class of people was not treated fairly and equal rights were barely a possibility and the uprising that occurred in large part due to one man and his followers.

Milk (2008) is a wonderful testament to a time gone by and the accomplishments achieved since then- a truly inspiring and tragic message.

Oscar Nominations: 2 wins-Best Picture, Best Director-Gus Van Sant, Best Actor-Sean Penn (won), Best Supporting Actor-Josh Brolin, Best Original Screenplay (won), Best Original Score, Best Costume Design, Best Film Editing

Independent Spirit Award Nominations: 2 wins-Best Male Lead-Sean Penn, Best Supporting Male-James Franco (won), Best First Screenplay (won), Best Cinematography

Why Him?-2016

Why Him? -2016

Director John Hamburg

Starring John Franco, Bryan Cranston

Scott’s Review #704

Reviewed December 6, 2017

Grade: D

Why Him? (2016) is epic film drivel starring quite capable actors in a mish-mash of dull, predictable stories, obnoxious characters, and a need to attempt to go raunchier and raunchier for a cheap laugh.

Why there is a market for films like this is beyond me as no thinking is required (maybe the film will please those fans!), but the film scores slightly higher than a solid “F” based solely on a few chuckles uttered thanks to the only dim bright spots in this mess, Bryan Cranston and Megan Mullally.

A story told dozens of times before in “slapstick comedy” fare, the premise is tired beyond belief. A good girl meets a bad boy, they fall head over heels in love and must deal with the aftermath of her parent’s meeting, and hating the bad boy.

The main gimmick is the rivalry between boyfriend and girlfriend’s father, like an unfunny Meet the Parents (2000).  A silly and uninteresting plot point about each character’s business success or lack thereof is mixed in as if anyone cares.

As with all films of this ilk, the story is wrapped up in a neat, tidy little bow by the time the credits roll, and all characters live happily ever after in perfect harmony.

In one of his most disappointing roles, James Franco plays Laird Mayhew, the wealthy, eccentric, thirty-something CEO of an upstart video game company.

He is foul-mouthed and comically speaks his mind or absentmindedly shows his ass on a Skype chat with his girlfriend Stephanie (Zoey Deutch) while her parents are linked to the chat at a birthday party.

Stephanie, a college student and girlfriend of Laird, invites her parents, Ned and Barb (Cranston and Mullally), along with their fifteen-year-old Scotty, for the Christmas holidays.

Predictably, Stephanie’s parents are appalled by Laird and want her to have nothing to do with him. When Stephanie arranges for Ned, Barb, and Scotty to stay at Laird’s spacious home, the antics take off as feuds and misunderstandings erupt.

The main problem with Why Him? is that director John Hamburg (famous for mainstream comedies such as Along Came Polly, 2004, and I Love You, Man, 2009) seems determined to push the raunchy comedy elements further with this idiotic film.

He makes Laird as obnoxious and crass as possible yet tries to make the character more “likable” by giving him a clueless quality; therefore, he is not mean-spirited and should be beloved by the audience.

The character does not work. Franco has played terrific roles- specifically in 127 Hours (2010) and  Howl (2010). As a fan of the talented actor, I expected more from him, but alas, some performances are only as good as the written material.

If there is a bright spot worth mentioning, it is with the casting of Cranston and Mullally.

Two actors are undeniably good at physical comedy. They do as much as they can with poorly written, stock-type roles. Cranston’s Ned, a middle-class small business owner from Grand Rapids, Michigan, is both envious and resentful of Laird, perhaps admiring the young man’s business savvy and regretting not being as successful.

Barb is a one-note, ditzy yet lovable wife, a role made slightly better by Mullally’s goofy portrayal. In one of the best scenes, Barb smokes pot and becomes a mess in her bedroom.

The following day, Ned is trapped on the toilet and has an embarrassing experience with Laird’s best friend, Gustav. While these scenes are juvenile, they are made better by the funny actors.

Suffering greatly from a tired and overused storyline that falls flat, unlikable, and dull characters, the film offers nothing of substance or worth.

Why Him? (2016) is entirely plot-driven with no character development or well-written characters.

The film is a complete waste of time. It results from a studio hoping to achieve box office success by churning out a poor comedy with wasted talent that will please only those audiences not expecting much from their films.

Howl-2010

Howl-2010

Director Rob Epstein, Jeffrey Friedman

Starring James Franco

Scott’s Review #491

untitled

Reviewed October 9, 2016

Grade: B+

Howl (2010) is a compelling courtroom drama biopic starring James Franco who is wonderfully cast.

