Category Archives: Historical Drama

2025 Films, Drama, Historical Drama, Period Drama

Downton Abbey: The Grand Finale-2025

Leave a comment

Downton Abbey: The Grand Finale-2025

Director Simon Curtis

Starring Michelle Dockery, Hugh Bonneville, Elizabeth McGovern

Scott’s Review #1,535

Reviewed June 11, 2026

Grade: B

Downton Abbey: The Grand Finale (2025) is like comfort television set on a big screen.

The third in a planned film trilogy based on the popular television series that ran from 2010 to 2015, the film is satisfying while remaining safe and warm.

It concludes in the early 1930s, nearly a generation after the series debuted in 1912.

From a historical perspective, it’s compelling to see how world events progressed from the sinking of the Titanic when the series began to the begrudging acceptance of a divorced woman as the head of a household in the 1930s.

Separating an evaluation of the television series itself, and honing in on the three films, The Grande Finale ends at just the right time, feeling ever so stale at this point.

The absence of Maggie Smith as the Dowager Countess of Grantham is noticed, as her trademark wit and bitchiness cannot be replaced by any other character.

Let’s hope that creator Julian Fellows doesn’t go down the path that the slasher franchise Friday the 13th did in the 1980s and birth Downton Abbey: A New Beginning.

In this installment, the Crawley family and their staff enter the 1930s with the typical trials, tribulations, scandals, and drama they have overcome.

When Mary (Michelle Dockery) finds herself at the center of a public scandal over her divorce, the family also faces financial trouble, the threat of losing everything, and social disgrace.

The Crawleys must embrace change as the staff prepares for a new chapter with the next generation leading Downton Abbey into the future, which is at the heart of the finale.

The storylines, though modernized for the times, follow a familiar pattern, which is comforting for audiences. The soothing, methodical pace, lovely musical score, and familiar characters we have come to know and love over the years all return.

Even though there are problems for the Crawleys to tackle, nothing too heavy or startling emerges, maintaining a safe bubble for viewers to nestle in, keeping their security blanket intact.

Of course, lead actors like Dockery, Hugh Bonneville, and Elizabeth McGovern, joined by Paul Giamatti, are given the meaty storylines since they best represent the Crawley family.

Dockery as Mary, frequently known as being uptight, loosens up a bit amid her scandalous divorce, even giving in to desire and having a steamy one-night stand with a handsome stranger.

Meanwhile, Robert and Cora (Bonneville and McGovern) must grapple with the 1929 Wall Street stock market crash and the subsequent Great Depression.

The real-life world events the fictional stories are based on make the events more interesting than if writers had invented them.

A major positive is that nearly every character in the ensemble is given something to do, even if it’s only a crumb or two to chomp on.

For example, Carson (Jim Parsons) copes with retirement, while the cook, Mrs. Patmore (Lesley Nicol), embraces it and hands the reins to the young assistant, Daisy (Sophie McShera).

Popular couple John (Brendan Coyle) and Anna (Joanne Froggatt) Bates, eternally loyal to Robert and Mary, have a touching send-off.

Finally, the same-sex romance between Guy Dexter (Dominic West) and Thomas, a former butler at Downton Abbey (Robert James Collier), is explored as the men slowly become more comfortable admitting their relationship to friends.

Still taboo, the notion shows the progress that has occurred in the world over the decades.

The film ends perfectly, a wonderful tribute seen through Mary’s eyes as she takes over the Crawley estate. She sees those deceased family members she was once close to as she ponders the vast estate and the years gone by.

Violet, Matthew Crawley, and Lady Sybil Crawley all appear in archival cameos, making for a sweet and teary wrap-up.

Amid the comfort factor, the film doesn’t offer much that is new or different from the other installments. The new storylines aren’t particularly dangerous, and it’s clear things will be wrapped up in short order.

As nice as Downton Abbey: The Grand Finale (2026) is, let’s hope it truly is the finale. There’s something to be said about going out on top before the gas runs out of the tank.

2025 Films, Drama, Historical Drama

Hamnet-2025

Leave a comment

Hamnet-2025

Director Chloé Zhao

Starring Jessie Buckley, Paul Mescal

Scott’s Review #1,505

Reviewed December 8, 2025

Grade: A

For lovers of William Shakespeare, the famous sixteenth-century playwright, poet, and actor, Hamnet (2025) is highly recommended for its recognition of his renowned tragedy, Hamlet, written in 1599 or 1600.

Any literature nut will ooze with pleasure, since the tragic play is the basis for the entire film, and its creation is grounded in the movie’s events. This allows viewers to understand the reason for it, despite some fictionalization.

A bonus is a portion of it being performed on stage late in the movie.

And for cinephiles, Hamnet features gorgeous cinematography, raw, emotionally charged performances, and a believable love story mired in heartbreak and ultimately hopefulness.

The film’s story dramatizes the marriage between Anne Hathaway (Agnes in the movie), played by Jessie Buckley, and William Shakespeare (Paul Mescal), and the impact of the tragic death of their eleven-year-old son, Hamnet, on their relationship, which inspired Shakespeare’s play, Hamlet.

Sam Mendes and Steven Spielberg produced the film, which ensured it was made, and Chloé Zhao directed it. The financial help undoubtedly ensured (hopefully) that Zhao could make the film she wanted, and the final product reflects her vision.

Zhao is well known for directing Nomadland (2021), a movie with powerful landscapes, and Hamnet is no different in its exterior riches, though it is set in the late 1500s rather than the present.

She includes peaceful green forests, lush with quiet, thoughtful sequences, leading the viewer to enjoy the tranquility and mystique rather than to incorporate a storyline purpose.

It’s an overall vibe.

As characters wander along a path or a garden, the audio enhancement of birds chirping pairs well with greenery or flowers lit with golden sunshine.

A colder, grey vibe enshrouds the interior scenes of humble cottages, where characters peel boiled eggs, perform tedious household tasks, or share a modest meal.

I totally bought the authenticity of the 16th and 17th-century locales, costumes, sets, and characters. This buy-in did wonders to reflect the believability of everything else.

The leading actors get an A+ for chemistry and connection, with powerfully acted, sometimes guttural scenes, scene after scene.

From the first garden scene, when Buckley and Mescal, strangers, meet amid instant attraction and infatuation, the scene smolders with fiery romance. How the actors conjured that amount of intensity is remarkable.

They are forever linked when they give in to their attraction, shortly after which results in a pregnancy, much to the chagrin of his family.

Separately, Agnes is intriguing and spiritual, rumored to be the daughter of a forest witch. Before her death, Agnes’ mother taught her herbal lore, which Agnes later uses to heal a cut on William’s forehead.

William is thoughtful, bookish, and very introspective. His intensity towards his writing and art is inspiring.

The characters get along, and Agnes even insists he go to London, where he can work in a proper environment and better understand his creative mindset.

Buckley especially delivers the goods with ferocious acting and startling realism.

Equally noteworthy are Jacobi and Noah Jupe, who play the real Hamlet and the stage Hamlet. Brothers in real life, both look similar and possess top-notch acting skills.

And can Emily Watson (playing Mary Shakespeare) not be great in anything?

A minor gripe is why Buckley is positioned as the lead actress while Mescal is deemed the supporting actor. As equals, it’s not her story versus his; together, they share the depth of the storyline as a pair. And Shakespeare as a supporting character doesn’t sound right.

Destined to be rewarded for its artistic merit, humanistic integrity, and truthful approach, Hamnet (2025) is a beautifully slow-building film. It elicits heartwarming cinematic perfection.

Oscar Nominations: 1 win-Best Picture, Best Director-Chloé Zhao, Best Actress-Jessie Buckley (won), Best Adapted Screenplay, Best Casting, Best Costume Design, Best Original Score, Best Production Design

1939 Films, Best Picture Oscar Winners, Civil War, Drama, Epic, Favorite Film of the Year, Historical Drama, Romantic Drama, Top 100 Films, Top 25 Films, Top 250 Films, Top 50 Films

Gone With The Wind-1939

Leave a comment

Gone With The Wind-1939

Director Victor Fleming/George Cukor

Starring Clark Gable, Vivien Leigh, Olivia de Havilland

Top 250 Films #22

Scott’s Review #201

70020694

Reviewed December 4, 2014

Grade: A

Gone with the Wind (1939) is the grand masterpiece of sweeping epic drama.

