Category Archives: 1995 Films

1995 Films, Crime Thriller, Favorite Film of the Year, Psychological Thriller, Thriller, Top 250 Films

Seven-1995

Leave a comment

Seven-1995

Director David Fincher

Starring Brad Pitt, Morgan Freeman

Top 250 Films #230

Scott’s Review #780

Reviewed June 29, 2018

Grade: A-

Many films containing a similar theme as Seven (1995) have come along over the years- some good, most mediocre.

The mixture of homicidal detectives tracking crazed killers has been done ad nauseam and more often than not, done with either poor writing or a predictable outcome, or both.

Instead of being a run-of-the-mill film, Seven serves as a blueprint for the tautness and unpredictability achievable with a familiar yet compelling concept, provided there is good writing and direction.

The film is incredibly brutal and riveting.

Respected director David Fincher assembles an all-star cast of Hollywood heavies, including Brad Pitt, Morgan Freeman, Kevin Spacey, and Gwyneth Paltrow, all of whom lend their talents to the well-crafted script.

It also raises the talent level to a respectable level, and, as great as the story is, with weaker actors, the stakes would not have been as high, and the film might even have been ruined.

A serial killer is on the loose in Los Angeles- detective duo William Somerset (a very good Freeman) is set to retire and is tasked with finding the killer. He is partnered with David Mills (Pitt), a young, hot-tempered man who has just moved to the city with his wife, Tracy (Paltrow).

Unbeknownst to David, Tracy is pregnant and unsure whether to keep the child- this point factors in heavily as events unfold.

The killer is using the seven deadly sins: greed, gluttony, sloth, lust, pride, envy, and wrath, as his motivation for the creative slayings.

In retrospect, Seven is very similar to the still-to-come Fincher work, 2007’s Zodiac, so much so that both films could be watched in sequence- one being a true story, the other pure fiction.

Both focus on the serial-killer element with a message; each has marvelous psychological intrigue and purpose. There are cat-and-mouse scenes aplenty for fans to enjoy.

At the risk of this point being a total stretch, I’d also argue that 1971’s Dirty Harry influenced Zodiac, Seven, and The Silence of the Lambs (1991).

A heinous killer shrouded in intelligence, danger, and motivation is a commonality of all of the aforementioned films, and numerous studies of each of the killers could be dissected if time permits.

Each killer is calculating and manipulative.

On that note, Kevin Spacey gives a tremendous performance as the cold and villainous John Doe. Clever and inventive, his victims are intended to suffer and suffer greatly.

Some of the kills could be included in the best of the torture-horror franchise, Saw (2004), as they are very twisted and brutal.

A supermodel is disfigured after being given a choice to call for help or overdose on pills, representing pride. A man is forced to consume food until his stomach ruptures, representing gluttony.

Spacey portrays his role as calm, cool, and collected, eliciting a terrifying response from audiences, especially as he toys with the detectives.

Still coming into his own as an actor in 1995, Pitt proves he can almost measure up (though not quite) with big-boy acting talents Spacey and Freeman.

Playing an ambitious man eager to prove himself in “the big city” with his pretty wife in tow, Pitt’s David is wholesome and family-oriented, yet has an edge.

All around the likable hero, Pitt is perfectly cast in the role and a large part of the film’s success.

The frightening final sequence still resonates with me after all of these years since Seven was released. In a classic standoff between Doe and the detectives, as is typical in these films, the climax is twisted, psychological, and gruesome.

I did not see this shocker coming, as it culminates in lives being forever changed. The expressions and actions of Freeman, Pitt, and Spacey are superlative.

Seven (1995) is a film basking in riches. On par with the best of the best in serial killer films, it is powerfully directed by Fincher. The film is fraught with grisly symbolism and its share of suspenseful sequences.

With powerful performances, it is a film that remains relevant and watchable decades after its original release.

Perhaps not quite on the level as Dirty Harry or The Silence of the Lambs, but pretty damned close, and that is impressive in itself.