This role, despite being in a small film with little recognition, cements Franco’s talents as an edgy actor who is willing to tackle challenging work rather than sticking to mainstream safe fare.

Franco has become one of my favorite young actors. He is so diverse and believable in any role he takes on.

The story is about 1950s poet Allen Ginsberg and his trial to determine whether his poems were art or should be banned for being indecent.

Much of the action transpires inside the courtroom and the film wisely mixes animation (in scenes of Ginsberg reading his poetry) in between traditional scenes.

The film allows the viewer to get to know the characteristics of Ginsberg. He was troubled (his sexuality, delusions, stints in a mental hospital), for sure, but also had a true, authentic love of writing and poetry, which is inspiring in an age of digital technology.

Sometimes good old-fashioned words are the truest art.

Howl (2010) is an interesting little film.

Date Night-2010

Date Night-2010

Director Shawn Levy

Starring Steve Carell, Tina Fey, Mark Wahlberg

Scott’s Review #481

70121501

Reviewed September 17, 2016

Grade: D+

Date Night is a perfect example of mediocrity in modern filmmaking.

We have two current comedic actors here- Steve Carrell and Tina Fey- circa 2010- at the top of their game.

The filmmaker’s idea is to pair these two and make an appealing romantic comedy appealing to the masses.

The main issue with this film is that the result is generic and quite an average offering.

And the entire film is incredibly plot-driven with no character development to speak of. If I am being too harsh, admittedly there is rather nice chemistry between the two leads, but it is wasted because of sloppy writing.

A couple from the New Jersey burbs, Carrell and Fey portray husband and wife, Phil and Claire Foster. Saddled with two kids and their romance reaching dullsville, Phil decides to take Claire to a ritzy Manhattan restaurant.

When they arrive, they cannot get a table but pretend to be another couple (the Tripplehorns) to obtain their table after the other couple’s no-shows. This leads to a tale of mistaken identity as the Tripplehorns possess a flash drive that a mobster (Ray Liotta) wants.

This then leads to a chase throughout Manhattan to outrun and outwit their pursuers. Wahlberg plays a hunky client of Claire’s, always shirtless, who is meant to threaten Phil and Claire’s marriage.

Several others of the current Hollywood elite- Kristen Wiig, James Franco, Mila Kunis, and Mark Ruffalo, make small and somewhat pointless appearances. Specifically, Franco and Kunis as a stoner-type bickering couple are silly and unnecessary to the story.

Carrell and Fey are quite funny as individuals and as a duo- Date Night, though, does not capitalize on nor showcase their respective talents. The film tries too hard to come up with scenario after scenario of the two on the run and encountering one problematic situation after another.

As the plot of Date Night wears on, I find myself noticing that each situation that occurs is a measure of convenience.

Conveniently, Claire has a client in town (Wahlberg), who is a security expert. They go to him for help and, predictably, his hunkiness bothers Phil and piques Claire’s interest- though of course, we know full well Phil and Claire will end up together- that is how these mainstream films go.

In another scene. Phil and Claire can break into an office building unnoticed, trigger the alarms, conveniently find a needed file, and escape, miraculously all before the police arrive minutes later.

Very plot-driven.

The lead actors in Date Night are appealing and even charming together, but the silly, inane plot makes it unappealing to watch and the slew of stars that somebody decided would be a great addition to a lukewarm film is odd.

The roles written have little bearing on the central plot so it was apparent why they were added.

Date Night (2010) is a film we have seen time and time again with other actors in similar roles.

Oz The Great and Powerful-2013

Oz The Great and Powerful-2013

Director Sam Raimi

Starring James Franco, Mila Kunis

Scott’s Review #433

70243359

Reviewed June 30, 2016

Grade: B

Being a huge fan of the original The Wizard of Oz epic classic in 1939, I was interested in seeing this extension of the original version.

While it has its moments of charm and good old-fashioned adventure, it is ultimately good, but nothing great.

James Franco is fantastic as the Wizard of Oz, the highest point of the film,  and has great charisma in the role. He brings a fun flair and is quite appealing.

The witch characters are okay, but not terribly interesting or deeply explored. Further character depth might have been helpful as I did not notice much-rooting value for either of them.

On a positive note, I loved the first sequence, which was in black and white, true to the original, and the twister scene is impressively done.

The set/art design in this sequence and once the setting was Oz were beautifully done.

Toward the end of the film, though, the story becomes more of a silly fantasy action series that draws away from the heart of the original.

The first half of Oz The Great and Powerful (2013) excels, while the second half disappoints.