The film is based on Margaret Mitchell’s best-selling novel. Set in the American South (specifically, Georgia) during the Civil War era, it centers on the life of Scarlett O’Hara, a Southern belle who works on the cotton plantation Tara. After the South loses the war, she struggles to keep her plantation alive.

Initially, Scarlett cares little about the war but enjoys her spoiled, narcissistic lifestyle and romances with many men in the town, all vying for her attention. With all eyes on her, she revels in one sunny picnic and ball after another.

As war decimates the South, Scarlett must take over the plantation and survive the ravages of war.

Mixed in with the war theme is a romance between Scarlett and Rhett, one of cinema’s most recognized and enduring couples. Having gone through three directors (Victor Fleming, George Cukor, and Sam Wood), the film is as extravagant and precise in its style, attention to detail, and set design as films come.

At close to four hours, Gone with the Wind is a lavish production that can take an entire afternoon or evening to watch. It is divided into two halves—interestingly, Cukor directs the first half, and Fleming primarily directs the second.

It is a film that can be viewed and analyzed repeatedly, and the set pieces and flawless perfection alone are worthy of marvel. The first half is superior to the second, but that is like comparing prime rib to filet mignon—it’s a matter of personal preference.

The first half is brighter, cheery, and fantastic. The excellent Tara and neighboring plantation Twin Oaks host southern balls and parties filled with romance, gossip, and beautiful costumes. War is coming, but it is a delightful time of merriment.

The Southerners eagerly embrace the prospect of war, assuming it will last only two weeks and that they will emerge victorious. They party and celebrate.

The second half has a much darker tone.

By the beginning of the second half, Atlanta has burned, thousands of men have died, Tara is decimated, Scarlett’s mother has died, and her father has gone batty.

The rebuilding of the South is explored, the troubled Rhett and Scarlett marriage commences, their daughter dies, and the world-famous line uttered by Rhett to Scarlett, “Frankly my dear…. I don’t give a damn”.

Having been now directed by a different person (Fleming), the first and second halves almost seem like two separate films.

Vivien Leigh plays a beautiful role. In 1939, women were rarely portrayed as strong characters in films, so Gone with the Wind is groundbreaking for its portrayal of female characters.

Scarlett is selfish but rises above, is strong, saves her plantation, and succeeds as a successful businesswoman—almost unheard of in cinema in 1939. Her undying love for Ashley Wilkes but her inability to obtain him (he is married to his cousin Melanie) gives her a sympathetic vulnerability.

Clark Gable, already a massive star and the people’s choice to play Rhett, is charismatic and handsome. The fact that he and Leigh did not get along makes their fights and sexual tension electric. They love but hate each other, which is transmitted on screen.

Rhett is his own man—he defines himself as not a Northerner but not a Southerner. He is a vagabond and spends many nights at the local brothel in the company of Belle Watling. Rhett’s character is independent and strong.

The supporting characters are colorful, lively, and humorous. Aunt Pittypat’s dramatic worrying and smelling salts and Prissy’s insistence on expert childbirth when, in reality, she knows nothing is moments meant to lighten the mood.

Mammie, Scarlett’s mother figure, is a moral, kind, yet tough character. Melanie (Olivia de Havilland) is an even sweeter character, characterized by her caring and selflessness.

Lesser characters, such as Dr. Meade, Suellen, Carreen, India, and Frank Kennedy, serve their purpose and are no throwaways.

It is bothersome that, over the years, Gone with the Wind has been unfairly “feminized” once it began airing as an alternative to the annual Super Bowl. The assumption was that only women would enjoy it, which is silly.

I do not find this film to be a female film, and frankly, some of the battle scenes are pretty masculine, with epic fires and guns galore. Is Gone with the Wind now considered a racist film?

Perhaps so, and time has made the political incorrectness much more glaring- this point can be debated endlessly. Ashley participates in a hooded Klan organization and is portrayed as a hero in the film.

Indeed, throughout the film, the enslaved people are portrayed as happy, kindly, and comfortable with their place in life, vastly different from what transpired. However, Hattie McDaniel (Mammie) won the first-ever Oscar for a black actress, which was monumental progress and influence.

Using seemingly thousands of extras, the war-torn Atlanta scene where the camera rises up and up and up, panning down on hundreds of wounded and dead Union soldiers as Scarlett defeatedly walks among them, is still heartbreaking to watch and is a reminder of the power and destruction that war is.

Gone with the Wind is an epic masterpiece from the past that still holds up remarkably well. The sets, the rich characters, and the costumes can be admired and still inspire today.

Oscar Nominations: 8 wins-Outstanding Production (won), Best Director-Victor Fleming (won), Best Actor-Clark Cable, Best Actress-Vivien Leigh (won), Best Supporting Actress-Hattie McDaniel (won), Olivia de Havilland, Best Screenplay (won), Best Original Score, Best Sound Recording, Best Art Direction (won), Best Cinematography, Color (won), Best Film Editing (won), Best Special Effects

1975 Films, Drama, Epic, Historical Drama, Top 100 Films, Top 250 Films, Top 50 Films

Barry Lyndon-1975

Leave a comment

Barry Lyndon-1975

Director Stanley Kubrick

Starring Ryan O’Neal, Marisa Berenson

Top 250 Films #44

Scott’s Review #211

284790

Reviewed January 4, 2015

Grade: A

Barry Lyndon (1975) is a sprawling, beautiful film by famed director Stanley Kubrick. The film is set in the 18th century.

Extremely slow-paced yet mesmerizing, every shot looks like a portrait, and the inventive use of real candlelight in certain scenes makes this film a spectacle in its subdued beauty, to say nothing of the gorgeous sets and costumes.

The film is nothing short of a marvel to view.

The story centers around Ryan O’Neal, who plays an Irishman named Redmond Barry.

Redmond is a poor Irishman, but he is an opportunist. The film follows his life as he travels throughout Ireland, England, and Germany, becoming involved in duels, being robbed, impersonating an officer, being reduced to a servant, gambling, marrying a rich widow, and feuding with his stepson.

When he woos and marries the wealthy Countess of Lyndon, he settles in England to enjoy a life of wealth and sophistication. He changes his name to Barry Lyndon.

His ten-year-old stepson, Lord Bullingdon, becomes a lifelong enemy as their hatred escalates, and he is the focal point of Act II of the film.

The supporting cast is filled with unique characters, and in particular, the three sinister characters (Lord Bullingdon, Mother Barry, and Reverend Runt) are delicious to watch, especially when they square off against one another, as with Runt and Mother Barry.

Barry’s two love interests (Lady Lyndon and a German war widow) are entertaining to watch, and Lady Lyndon’s costumes are exquisite. Furthermore, Chevalier de Balibar, a wealthy gambler who takes Barry under his wing, is a delight.

As with many masterpieces, the film would not be as wonderful without the great casting.

My three favorite scenes include the vicious confrontation between Mother Barry and Reverend Runt- an initially polite conversation between two selfish characters gradually spins into viciousness, the duel between Barry Lyndon and Lord Bullingdon- bitter rivals square off in an awkward yet dramatic duel, and when Barry passionately kisses his dying friend- an unexpected homoerotic scene.

Barry Lyndon delves into the issue of class and class distinctions, clearly defining the haves and the have-nots, and the struggles of the poor to obtain wealth by any means and of the wealthy to retain their good fortunes.

With a running time of over three hours, it may initially turn viewers off, but over time, the film will grip them and not let go.

Having now seen Barry Lyndon (1975) four times, I enjoy the film more each time as I become more absorbed in and immersed in the masterpiece.

It’s like a fine wine- it gets better with each taste.