Oscar Nominations: Best Film Editing

1995 Films, Action, Crime Thriller, Guy Films, Thriller

Heat-1995

Leave a comment

Heat-1995

Director Michael Mann

Starring Al Pacino, Robert De Niro

Scott’s Review #1,228

Reviewed February 12, 2022

Grade: A-

Fans of the popular 1980s NBC television series, Miami Vice, will recall that Michael Mann was the Executive Producer of the show during its run.

He has a distinctive crime-thriller style that pairs perfectly with Heat, a sizzling 1995 offering starring two film greats, Al Pacino and Robert De Niro.

The fact that the pair do not appear together on screen too often can be forgiven because, when they do, the stars align, and the power of quiet scenes cannot be outdone. I savored the moment when they first appeared together.

Quality over quantity.

De Niro plays Neil McCauley, a lifelong criminal who is trying to handle the damage caused by one of his men while also planning one last big heist before retiring to parts unknown.

He meets a lovely young Los Angeles-based artist, played by Amy Brenneman, in a diner, and the two plan to relocate abroad.

Meanwhile, Lieutenant Hanna (Al Pacino) is a seasoned officer attempting to track down McCauley and his cohort while dealing with the chaos in his own life, including his wife’s (Diane Venora) infidelity and his stepdaughter’s (Natalie Portman) unhinged mental health.

McCauley and Hanna discover mutual respect, even as they try to thwart each other’s plans. The two characters become doppelgangers of one another.

The situation culminates in a cat-and-mouse chase on the tarmac at LAX airport.

To say that Heat is a by-the-numbers 1990s thriller is a fair assessment, although it’s way better than that classification, and it’s of that genre.

For starters, the acting is superior, and obviously, De Niro and Pacino bring a level of professionalism to the film in the lead roles.

My favorite scene is not the one you’d most expect me to say, but rather a quiet and powerful chit-chat in a small coffee shop. They are rivals, having lived opposite lives, yet their troubled lives mirror each other.

Without a doubt, Hanna wants to bring McCauley to justice, yet he admires him and sees parts of himself in him. The feeling is mutual, and the two actors relay this revelation without actually speaking the words.

Viewers immerse themselves in the characters, pivoting from this powerful scene.

There are a ton of characters in Heat, but each one feels like they have much to offer.

Juicy storylines are introduced but never forgotten, even if not part of the main canvas. Hanna’s wife and stepdaughter play a central role in the final act, even though they appear only in the first chapter.

In supporting roles, Val Kilmer and Ashley Judd share beautiful chemistry and a melancholy storyline as a damaged couple trying to survive surrounded by a life of crime.

At two hours and fifty-two minutes, there is plenty of time for each character to make their mark.

I love the rich character development that Heat offers, but sometimes it’s admittedly tough to keep track of the characters’ motivations and how they tie into the main action.

Mann’s style is all over the place, and even the musical score brought me back to the episodic song intervals that Miami Vice created.

The moody, dark atmosphere of dingy, crime-infested Los Angeles is perfectly set against glossy, glamorous high-rise and sprawling estate scenes. The bright and luminous city skyline is a feast for the eyes.

The cop/criminal dynamic is the main draw as Heat flexes its masculine muscles scene after scene. A bloody bank heist gone wrong at the beginning of the film cements what Mann is trying to create here.

A guy’s film with enough juice to hook the introspective film viewer, too.

Not remembered as well as it probably should be, Heat holds up surprisingly well when compared to similar but hokey 1990s action films like Lethal Weapon and the Die Hard films.

Though there’s not a whole lot new in Heat (1995), rich writing and powerful acting win out every time, and, of course, Pacino and De Niro are worth the price of admission.

1995 Films, Science Fiction

12 Monkeys-1995

Leave a comment

12 Monkeys-1995

Director Terry Gilliam

Starring Bruce Willis, Madeline Stowe, Brad Pitt

Scott’s Review #804

Reviewed August 21, 2018

Grade: B+

Bruce Willis stars in a 1995 science-fiction thriller named 12 Monkeys that is sure to confuse even the keenest of viewers.

With an impossible-to-follow plot (at least on a single watch), the film is quite novel and filled with edge nonetheless.