Dawn of the Planet of the Apes-2014

Dawn of the Planet of the Apes-2014

Director Matt Reeves

Starring Andy Serkis, Jason Clarke, Gary Oldman

Scott’s Review #232

70300076

Reviewed March 29, 2015

Grade: C+

Dawn of the Planet of the Apes (2014) is a summer blockbuster hit that knocks it out of the park from a visual perspective- it is magnificent to look at with creative sets and realistic images, but the story is mediocre and predictable.

I think the filmmaker’s true intent was to focus on the look of this film, which is a splendid feature. The film is a slightly better-than-average big-screen adventure with more style than substance.

Set in San Francisco, or what was once San Francisco, the film is set in futuristic times. Apes have forged a new civilization after a deadly virus has eliminated 90% of the human population.

The apes are highly intelligent and manage a happy, unified existence. Then, one day, a human is encountered and, scared, shoots one of the apes. This leads to a peaceful resolution between Caesar, leader of the apes, and the humans, to each stay in their respective territories.

However, humans need access to a dam in the Apes area to provide electricity for themselves. Mutual distrust leads to tension, but the civilized apes and humans reach a truce.

Naturally, there is further conflict as sinister humans and apes vow revenge on each other. This leads to a waging war while the peaceful apes and humans strive to work things out.

A further angle of the story is the hunger for power within the ranks of the Apes, reminiscent of Lord of the Flies. The human protagonists, Malcolm and Ellie, played by Jason Clarke and Keri Russell- are a wholesome, decent couple.

Dawn of the Planet of the Apes pales to the original 1968 masterpiece, Planet of the Apes, starring Charlton Heston. To compare the two is unfair since, sadly, this one has nothing to do with the original.

It is simply the same franchise tag.

However, Dawn of the Planet of the Apes is weaker than its predecessor, 2010’s Rise of the Planet of the Apes. We had a charismatic star, James Franco, and an interesting story. The apes are experimented on and their intelligence is a strong angle.

With the sequel, the story is rather one-note and has a machismo, us against them angle, that is not unique.

The main drawback to this film is its limitations. The characters are portrayed as a) the good and sympathetic humans, b) the evil and destructive humans, c) the good and heroic apes, or, d) the evil, bad apes.

Everyone is defined for the audience and there is no ambiguity or complexities within the characters. This is a bit limiting. The evil ape Koba is purely bad and the drunken, gun-happy, humans are bad.

This is not to say that Dawn of the Planet of the Apes is not enjoyable, it is. It’s a fun, entertaining flick. For what it is, there is a somewhat message in the film, that there is a way to find peace and love between different species and types of people.

Hopefully, the audience gets that message.

Dawn of the Planet of the Apes (2014) is a summer blockbuster action/sci-fi flick that many will enjoy, however, it is a plot-driven extravaganza that could have been superior had it contained more layers to the story and more shape to some of the characters.

It is worth seeing as a visual cinema treat, but scarcely more than that.

Oscar Nominations: Best Visual Effects

Lovelace-2013

Lovelace-2013

Director Rob Epstein, Jeffrey Friedman

Starring Amanda Seyfried, Peter Sarsgaard

Scott’s Review #133

70241594

Reviewed July 24, 2014 

Grade: B

Lovelace (2013) is an account of famous 1970’s porn star, Linda Lovelace, and her rise to stardom and inevitable fall from the spotlight, difficult family life, abusive relationships, and her attempt to escape the porn world for good.

The film portrays the story from Lovelace’s point of view based on her tell-all autobiography and spins her in a very sympathetic way.

Whether all of her abuse and struggles that Lovelace claimed are to be believed is up to the viewer.

Lovelace, the film, comes across as similar to Boogie Nights (1997)- even the 1970s soundtrack is eerily alike, but inferior to that masterpiece.

The only character whose past is fully delved into is Linda Lovelace who is the sole focal point; the others are simply an extension of her character.

One major issue I found with the film is the casting of Amanda Seyfried as Linda Lovelace.

Seyfried does not have the plain Jane or girl next door characteristics that the actual Lovelace had. She comes across as soft and gentle, much too much for this particular role.

Conversely, the casting of Sharon Stone and Peter Sarsgaard is excellent as each is dynamic in their respective roles. Stone should have received much more acclaim than she did for her role.

As Lovelace’s mother, she is gritty, steely, and unsympathetic.

The film contains a whos who of Hollywood names involved in small roles.

Another issue is the film seems like a made-for-television movie and considering the subject matter is the porn industry, it seems awfully watered down and not harsh enough.

Lovelace (2013) is entertaining enough to keep one’s interest but is not riveting or in-depth enough to be a major success.