Oscar Nominations: 4 wins-Best Picture, Best Director-Stanley Kubrick, Best Screenplay Adapted from Other Material, Best Scoring: Original Song Score and Adaptation or Scoring: Adaptation (won), Best Costume Design (won), Best Art Direction (won), Best Cinematography (won)

1992 Films, Drama, Favorite Film of the Year, Historical Drama, Independent, Independent Comedy, Independent Drama, Independent Romantic Comedy, Period Drama, Romantic Drama, Top 100 Films, Top 250 Films

Howards End-1992

Leave a comment

Howards End-1992

Director James Ivory

Starring Emma Thompson, Helena Bonham Carter, Anthony Hopkins

Top 250 Films #79

Scott’s Review #702

Reviewed December 1, 2017

Grade: A-

Howards End is my favorite film adaptation of E.M. Forster’s novel, which was also adapted into a film during the 1980s (1985’s A Room with a View and 1987’s Maurice are the other two notable works).

The novels were written during the early 1900s and set during the same period, focusing on class relations in 20th-century England.

The film is lovely and picturesque, telling an interesting story about romance and drama between the haves and have-nots during this period.

The film was a success and received heaps of Academy Award nominations in 1993.

Margaret Schlegel (Emma Thompson), an upper-middle-class intellectual and member of London’s bourgeoisie, befriends wealthy and sophisticated yet shockingly conservative Ruth Wilcox (Vanessa Redgrave).

The two women strike up a powerful friendship, which results in Margaret being left her beloved country home when Mrs. Wilcox, ailing, dies.

To complicate matters, Margaret falls in love with a businessman (and husband of Ruth), Henry (Anthony Hopkins). At the same time, Margaret’s sister Helen briefly becomes engaged to Paul Wilcox (Joseph A. Bennett), Henry’s son.

The two families’ lives further intersect when they become neighbors in London, and the true owner of the beloved “Howards End” is called into question.

Added to the mix are several other characters of various social backgrounds, having connections to the families.

The writing in Howard’s End is rich and emotional, with each character perfectly fleshed out, including both supporting and lead characters.

Thompson and Hopkins, both sensational actors, have tremendous chemistry, and, unsurprisingly, Thompson won Best Actress in this competitive year.

Thompson carries the film seamlessly with her upper-middle-class ideals- not conservatively rich, but far from working-class- she epitomizes poise, grace, and empathy for those less fortunate than she.

Hopkins, on the other hand, is calculating and confident, yet charismatic and sexy as an old-school, controlling businessman.

Somehow, these two characters complement each other exceptionally well despite their varied background.s

The role of Helen may very well be Helena Bonham Carter’s finest. Not being an enormous fan of the actress, who is overrated and too brooding in my opinion, I enjoy portraying an interesting character in Helen.

Lovelorn and earnest, yet somewhat oblivious, she develops a delicious romance with the young clerk, Leonard Bast, my favorite character in the film.

Living with Jacky, a woman of dubious origins, he is the ultimate nice guy and sadly winds up down on his luck after heeding terrible business advice.

Bast, thanks in large part to actor Samuel West, who imbues his character with an innocent, good-guy quality, deserves major props.

The cinematography featured in Howards End is beautiful, with extravagant outdoor scenes- the lavish gardens of Howards End- just ravishing and wonderful.

Kudos, too, to the art direction, set design, and costume departments for making the film look so enchanting.

There is something so appealing about the look of this film, and director James Ivory undoubtedly deserves praise for pulling it all together into a suave picture. Whether the scene calls for sun or rain, tranquil or bustling, every scene looks great.

If I were to knock any points off this fine film, it would be for its two hours and twenty-two minutes. Howards End drags ever so slightly, and many scenes involve the characters merely chatting, with little action.

But this criticism is small potatoes when compared to the exceptional writing and well-nuanced character development displayed throughout the piece.

Admittedly, and perhaps shamefully, I have not read any of Forster’s novels. Still, Howard’s End appears to be the film that is most successfully adapted, gleaming with textured finesse, grace, and style.

With the film’s finest actors along for the experience and intricate, fine storytelling, Howards End (1992) is a film well worth watching.

Oscar Nominations: 3 wins-Best Picture, Best Director-James Ivory, Best Actress-Emma Thompson (won), Best Supporting Actress-Vanessa Redgrave, Best Screenplay Based on Material Previously Produced or Published (won), Best Original Score, Best Art Direction (won), Best Cinematography, Best Costume Design

Independent Spirit Award Nominations: Best International Film

1997 Films, Best Picture Oscar Winners, Chick Flicks, Disaster, Drama, Epic, Historical Drama, Romantic Drama, Top 250 Films

Titanic-1997

Leave a comment

Titanic-1997

Director James Cameron

Starring Leonardo DiCaprio, Kate Winslet

Top 250 Films #160

Scott’s Review #327

1181461

Reviewed January 6, 2016

Grade: A

1997’s Titanic is a sweeping, gorgeous epic, directed by James Cameron, that is perfection at every level.

This film has it all: romance, disaster, gorgeous art direction, and flawless attention to detail.

The film will make you laugh, cry, and fall in love with the characters, even though you know the inevitable outcome.

The film is based on the real-life sinking of the RMS Titanic in 1912, when the ship collided with an iceberg.

I have witnessed this film being derided for being a “chick flick” or too “sappy”, but I vehemently disagree and feel it is a classic for the ages.

Titanic successfully re-invented the Hollywood epic.

Jack Dawkins (Leonardo DiCaprio) is a penniless artist who meets high-class socialite Rose DeWitt (Kate Winslet) aboard the luxurious Titanic, on its maiden voyage from the coast of England to the United States.

Rose is engaged to cagey Cal Hockley (Billy Zane).

Depressed, Rose contemplates diving overboard to her death, but Jack saves her and convinces her otherwise. They spend time together, and he draws her portrait. As their romance blossoms, Cal catches on and plots revenge.

In the mix is Rose’s snobbish mother, Ruth, played by Frances Fisher.

The main theme of the film is social class and the divide between the haves and the have-nots.

James Cameron demanded perfection from this film, and he sure got it. Every detail of Titanic is flawless and historically accurate, from the dining room silverware to the costumes to the set pieces barely visible in the background.

Cameron even had a replica of the original Titanic built for filming purposes- with limitations, but what a vast undertaking this must have been.

That, along with the smoldering romance between Jack and Rose, is what makes Titanic one of my favorite films.

Two fantastic scenes are when Jack is taken under the wing of Molly Brown, played by Kathy Bates. Molly is not the snob that many other upper-class people are, and she lends Jack a tuxedo so he will look dapper for Rose. She also tenderly teaches him the appropriate way to use silverware.

Tragically, the other scene is more melancholy- a gorgeous classical piece plays in the background as the vast ship is engulfed in water and slowly sinks, causing many deaths.

At well over three hours long, the film’s conclusion is quite sprawling, and one feels as if one is aboard the ship. By this time, I was invested in the characters, both lead and supporting, and the tragedy that ensues is both a marvel and heart-wrenching.

Titanic (1997) is a film that must be viewed on the big screen for full effect, and is a timeless masterpiece that has aged perfectly.

Oscar Nominations: 10 wins-Best Picture (won), Best Director-James Cameron (won), Best Actress-Kate Winslet, Best Supporting Actress-Gloria Stuart, Best Original Dramatic Score (won), Best Original Song-“My Heart Will Go On”, Best Sound Effects Editing (won), Best Sound (won), Best Art Direction (won), Best Cinematography (won), Best Makeup, Best Costume Design (won), Best Film Editing (won), Best Visual Effects (won)

1977 Films, Drama, Epic, Historical Drama, Period Drama, Top 250 Films

1900 (Novecento)-1977

Leave a comment

1900 (Novecento)-1977

Director Bernardo Bertolucci

Starring Robert De Niro, Gerard Depardieu, Dominique Sanda

Top 250 Films #201

Scott’s Review #984

Reviewed January 28, 2020

Grade: A

An epic to rival all epics, 1900 (Novecento) (1977) is a grandiose offering of monumental proportions featuring legendary actors and created by a brilliant director.

With a running time of a whopping 317 minutes in its original version, 1900 is known as one of the longest commercially released films ever made.

The cinematography is breathtaking, and the historical themes, such as friendship, class distinctions, and rivalry, are explored in depth.