With this film, Willis came into his own and proved to some naysayers that he is more versatile than a one-note action hero. He would develop even more as the years passed- think Sixth Sense (1999).

If I may begin to summarize the complex plot, 12 Monkeys is a film about time travel (confusing enough) that traverses from the year 2035 to the year 1990, then to the year 1996, with a bevy of dreams or memories thrown in, but I am still not crystal clear on that.

The time involved threw me for a loop, and I was not able to comprehend where things shifted to……or was part of it a memory possessed by Willis’s character as a little boy?

Nonetheless, in 2035, James Cole (Willis) is a prisoner who is selected by “the powers that be” to go back in time to find a cure for a deadly virus that has wiped out a large part of the world.

He is transported to 1990 instead of 1996 and ends up in a psychiatric hospital, where he meets the fanatical Jeffrey Goines (Brad Pitt).

Dr. Kathryn Railly (Madeleine Stowe) appears in both the 1990 and 1996 stories as a respected psychiatrist and author. Both she and Goines become central to the plot, and the story twists and turns as events unfold.

The intention to make Willis and Stowe a romantic couple did not seem to quite work at first, but their chemistry grew on me.

The duo never received a “happily ever after” finale as they deserved, nor was their troubled romance ever fully realized, to say nothing of consummated.

The flirtation and bond they share felt more like a tease than anything else, or rather, having two Hollywood heavyweights forge some sort of romance.

Regardless, “romance” did not seem to be the point of this film.

Brad Pitt was nominated for Best Supporting Actor at the Oscars for the film. While he provides a quirky, showy, multirole (or multi-personality) performance, complete with tics resembling those of a Tourette’s syndrome patient, the role is not one of his best.

At this time (1995), Pitt was a rising star, and the recognition helped him tremendously. But he seems slightly overacted, making the character too over-the-top.

I much prefer his more subdued work in Seven (released the same year), or future roles in Babel (2006) and Moneyball (2011).

Appealing in parts are the frequent exterior shots of the cities of Philadelphia and Baltimore, where the film is set.

Treats include the Baltimore-Washington International Airport, the Pennsylvania Convention Center, and the Eastern State Penitentiary filming locations, as well as numerous highway and bridge shots that add tons of authenticity.

A major score for the film, and Alfred Hitchcock fans everywhere, is the incorporation of classic film clips, specifically the mysterious Vertigo (1958), into the story.

As Kathryn and James camp out in a rustic movie theater and disguise themselves as different people, they watch a marathon of Hitchcock films (as evidenced by the many titles on the marquee).

It’s clever that the characters James and Kathryn begin to mirror the actions of Vertigo’s Scottie and Judy.

Blondes anyone?

12 Monkeys (1995) does come together after the film as the dreams/memories are laid out pretty clearly. As we have witnessed these sequences throughout, it leads to a semi-satisfying conclusion.

A bit of a beautiful mess, the film has clever tidbits and is well-acted, and the bearing of both Willis’s and Pitt’s butts might get some additional viewers.

I need to watch the film again to understand, perhaps, and connect all of the dots better.

Oscar Nominations: Best Supporting Actor-Brad Pitt, Best Costume Design

1995 Films, Classic TV, Comedy, Satire

The Brady Bunch Movie-1995

Leave a comment

The Brady Bunch Movie-1995

Director Betty Thomas

Starring Gary Cole, Shelley Long

Scott’s Review #750

Reviewed April 30, 2018

Grade: B

Capitalizing on nostalgia from the popular 1960s-1970s television comedy “The Brady Bunch”, 1995’s The Brady Bunch Movie offers a nice treat for fans of the series, fondly reminiscing about their youth or the hours spent enjoying subsequent reruns after the show ended.

For this reviewer, the film version is cute and silly. Still, as expected, the attention to detail, drawing on facets from the original series, makes the film a wonderful experience and a job well done by director Betty Thomas.

The Brady Bunch Movie is not highbrow nor complex,  nor should it be. The work is just peppered with great jokes and a solid ode to the fun past.