The key is to let the experience marinate and blossom through a slow, patient build.

Brilliant director Bernardo Bertolucci’s tale follows the lives of two Italian men, a peasant named Olmo (Gerard Depardieu) and landowner Alfredo (Robert De Niro), both ironically born on January 1, 1900.

Inseparable as children, the two become estranged as their differing social statuses pull them apart. Their conflicts mirror the political events in Italy, as both fascism and socialism gained prominence there.

Here is a bit of background on the film.

Due to its length, the film was presented in two parts when originally released in many countries, including Italy, East and West Germany, Denmark, Belgium, Norway, Sweden, Colombia, Pakistan, and Japan.

In other countries, such as the United States, a single edited-down version of the film was released.

The latter is not the way to watch this film. I do not like heavily edited films, especially in an epic like 1900, so the full-length version is highly recommended.

The film opens on April 25, 1945, the day Italy is liberated from the fascists, and this is key to the political message Bertolucci crafts. As peasants revolt against the landowner, Alfredo (De Niro) and female laborers wield deadly pitchforks, creating an atmosphere of chaos.

We know nothing of Alfredo yet, but we know enough to realize he is rich and perceived as a tyrant. The natural reaction is to sympathize with them because they are oppressed.

As the film backtracks to the turn of the century, a more elegant scene emerges: the births of two infants, Alfredo and Olmo. The sequence is sweet, and both babies are bright and filled with promise.

Sadly, this is not meant to be.

A railway track is an important addition to the film, culminating in the finale.

The most interesting aspect of the film is the dynamic development of Alfredo and Olmo as they grow. Alfredo resents his family’s wealth and sides with Olmo, a socialist. Alfredo sees his family as false and Olmo and his family as genuine.

This aspect is timeless and can be related to by any viewer with any intelligent sense of the world today. The obvious analogy between the haves and have-nots is clearer than ever in this film. Frightening is that some have-nots are convinced they will one day become the haves.

The messages and feelings elicited in 1900 are strong and emotional. Aren’t all men created equal? On the surface, they are, but Alfredo and Olmo are not equal. As the birth scene reveals and as Bertolucci makes clear, they are born with advantages and disadvantages.

These characteristics are what they are, and as human beings grow and learn social norms, financial differences become more pronounced and humanistic connections weaker.

If the social aspects of the film or the brilliant cinematography are not enough to please a viewer, the historical lessons presented are second to none. One can revel in the political and historical excitement that characterized Europe throughout the forty-five years the film is set.

I wish Hollywood made more films like this.

1900 (Novecento) (1977) can be enjoyed as both a grandiose, dramatic period piece, revered for its majestic and flourishing design, and as a thought-provoking film about unresolved social class distinctions in the world.

I found the film a treasure that works on all levels and showcases just how good a director Bertolucci is.

This film is not his best-known work, but for fans of cinema as an art form, this is a must-see.

1960 Films, Adventure, Best Picture-Drama Golden Globe Winners, Drama, Epic, Historical Drama, Top 250 Films

Spartacus-1960

Leave a comment

Spartacus-1960

Director Stanley Kubrick

Starring Kirk Douglas

Top 250 Films #247

Scott’s Review #1,250

Reviewed April 30, 2022

Grade: A

Typically, when influential director Stanley Kubrick’s name is uttered, films such as The Shining (1980), 2001: A Space Odyssey (1968), and Barry Lyndon (1975) are immediately thought of, and for obvious reasons.

The haunting, moody musical score, the long camera shots, the dark humor, and the clever camera tricks are easy to pinpoint.

1960, the director was hired to direct the gorgeous epic Spartacus after Hollywood star Kirk Russell unceremoniously fired the first director.

None of the previously mentioned elements are easy for me to notice and are more or less absent, but a grand battle scene in a luscious green field is very reminiscent of Barry Lyndon.

This is likely because Spartacus was not Kubrick’s film entirely; instead, it belonged to others with more clout.

Spartacus is a brilliant film for many reasons. Some epics suffer from a hokey, cliched feel and can be overwrought, predictable, and tired.

The rebellious Thracian Spartacus (Russell), born and raised an enslaved person, is sold to Gladiator trainer Batiatus (Ustinov). After training to kill for the arena, Spartacus turns on his owners and leads the other enslaved people in rebellion.

As the rebels move from town to town, their numbers increase as escaped slaves join their ranks. Under the leadership of Spartacus, they make their way to southern Italy, where they intend to cross the sea and return to their homes.

Spartacus is grand, sweeping, cinematically significant, and everything else you’d expect from a 1960s Hollywood epic with enormous stars of its day.

Looking beneath the surface, the film is riddled with interesting tidbits like bisexuality, homoeroticism, and violence, more in tune with an art film or modern war film than the safety of a movie made during this time.

Particularly noteworthy is that Dalton Trumbo wrote the screenplay. One of the Hollywood Ten, he refused to testify before the House Un-American Activities Committee in 1947 during the committee’s investigation of alleged Communist influences in the motion picture industry.

After the release of Spartacus, it marked the beginning of the end of the Hollywood Blacklist for Trumbo and other affected screenwriters.

Thank goodness.

In a famous scene, recaptured enslaved people are asked to identify Spartacus in exchange for leniency; instead, each enslaved person proclaims himself to be Spartacus, thus sharing his fate.

The suggestion is that this scene was meant to dramatize the solidarity of those accused of being Communist sympathizers during the McCarthy era.

Besides the political importance, Spartacus showcases a beautiful romance between Spartacus (Russell) and Varinia (Jean Simmons), a gorgeous slave girl.

The tenderness and authenticity are palpable as many of their early scenes involve no dialogue but only longing and expression through both actors’ eyes.

I celebrated the connection between the actors at the forefront of much romance. Russell carries the film with calm masculinity, quickly making him heroic and likable.

He is the charismatic, good guy who has been wronged and ill-fated.

A sequence oozing with machismo and homoeroticism occurs when evil Crassus (Olivier) is bathed by his slave boy Antoninus (Tony Curtis).

He seductively explains that while sometimes he prefers snails, he also likes oysters. The implication is that he is bisexual, brazenly so, and expects the youngster to become his sex slave.

The warmth of the bathtub and the luxurious atmosphere contrast with the proximity and touch of both male characters.

In 1960, this scene was way ahead of its time.

The conclusion of Spartacus is melancholy and surprising. Having bested Rome’s cruelty, one might have expected to see Spartacus and Varinia happily ride off into the sunset.

This doesn’t happen, and the film is richer for it. There is pain and despair as there was in real life. Wisely sparing complete doom and gloom, the ending is satisfying as one central character escapes a deadly demise and moves ahead.

Spartacus (1960) is one of the greats. It has muscle and texture, and many below-the-surface nuances are ripe for discussion. For these reasons, it’s a must-see.

Oscar Nominations: 4 wins-Best Supporting Actor-Peter Ustinov (won), Best Art Direction-Color (won), Best Cinematography-Color (won), Best Costume Design-Color (won), Best Film Editing, Best Music Score of a Dramatic or Comedy Picture

Golden Globe Nominations: 1 win-Best Motion Picture-Drama (won), Best Director-Motion Picture-Stanley Kubrick, Best Performance by an Actor in a Motion Picture-Drama-Laurence Olivier, Best Performance by an Actor in a Supporting Role in any Motion Picture-Peter Ustinov, Woody Strode, Best Original Score-Motion Picture

1971 Films, Drama, Historical Drama, International, International Drama, Italian, LGBTQ+ Drama, LGBTQ+ Films, LGBTQ+ International, Top 250 Films

Death in Venice-1971

Leave a comment

Death in Venice-1971

Director Luchino Visconti

Starring Dirk Bogarde, Björn Andrésen

Top 250 Films #248

Scott’s Review #1,014

Reviewed April 22, 2020

Grade: A

Death in Venice (1971) is a haunting and tragic story of a depressed middle-aged man who becomes obsessed with a fourteen-year-old Polish boy while on holiday in Venice.

The story, on the surface, is dark and dour, not for the judgmental or the closed-minded. With a deeper dive and a haunting musical score, the film provides beauty and impressionism.

The film is based on the novella Death in Venice by German author Thomas Mann, published in 1912 as Der Tod in Venedig.

Gustav von Aschenbach (Dirk Bogarde) is a lonely composer who travels to Venice for health reasons and a recipe for recovery. His maladies are unclear at the start, but are assumed to be sent to the picturesque city as a form of therapy.

While enjoying a tranquil holiday, he spots Tadzio (Björn Andrésen), a stunning, youthful beauty staying with his family at the luxurious Grand Hôtel des Bains, just as Gustav is.

Their encounters run rampant as they are viewed by the audience from afar, but never speak to each other.

This is the brilliance of Death in Venice. A more standard approach may have been to make the story more forceful.

If Gustav had approached, harassed, or even molested Tadzio, the direction of the film would have vastly changed, and he would have been deemed a pervert.

Suddenly, the film would have been about a pedophile preying on a youngster, rather than incorporating a beautiful subtext of longing and unfulfilled passion.

The masterful classical numbers that open and close the film help to achieve this mindset.

The controversial subject matter, still taboo by today’s progressive standards, is not gratuitous but is quite obsessive. Worthy of mention is that Gustav’s plight begins harmless enough as he appreciates a beautiful image, almost like gazing at a sculpture- think Michelangelo’s David- since we are in Italy.

But when he begins to follow Tadzio and see him more and more, his desperation increases as his health deteriorates. For a while, it is unclear whether the boy even realizes he is an object of affection. It is Gustav’s feelings and emotions that are most explored.

As a side story, the city of Venice is gripped by a cholera epidemic, and the city authorities do not inform the holiday-makers of the problem for fear that they will flee the vital city.

In 2020, amid the vicious COVID-19 pandemic gripping the world, this classic film takes on a whole new importance. As Venice officials downplay the epidemic while tourists increasingly fall ill, a modern realism is conjured for the audience.

Death in Venice, as the title should make clear, is not a love story; otherwise, it would be called Love in Venice. Gustav’s lust for Tadzio is unrequited. Neither is Gustav’s sexuality clear, though he is assumed to be bisexual.

In one of the film’s saddest scenes, also the finale, Gustav lounges on the sandy beach in ill health, dressed in an improper white suit. He sees Tadzio playfully frolicking with an older boy, and afterward walks away and turns back to look at Gustavo.

As Tadzio outstretched his arms toward the water, Gustav did the same as if he was enveloping the boy. The moment is breathtaking.

Many symbolic and meaningful scenes occur, like when Gustav visits a barber who insists he will return his customer to his youth. The results are ghastly.

Dyeing his grey hair black, whitening his face, and reddening his lips to make him look younger leaves a macabre, somber image of a man feebly attempting to turn back the hands of time, something we can all relate to. His heavily made-up face is meant to hide his insecurities.

Incorporating an ingenious mix of beauty, tragedy, obsession, and loneliness, Italian director Luchino Visconti crafts a brilliant and painful dissection of human emotion.

The subject matter of Death in Venice (1971) will not appeal to all viewers. Still, those brave enough to traverse the sometimes-rocky waters will find an underlying treasure and a meaningful cinematic experience.

Oscar Nominations: Best Costume Design

2024 Films, Drama, Historical Drama

Nickel Boys-2024

Leave a comment

Nickel Boys-2024

Director RaMell Ross

Starring Ethan Cole Sharp, Brandon Wilson, Aunjanue Ellis-Taylor

Scott’s Review #1,478

Reviewed April 25, 2025

Grade: A-

Nickel Boys (2024) is a film adaptation of a 2019 novel called The Nickel Boys, written by Colson Whitehead, which won him the Pulitzer Prize for Fiction award.

The film is a unique experience in cinematography. Using a jarring but immersive point of view effectively makes the audience feel the weight of the subject matter and the peril that the characters face.

Since most of the events are shot from a first-person perspective, it takes some time to get used to it, and I can understand how it might turn off some viewers.

However, I admire the unconventional approach very much and champion any cinema that pushes boundaries. RaMell Ross, a director new to the scene, obviously made a splash, scoring a Best Screenplay Oscar nomination as well as a Best Picture nod.

Elwood Curtis’s (Ethan Herisse) college dreams are shattered one sunny afternoon when he unwittingly accepts a ride with a drug dealer in the deep Jim Crow American South in 1962.

Despite his innocence, he is sentenced to Nickel Academy, a segregated and brutal reformatory where young black males frequently disappear without a trace.

As the 1960s continue and the Civil Rights Movement and Reverend Martin Luther King’s influence spread, Elwood and his best friend, Turner (Brandon Wilson), plot a daring escape.

Ross incorporates short sequences of present-day activity where Elwood (Daveed Diggs) is now a successful businessman in New York City. He lives with his girlfriend and eventually reconnects with a fellow inmate.

During the first of these scenes, I breathed a sigh of relief, assured that Elwood not only survives Nickel Academy but also gets as far away from the racist South as possible. Successful in life, this aspect also satisfies.

Shot in swampy Louisiana, doubling as Tallahassee, Florida, the ambiance is sticky, sweaty, and suffocating, which serves the film perfectly.

As the black youngsters arrive at the facility with white youngsters who are let out of the car first, the different experiences are immediately apparent.  The black kids’ barracks are smaller, darker, and fraught with racism.

I immediately sympathized with Elwood. On a bright path along with his caregiver and grandmother, Hattie, beautifully played by Aunjanue Ellis-Taylor, his incarceration is devastating and unfair.

Without a doubt, instances portrayed in the film happened in real life, and the number of lives ruined or lost is beyond comprehension.

Ellis-Taylor, whose Hattie does a lot of talking to the camera, either to Elwood or Turner, is rich with power, prowess, and guts, never losing hope amid dire circumstances.

The stylistic approach never detracts from the top-notch acting performances, especially by the teen actors playing Elwood and Turner (Ethan Cole Sharp and Wilson).

Nickel Boys (2024) doesn’t feel gimmicky; it’s instead a confirmation of what cinema can do, how it can speak to us, and how it can move us.

It serves as an argument for progressing and documenting fiction as something more than just a well-meaning film. My A-rating would have been a solid A, but it took a little while to fully capture it due to the film’s style, which I ultimately appreciate.

Oscar Nominations: Best Picture, Best Adapted Screenplay

Independent Spirit Awards Nominations: Best Feature, Best Cinematography

2024 Films, Drama, Epic, Historical Drama

Gladiator II-2024

Leave a comment

Gladiator II-2024

Director Ridley Scott

Starring Paul Mescal, Pedro Pascal, Denzel Washington

Scott’s Review #1,456

Reviewed December 21, 2024

Grade: B+

Ridley Scott, who directed Gladiator (2000), returns to the fold to direct Gladiator II almost twenty-five years later. Both are epic proportions and center on the barbaric yet luscious Ancient Roman Era.

It’s the type of film best seen in the theater on a large screen with loud surround sound. It’s bloodier than the first Gladiator.

Scott wisely incorporates snippets of the original’s ending to familiarize the audience with the events and ties a significant character to characters from the first film, both dead and alive.

The great thing about Scott directing both films is that despite the long gap between them, they feel very much aligned and have a similar tone.

When the film begins, we are told that Rome is nearly ruinous and led by tyrants. The peacefulness after Maximus’s (Russell Crowe in Gladiator) death is sadly gone.

Rome is now ruled by corrupt twin emperors, Geta (Joseph Quinn) and Caracalla (Fred Hechinger). They are barbaric and evil and use scare tactics to keep the masses in line.

We meet Lucius (Paul Mescal) when the emperors of Rome steal his home and kill his wife. He has unrelenting rage in his heart, and it’s revealed that he is the rightful heir to Rome and witnessed his father’s (Maximus) death at the hands of his uncle as a young boy.

With the empire’s future at stake, he looks to the past to find the strength and honor needed to return the glory of Rome to its people.

The fact that Lucius is the rightful heir and that his mother, Lucilla (Connie Nielsen), is still alive and now remarried to General Acacius (Pedro Pascal) provides immediate rooting value.