Film fans looking for a good comedy and not having seen the series might miss out on some of the fun, as a multitude of references only fans will appreciate abound throughout the film.

The plot is not the strongest quality, but liberties must be taken since the intention is of a throwback and not much more- the story might have existed during the series but lengthened for film purposes.

Larry Dittmeyer, played by Michael McKean, schemes to coax all of his Southern California neighbors into selling their houses at a good price to develop a lucrative shopping mall, presumably so they will all get rich.

When earnest Mike and Carol Brady (Gary Cole and Shelley Long) refuse the business deal, Larry embarks on a plot to use a foreclosing notice issued to the Brady’s as leverage in his deal.

The Bradys, owing $20,000 in back taxes due within a week, scramble to raise the money.

Predictably, the Brady kids rush to the rescue with a plan to secure the funds via a singing contest.

The film immediately gets off to a familiar start as we view the comfortable Brady house and all of the cozy qualities nestled inside- unchanged from the late 1960s- the groovy orange colors, the tie-dye, and the plaid outfits are all in tow.

Lovable Alice, in her blue-and-white housekeeper outfit, Mike, Carol, and all six Brady kids are back at the helm, having never missed a beat.

In short, they still live as if it were 1969 instead of 1995 and are oblivious to the outside world.

A tremendous treat for fans is the cameo appearances of a few of the original cast: Florence Henderson (Carol) and Ann B. Davis (Alice) have the more interesting parts, that of the Brady grandmother and truck driver, respectively.

Oddly, Maureen McCormick’s (Marcia), Susan Olsen’s (Cindy), and Mike Lookinland’s (Bobby’s) scenes were shot, but all cut- a major fail of the film whose fans undoubtedly would have liked to have seen all cast members.

Wouldn’t a group scene versus individual scenes have been a wonderful touch?

Missing is Robert Reed (Mike), who was deceased, and Eve Plumb (Jan), who refused to appear.

The plot is silly, trivial, and completely predictable, but so is the television series. As each episode was wrapped up in a nice bow with a defined conclusion and perhaps a lesson or two learned along the way, the film plays similarly.

McKean’s Larry and man-hungry wife Dina (Jean Smart) are perfect foils, playing their roles with a relish, only adding to the zany fun.

A wonderful and timely point is how a Japanese businessman saves the day for the Bradys, with a nice cultural inclusiveness touch that is still relevant today.

An observation made while watching the film in the present time (2018) is its intended point. In 1995, the point was to show how out of touch the Bradys were with “modern times”.

But in 2018, the tide has turned, and 1995 now seems dated concerning the Brady years- sadly, this gives the film itself more of a dated quality.

This is always a risk when a film uses the present as part of its plot.

The cool, hip cellular phone used by one character seems garish and uncool by today’s standards.

Still, from Marcia’s flattened nose, The Monkees’ Davy Jones resurfacing, Cindy’s tattling, Jan’s insecurities, Greg’s cool, suave manner, Peter’s breaking voice, and Bobby’s hall-monitor job, the familiar stories and antics all resurface in a fun-filled hour and a half of comic nostalgia.

The Brady Bunch Movie (1995) is a light achievement and a nice trip down memory lane for many folks.

1995 Films, Action, James Bond, Spy

GoldenEye-1995

Leave a comment

GoldenEye-1995

Director Martin Campbell

Starring Pierce Brosnan

Scott’s Review #717

Reviewed January 19, 2018

Grade: B

By 1995, after a record six years between films, the James Bond franchise re-emerged with energy, with Pierce Brosnan assuming the role of the MI6 agent and breathing fresh life into the character.

The charming and suave Irish actor gave the role a new direction, last played by Timothy Dalton, who gave Bond a more brooding quality. The resulting GoldenEye offers mixed results, though the casting is a vast improvement over its predecessor.

GoldenEye sees other monumental roles recast- that of Judi Dench as M and Samantha Bond as Miss Moneypenny.

The film has a slick look and a compelling story, but at times, it is tough to follow, and overall, despite containing all the elements, something seems to be missing.