Combined with the viciousness of the current regime, we want the good guys to beat the bad guys. The bloody battles and the machismo nature of the story make it a muscular vehicle sure to appeal to a male audience.

It’s that type of film.

However, there is much to see visually to titillate one’s loins. Mescal looks chiseled and cut in his gladiator attire, sweatily and bloodily fighting others to the death. His hunky nature and dreamy blue eyes only make the character a sure crowd-pleaser.

Mescal also looks enough like Crowe to make the heritage believable.

Pascal and Denzel Washington are terrific in supporting roles. Washington, as Macrinus, a motivated leader intent on having the throne for himself, is bisexual, though this is hardly explored other than one line of dialogue.

A rumored kiss between Macrinus and another male character was reportedly scrapped, and shame on the powers that be for that. Too much for mainstream audiences?

The central LGBTQ+ presence is saved for the more unhinged twin ruler in a more stereotypical form.

There is little unpredictability since we know from the start that Lucius will conquer the tyranny and save the Roman people from further chaos.

But, the violent matches between gladiators and vicious beasts and one another are entertaining to watch and enthralling in their violence.

The visuals of a mock Roman Colosseum and palatial dining areas are well constructed and look real enough to transport us to the Roman Era.

Politically, the twins are compared to present-day tyrannical rulers in office and a rogue’s gallery of appointed officials. Although it can be argued that the twins are somewhat played for laughs, the fact that dictators like this rule is scary.

Gladiator (2000) packs more emotional punch than Gladiator II (2024), but watching them in parallel would be fun. From a story perspective, they link well and have the same look and feel.

Oscar Nominations: Best Costume Design

2022 Films, Drama, Historical Drama, Period Drama

Downton Abbey: A New Era-2022

Leave a comment

Downton Abbey: A New Era-2022

Director Simon Curtis

Starring Hugh Bonneville, Michelle Dockery, Maggie Smith

Scott’s Review #1,261

Reviewed May 30, 2022

Grade: B+

Following the success of the 2019 film adaptation of the television series Downton Abbey, which aired on PBS from 2010 to 2015, a sequel was produced. This was unsurprising, given that the fan-favorite was both critically and commercially well-received.

Downton Abbey: A New Era (2022) will undoubtedly please fans of the series and may even attract new audiences who have not yet been exposed to it.

The trials and tribulations of the Crawleys, their friends, and staff are a treat as new situations and drama arise for the group to navigate, discussed over tea and crumpets.

The film is like visiting a cherished friend after a long absence.

Award-winning creator Julian Fellowes is thankfully still involved and was given screenwriting credit. This means that the formula is still the same, and nobody has tried to reinvent the wheel or veer the characters off course.

The year is 1928.

The main action centers around the sudden news that grand dame Violet Crawley, Dowager Countess of Grantham (Maggie Smith), has inherited a villa in the south of France from a former suitor who has just died. Some of the family must travel to France and figure out the mystery.

Secondly, A film production company requests to use Downton for a silent film. Robert (Hugh Bonneville) and retired butler Mr. Carson (Jim Carter) disapprove. Still, Robert’s eldest daughter and estate manager, Lady Mary Talbot (Michelle Dockery), says the income would cover the cost of replacing Downton’s leaking roof.

The household staff is eager to see the film stars and scrambles to make things as lovely as possible for the incoming actors.

The terrific thing about Downton Abbey: A New Era is that nearly all of the almost thirty principal characters are given some storyline.

Plus, there are a handful of new characters to give screen time to.

Surprisingly, as in Downton Abbey (2019), the main ‘super couple’, servants Anna (Joanne Froggatt) and Bates (Brendan Coyle) are given almost nothing to do. They are seen, but their child is not, and some drama would have been nice. Perhaps a mysterious illness or a malady for the couple to endure?

Maybe next time.

Still, everyone else is represented, and the feeling for viewers is warm and fuzzy.

Below are some highlights.

Robert frets at the possibility that he may be half French and his birth a result of a tryst between Violet and the villa owner. Mary’s absent husband allows for a flirtation to develop between her and a member of the film.

Gay butler Thomas (Robert James-Collier) finds himself pursued by the film’s big star.

Cora (Elizabeth McGovern) keeps a health secret, while a bedridden Violet’s health declines in bed. Newlywed servants Daisy (Sophie McShera) and Andy (Michael Fox) scheme to unite his lonely father with the cook, Mrs. Patmore (Lesley Nicol).

Finally, Miss Baxter (Raquel Cassidy) eagerly awaits a marriage proposal from nervous Mr. Molesley (Kevin Doyle).

In addition, new characters, such as actors Guy Dexter (Dominic West), Myrna Dalgleish (Laura Haddock), and director Jack Barber (Hugh Dancy), are instant fan favorites, immediately connecting with the mainstay characters.

This is ingenious writing that can serve as a valuable lesson for any soap opera writer. Always write new characters by sharing stories with existing ones rather than writing in silos. It works wonders.

The historical relevance of approaching the 1930s is not missed, as ‘talkies’ taking over the film industry meant the kiss of death for most silent film stars.

The popular LGBTQ+ storyline is wonderfully written. A gay man in 1928 was doomed to either a life of hiding or one of loneliness, and one character wisely references a ‘cruel world’ regarding the viewpoint of the lifestyle.

Times were not changing just yet.

I am crossing my fingers that a third Downton Abbey film will be made. The characters and storylines remain vibrant, especially as the timeline progresses into the 1930s and the dire 1940s, when World War II breaks out.

Downton Abbey: A New Era (2022) proves that in the COVID-19 era, a trusted old friend is needed tremendously, even on the silver screen.

1981 Films, Drama, Historical Drama, Period Drama

Ragtime-1981

Leave a comment

Ragtime-1981

Director Miloš Forman

Starring Howard Rollins, Brad Dourif, Mary Steenburgen

Scott’s Review #1,183

Reviewed October 1, 2021

Grade: A-

Miloš Forman, best known for directing 1975’s One Flew Over the Cuckoo’s Nest and 1984’s Amadeus, crafts a relevant period drama with a moving racial storyline.

Set in turn-of-the-twentieth-century New York, Ragtime (1981) mixes an important message with gorgeous costumes and a sprinkling of romantic intrigue.

The film was honored with an astounding eight Academy Award nominations but came away empty-handed.

The cast is enormous, and I love that aspect of the film. At two hours and thirty-five minutes, the experience nearly felt too short, since there were plenty of stories left to tell, especially in the subplots.

Some resolutions are not clearly explained, but of course, the central story ends tragically.

A fun fact is that Robert Altman was initially signed on to direct the film, but was replaced by Forman. My mind conjures up endless juicy moments that Altman likely would have added. As good as Forman is, Altman would have been even better.

There are also a few real-life people sprinkled in among the fictitious characters, which may cause some confusion, especially with the large cast. Newsreels of Theodore Roosevelt, Houdini, and architect Stanford White are featured.

A flurry of juicy tales based on E.L. Doctorow’s eponymous novel dissects life in pre-World War I New York City. The haves and have-nots see their lives intersect in many different ways.

A lavish party in Atlantic City is a fabulous highlight of Ragtime.

One day, a rich white family living in New Rochelle, New York, finds a black baby in their yard and takes in the mother (Debbie Allen) as a maid. A black pianist, Coalhouse Walker Jr. (Howard Rollins), returns for his woman and child after finding success in a Harlem jazz band.

A group of small-minded firefighters, irritated to see a successful black man own a Model-T Ford, deface it, and Walker demands retribution. This sets the main chain of events in the film as a war rages between Walker and his friends and the white firefighters.

There are more stories presented in a lesser form than I would have loved, like the interesting friendship between the black Walker and the white younger brother, played by Brad Dourif.

In a strange scene, millionaire industrialist Harry Kendall Thaw (Robert Joy) makes a scene when White unveils a nude statue atop Madison Square Garden, modeled after former chorus girl Evelyn Nesbit (Elizabeth McGovern), Thaw’s wife.

Convinced that White has corrupted Evelyn, Thaw publicly shoots him dead.

From an acting perspective, the film belongs to Howard E. Rollins. I immediately treasured the character he plays and rooted for him to win. Intelligent yet put upon, he goes through several incarnations of the character and twice as many emotions. He was by far the richest character of all as far as substance.

Other characters intrigued, but dissecting them would be impossible since there were so many. McGovern, Mandy Patinkin, and Mary Steenburgen are my favorite characters.

The only slight drawback is that the film has a glossy look, and the gritty scenes are not powerful enough. As intense a moment as the finale is, for example, I wanted something dirtier. When Walker’s fate was sealed, I wanted to be more frightened, not feel like I was being fed high drama.

Ragtime (1981) successfully and nearly flawlessly combines artistic style with an enormous social message. It looks polished and representative of the early 1900s, and it challenges audiences to take a look at how different cultures co-existed in another time.

Oscar Nominations: Best Actor in a Supporting Role-Howard Rollins, Best Actress in a Supporting Role-Elizabeth McGovern, Best Writing, Screenplay Based on Material From Another Medium, Best Art Direction-Set Direction, Best Cinematography, Best Costume Design, Best Music-Original Score, Best Music-Original Song-“One More Hour”

2019 Films, Drama, Epic, Historical Drama, War

A Hidden Life-2019

Leave a comment

A Hidden Life-2019

Director Terrence Malick

Starring August Diehl, Valerie Pachner

Scott’s Review #1,063

Reviewed September 22, 2020

Grade: A

Terrence Malick returns to the big screen with A Hidden Life (2019), a lavish, sprawling beauty with a more structured plot than many of his other films.

His recent offering, The Tree of Life (2011), though marvelous, lost some viewers with its spiritual themes and lack of pacing.

With A Hidden Life, the director presents more substantial writing and a more straightforward story. It seems we can never get enough of World War II Nazi stories and conflict in cinema, as the topic remains relevant and robust.

This one stands out to me in a powerful way because it is based on a real-life figure. Although set in 1940s Germany and Austria, it resonates with great relevance in current United States history, as Malick offers clear parallels to the Donald Trump era—frightening stuff.

He weaves the past with the present, so Trump and Hitler’s personalities are compared, and the supporters of each are portrayed as similar. Again, frightening stuff.

A peaceful peasant farmer, Franz Jägerstätter (August Diehl), lives a quiet life with his wife, Fani (Valerie Pachner), in rural Austria. Over the years, they welcomed three daughters and lived in the idyllic village, popular and well-liked by the townspeople.

Their beautiful life soon turns ugly when the German army recruits Franz for basic training.

Events escalate when he refuses to take a loyalty oath to Hitler, wanting nothing to do with a war he does not support, nor with those who align themselves with the dictator.

This leads to many conflicts for Franz and his family as they face the wrath of once kindly neighbors, and the vicious Nazis.

The artistic details are gorgeous, as frequent scenes of lush landscape erupt in a frenzy. The statuesque mountains in the background, a shot of a running stream, the characters digging, planting, and growing produce —all are exquisite, adding a grandness and spirituality.

It is advisable to watch the film on the big screen, although I did not, and I still marvel at these sequences.

Despite the camerawork, A Hidden Life is not an easy watch, but it is an important one. The film is rich with meaning, texture, and substance. You get the feeling you are watching something of worth, and that means something.

The film is not a work of fiction, and the realism is quite powerful.

To imagine a man like Franz sticking to his values and beliefs in the face of death and peril in real life is astonishing and sobering. Malick does not do glossy or downplay the ordeals that Franz endures in the hideous German prisons.

Treated barely better than Jews were in concentration camps, he was nonetheless mocked, humiliated, and eventually executed.

When Franz is repeatedly advised by a local priest and others to merely take the oath and not mean a word of it, Franz cannot do it. I was left wondering how many other German and Austrian people pretended to support Hitler to save him from death, but did not.

I couldn’t find any studies.

The comparisons to the horrific conditions in the United States present day with a wannabe dictator in the White House are sobering.

Thankfully, the United States remains the land of the brave and the free, and certainly the outspoken. But we have a voice, and Franz did not, nor do the Austrian people whom he presumably represents. He did his best and refused to succumb to the pressures, but the question can be asked if it was worth it.

Oh, how I wish A Hidden Life had a different title, though. Not exactly one that rolls off the tongue, it took me days to remember what the title was.

I kept confusing it with A Better Life (2011), a completely different type of film with a similar name. Something a bit more dynamic would have been preferred, though I get why the word “life” was included. It’s such a profound word. The correlation of titles with The Tree of Life (2011) does make sense.

Malick does it again, offering another left-of-center production that goes against the grain compared to most modern cinema. World War II films are a dime a dozen, but this film stands out for its beauty and characterization.

One needs to see Terrence Malick’s films to truly understand and appreciate what the man is going for here, and props for adding a more concise story to draw viewers.

A Hidden Life (2019) is grand and fraught with meaning, adding relevance to the current state of the United States’ political system.

Independent Spirit Award Nominations: Best Director- Terrence Malick

1960 Films, Drama, Epic, Historical Drama, War, World War II

Exodus-1960

Leave a comment

Exodus-1960

Director Otto Preminger

Starring Paul Newman, Eva Marie Saint

Scott’s Review #1,005

Reviewed March 30, 2020

Grade: A-

Creating a monumental epic about the modern state of Israel, director Otto Preminger’s vast project Exodus (1960) is a bold adaptation of the Leon Uris novel from 1958.

Starring stars of the day for added Hollywood spice and a romantic element, the result is a sprawling war drama with robust proportions and a hefty running time.

The film sometimes lags or even drags, but the message’s enormous importance and influence on stimulating Zionism should never be forgotten.

With the treacherous World War II barely in the rear-view mirror, Israeli resistance fighter, Ari Ben Canaan (Paul Newman), attempts to bring six hundred European Jewish Holocaust survivors from British-blockaded Cyprus into newly developed Palestine.

At the camp, he meets Kitty Fremont (Eva Marie Saint), an American volunteer nurse. The pair teams up with others to attempt to liberate the survivors.

The action eventually switches to Palestine, where other characters and motives come into play in a complex story. During this time, opposition to the partition of Palestine into Arab and Jewish states was heating up, leading to tension, bombs, and death among similar types of people.

Central to the main plot is a young love story involving spirited Dov Landau (Sal Mineo), a radical Zionist resistance group member, and Karen Hansen Clement (Jill Haworth), a young Danish-Jewish girl searching for the father from whom she was separated during the war.

Exodus has so much story going on and multiple plots to follow.

Besides the tense story, the main draw is the two love stories told amid the political turmoil.

Newman and Saint have marginal chemistry; he is an eye candy who electrifies the screen, and she seems too old for him and does not photograph well. Kitty, a widow, hedges on her romantic feelings for Ari, but they ultimately unite.

A gorgeous sequence occurs when the two share a delicious meal of fish and martinis amid a rooftop restaurant overlooking the dazzling landscape. She later dines with his parents and his mother, a classic Jewish mother who, in stereotypical fashion, cooks and fusses.

The fresh-faced pairing of Dov and Karen is reminiscent of Tony and Maria from West Side Story. Doomed from the start, the youngsters are opposites in many ways: hot-headed, sensible, and resilient. He is bronze and swarthy; she is blonde and blue-eyed.

I fell in love with the couple more than Ari and Kitty and rooted for their happily-ever-after moment, which sadly never occurred.

At nearly four hours, the film is best watched in segments, perhaps even four, to let the action marinate overnight. The sweeping cinematic photography and the lush exterior sequences aid the complex drama.

A drawback was not seeing the film on the big screen, which was almost a must in hindsight and limited by the DVD quality over Blu-Ray.

Nonetheless, the film is delicious in nearly every way. When tedium is about to occur, an event snaps the viewer back to immediate attention.

A notable fun fact is that Preminger boldly hired blacklisted screenwriter Dalton Trumbo, on the dreaded Hollywood blacklist for over a decade for communist leanings, to write the script.

Together with Spartacus (1960), made the same year, Exodus is credited with ending the practice of Blacklisting in the motion picture industry. The importance of what is written on the blank page is arguably surpassed by the man who wrote those pages.