Or maybe I refer to the other Bonds more? Still, the offering is far from a bad watch.

GoldenEye kicks off with, in hindsight, a major clue to the story as Bond  (Brosnan) and fellow 00 agents, Alec Trevelyan (Sean Bean), infiltrate a Soviet facility in northern Russia in 1986, searching for chemical weapons.

Sinister Soviet General Ourumov tragically kills Alec, and Bond mourns the loss of his friend.

The action resumes in present times (1995) as, now in gorgeous Monte Carlo, Bond follows the beautiful and sadistic Xenia Onatopp, a crime syndicate member known for crushing men with her thighs.

Xenia and Ourumov travel to Siberia, where they destroy a bunker holding GoldenEye satellites and kill everyone except the computer programmer, Boris (Alan Cumming), and the lone survivor, Natalya  (Izabella Scorupco).

In a clever twist, it is revealed that Alec has betrayed British Intelligence and is himself leading the crime syndicate.

In one of the quietest and best scenes, Bond and M have an interesting exchange in her office as M (a woman) calls Bond out on his arrogance and chauvinism, saying it is a new day.

Dench adds a ton of modern female sensibility to the role (about time in 1995), as Bond now reports to a woman. The scene is important as it leads the two characters to achieve mutual respect and arguably parleys the franchise into a new, more female-empowering direction.

A great positive to GoldenEye is the setting, which I think does wonders for the film as a whole- the bitter, blustery, Siberian set gives a soothing feeling, especially while watching the film during the ravages of winter, snug with a warm blanket and heaters.

Regardless, the sets are realistic, never cheesy, and loaded with atmosphere- so the film itself looks wonderful.

Issues abound with the frenetic pacing of the film- at times, I found myself losing track of the action or the sequence of events.

Understandably, as in many Bond films, events circle the globe and, surely, London, Russia, and Monte Carlo are great locations, but especially within the film’s final climax, I suffered from sensory overload.

Furthermore, Brosnan is not one of my favorite Bonds. Sure, he has the charisma, the looks, and the charm to pull off the role, but something about him does not measure up to Sean Connery, Roger Moore, George Lazenby, or Daniel Craig- certainly, he supersedes Timothy Dalton.

Don’t get me wrong- I do not despise him as Bond, but nothing stands him out against the others either.

The villains in GoldenEye are perfectly adequate if not spectacular. Sean Bean gives Alec a sly, ” aw, shucks appeal and defines good-looking, but his motivations for switching sides are not very exciting- something about Nazis in World War II, the Cossacks, and revenge are quickly mentioned, but it doesn’t much matter.

General  Ourumov is effective- with his sinister look, he is the perfect Bond villain. Xenia is little more than a cartoon character (with the name to boot), and her gimmick quickly wears thin.

Finally, Cummings, as the programmer, is played only for laughs, and his final chant of “I am invincible!” as he freezes into solid ice is mildly humorous.

The title theme song, “GoldenEye”, performed by Tina Turner, is forgettable at best and one of the most lackluster in the illustrious musical catalog.

GoldenEye features many of the standard Bond elements and is a decent entry in the franchise.

With the debut of a new Bond, the film has a fresh, very modern, and technical feel that, along with a fantastic setting, overlooks some flaws in the storytelling.

Filled with bombast and a crowd-pleasing method, GoldenEye (1995) is hardly the best Bond film, but not the worst.

1995 Films, Animals, Comedy, Drama, Kids, Sentimental

Babe-1995

Leave a comment

Babe 1995

Director Chris Noonan

Starring James Cromwell

Scott’s Review #475

268776-1

Reviewed September 9, 2016

Grade: B

Babe (1995) is a cute, charming family film about a pig who becomes a hero while living on a farm with a family of other animals, a farmer, and his wife.

It is not a risky film from a story perspective- any doubts about a happy ending?- though there are props for some visual creativity.

And let’s face it- the film is sweet and heartwarming with not a mean bone in its body.

The film is an inspirational one, nice for kids no doubt, and the visual effects, i.e., how they edited the animal movements with voices successfully, are well done and not tacky.

The film is predictable and harmless, and I’m not sure I agree with the Best Picture or Best Supporting Actor (for James Cromwell) nominations it garnered, but it was enjoyable all the same.

Oscar Nominations: 1 win-Best Picture, Best Director-Chris Noonan, Best Supporting Actor-James Cromwell, Best Screenplay Based on Material Previously Produced or Published, Best Art Direction, Best Film Editing, Best Visual Effects (won)

1995 Films, Camp, Drama, Satire, Thriller

Showgirls-1995

Leave a comment

Showgirls-1995

Director Paul Verhoeven

Starring Elizabeth Berkley

Scott’s Review #372

962109

Reviewed January 31, 2016

Grade: D

Having heard much about the infamously poorly reviewed Showgirls (1995) and its reputation as one of the worst films ever made, I finally got around to watching it (twenty years after its release).

Now considered something of a camp classic, I am glad I did.

While I recognize the dubious distinction it holds and do not disagree with it, I also found something slightly entertaining about the film, and my thought process throughout was “this film is so bad that it might be good”, but in the end, it is pretty much just a bad film.

Nomi Malone (Elizabeth Berkley) hitchhikes to Las Vegas, intending to find success as a showgirl.

After her belongings are stolen, she is befriended by a kind-hearted woman named Molly, who works as a seamstress at the topless dance revue Goddess.

Molly takes her in and introduces her to the star of the show, Cristal (Gina Gershon).

A rivalry immediately develops between the women as Cristal mocks Nomi’s job at another topless club.

The main story centers on this rivalry as Nomi attempts to climb the ranks and succeed in the shady world of adult entertainment.

Along the way, she becomes involved with various men, specifically the entertainment director (and Cristal’s boyfriend), Zack, played by Kyle MacLachlan, leading to further tensions.

Let me be honest here- Showgirls is a bad film in every way. I observed three major flaws in the film: poor acting, poor writing, and an over-the-top tone on every level.

Let’s break it down.

Within minutes, I knew the acting was subpar, and I wondered whether that was the fault of the director (Paul Verhoeven), the actors, or a combination.

Known for directing Basic Instinct (a sexy, smoldering film), he may have had the same success in mind for Showgirls.

Berkeley gets the brunt of the mention since she is the lead character, but, wow, what a bad performance.

From the overdramatic delivery to the phony earnestness, I did not buy the performance for a minute and, on more than one occasion, fantasized about how a different actress might have tackled the role (Nicole Kidman and Julia Roberts came to mind).

Gershon was almost worse, as an irritating, brooding pout marred her sexiness and vixen-like character.

The writing is one-dimensional- a poor girl tries to achieve success in a bad, bad world and meets challenge after challenge. Nothing new here.

The predictability was apparent almost immediately, and most of the characters were unlikable. When Nomi takes an interest in a man, he becomes a player, keeping another aspiring female star on the side and feeding her the same lines he gave Nomi.

Even the one sympathetic character (Molly) exists only to make Nomi more likable, as when Molly is attacked and Nomi races to her bedside.

Forced and formulaic, this scene is a prime example of poor and contrived writing.

Most scenes play over the top.

Brimming with nudity and sexual excitement, the film is bawdy and party-friendly. In one scene, dancers take a line of coke before hitting the stage, and a feud between two of them results in one sabotaging the production, causing the other to break her hip.

The larger-than-life (in more than one way) x-rated, well-endowed, mama dancer, while entertaining, is also silly and foolish.

Chaotic and pointless, each scene was hard to believe and take seriously.

You may be wondering what positives can be found in Showgirls- the answer is not many, but there is a charm I found in the film, but perhaps I am gluttonous for punishment.

I think the film “feels” like it wants to have fun, and a certain level of entertainment can be found in viewing it, but this is like trying to find a needle in a haystack to see any good in Showgirls.

I do not disagree that Showgirls (1995) is one of the worst films ever made, but I found a sliver of charm, interest, and fun mixed in with the more prevalent drivel, poor quality, and painfully bad acting.

But perhaps that is because it is so bad.