Exodus (1960) nearly rivals the epic of all epics, Lawrence of Arabia (1962), in its cinematography of exotic and sacred landscapes in daring and forbidding lands.

Perhaps twenty minutes could be carved out when the action loses momentum. Still, with great direction, a top-tier cast, and a history lesson in the harshness of war and generations of conflict, the film resonates with the realism of the subject matter.

Oscar Nominations: 1 win-Best Supporting Actor-Sal Mineo, Best Music Score of a Dramatic or Comedy Picture (won), Best Cinematography, Color

Golden Globe Nominations: 1 win-Best Performance by an Actor in a Supporting Role in any Motion Picture-Sal Mineo (won), New Star of the Year-Actress-Jill Haworth, Best Original Score-Motion Picture

2007 Films, Action, Drama, Epic, Fantasy, Guy Films, Historical Drama

300-2007

Leave a comment

300-2007

Director Zack Snyder

Starring Gerard Butler

Scott’s Review #977

Reviewed January 7, 2020

Grade: D

On paper, 300 (2007) could have been a good or even a great film under different circumstances, if a historical realism or a message of some kind had existed.

Unfortunately, what sounds like an interesting premise is met with a cartoon quality, overacting, and cheesy testosterone-laden bombast.

Little more than drivel, the film is saved slightly by a charismatic lead, male flesh, and potent homo-eroticism, but this is no Magic Mike (2012), and the content fails because it is intended to be taken seriously.

The result is a silly affair, with predictability and stereotypes for miles.

The story is based on a 1998 comic series of the same name, a fictionalized retelling of a battle in the Persian War.

The flimsy plot revolves around King Leonidas (Gerard Butler), who leads 300 Spartans into battle against the Persian “God-King” Xerxes (Rodrigo Santoro) and his invading army of more than 300,000 soldiers (hence the title).

As the battle rages on, Queen Gorgo (Lena Headey) attempts to rally support in Sparta for her husband (Leonidas) and conquer the army.

Butler is the only slight positive worth mentioning as he preens and prances in little more than a loincloth with chiseled abs during the battle scenes, ferociously bellowing at his enemy.

A fine-looking man, he is unarguably charismatic and poised, so the audience is strongly encouraged to root for him, and naturally for the Spartans.

Leonidas makes for a powerful leader and is great to look at, but that is where any positives to this film end.

The scantily clad gimmick is not intended to draw female viewers to the film, or at least the intent doesn’t seem to be there unless the marketing is botched.

There is enough male nudity to go around, and the beefcake and machismo are clear in most of the characters.

Laughable that the Spartans all have washboard abs and appear freshly waxed. Did they have access to state-of-the-art fitness centers in 479 BC?

The Persians are mostly face-pierced and sneering, the clear enemy, which does nothing to diminish racist overtones. Spartan-good, Persian-bad.

Zack Snyder’s (Dawn of the Dead, 2004) motivation seems to be to market this film to pubescent teenage males or the low-IQ crowd, so the stereotypes are not the best thing to witness, nor will they leave anyone feeling very liberated or united.

The characters are either cookie-cutter or grizzled and violent, which is in tune with most of the film- bloody, but without reason, substance, or merit.

One-note character after one-note character appears through each scene.

Most bothersome is the intent to stir a pro-war stance, not helpful given the target audience.

300 was filmed mostly using a superimposition chroma key technique to replicate the imagery of the original comic book, which only makes the film look like a high-energy video game.

The product is quite stylized, with gloomy battleground scenes and a dire, bleak tone, and adopts a graphic novel or comic book approach, but lacks any subtle qualities or pretty much anything else interesting from a cinematography perspective.

The battle scene finale is by the numbers and should come as no surprise who the inevitable victor is.

The film requires little thought or attention span, and one can immerse oneself on a cushion and absorb the nonsense, couch-potato-style.

Battle after battle erupts with cliched earnestness and a bevy of blood-spurting wounds and kills. This would be okay if there existed any point or good plot twist.

Any character development is missing.

300 (2007) is a weak offering and decidedly boring, a surprise since much of the action takes place on the battleground, where the pace is a mile a minute.

The experience is forgettable, and a legion of other action-fueled films exist with more meat and potatoes on their plate.

The sinister and stereotypical aspects make the resulting film less than fun, and the big, loud, dumb product is only marginally cinematic.

We can do better.

2019 Films, Drama, Historical Drama, Period Drama

Downton Abbey-2019

Leave a comment

Downton Abbey-2019

Director Michael Engler

Starring Hugh Bonneville, Michelle Dockery, Maggie Smith

Scott’s Review #947

Reviewed October 16, 2019

Grade: B+

Capitalizing on the tremendous success of the television series, which ended in 2015, Downton Abbey (2019) is a British historical period drama film written by Julian Fellowes, creator and writer of the series.

Beloved fans will devour the film, as the familiar formula and characters are brought to the big screen, giving it an even grander feel.

The film plays more like a two-hour episode arc over reinventing the wheel, but the result is a resounding crowd-pleasing affair with drama, scandals, and a good dose of nostalgia.

The Crawleys and their servants reside in the lavish fictional estate of Downton Abbey during the year 1927, a year and a half after the series ended.

Little has changed, and most of the characters are in similar situations, enjoying their daily lives.

Robert (Hugh Bonneville) and Cora Crawley (Elizabeth McGovern), the Earl and Countess of Grantham, are notified that King George V and Queen Mary will visit their home as part of a royal tour throughout the country.

The family and staff are excited yet skittish as they prepare to ensure the lavish event goes off without a hitch.

Situations arise such as the Downton Abbey servants feuding with the Buckingham Palace staff, Violet Crawley’s (Maggie Smith) dismay at Robert’s cousin Maud (Imelda Staunton) being in attendance, and attempted plot to kill the King which is thwarted by Tom (Allen Leach).

A new job offer for Edith’s (Laura Carmichael) husband, Mary’s (Michelle Dockery) frustration with maintaining the vast estate, and potential romances for several characters, including a scandalous same-sex relationship.

A few contemporary issues are created – among them, women’s rights and the plight of gay men. And though welcome, neither changes the overall blueprint of what the series is about, which is just what the series fans ordered.

Smith is the main attraction as she chews up the scenery with her insults, sarcasm, and blunt honesty. But the best scene, coming late in the film, gives Smith a chance to burst with sentimentality and limit the hamminess for at least one treasured scene.

The costumes and art direction are lovely, with luscious gowns, tuxedos, suits, jackets, hats, and shoes found in every scene.

The sprawling grounds of Downton Abbey and the ravishing interiors are front and center.

The film ventures to the neighboring city of York to offer a more progressive and metropolitan vibe, but each scene looks perfect, which is what fans have come to expect.

Not every character is front and center, but with an unwieldy cast of close to thirty principals, some are destined to accept back-burner status.

Surprisingly, yet agreeably, is the toned-down story for “super-couple” Bates (Brendan Coyle) and Anna (Joanne Froggatt), having enjoyed their share of trials and tribulations during the original run.

Wonderful moments feature supporting characters like Carson (Jim Carter), Thomas (Robert James-Collier), and Molesley (Kevin Doyle), who nearly steals the show with his hysterical fascination with royalty.

The balance and pace of the film are nearly perfect, and every character has at least something to do.

This characteristic has always helped huge ensemble casts succeed, and Fellowes wisely balances humor with drama but avoids tragedy or dark situations, hoping for mainstream success with his move to the big screen, opting to play it safe.

The attempt succeeds as the film adopts the “if it ain’t broke, don’t fix it” approach.

Downton Abbey (2019) is a splendid winner, primarily due to its impressive production values and costumes.

For fans of the television series, the film is a must-see and offers no more or no less than expected, providing more than enough to please those who want what the popular stories initially offered.

Despite the drama, the film does not feel “soapy” or contrived, and the tender moments may evoke a need for a hankie.

If the writing can remain fresh, I see no reason for another offering not to be green-lit, primarily due to the significant box-office returns.

2017 Films, Biography, Drama, Historical Drama, Political Drama

LBJ-2017

Leave a comment

LBJ-2017

Director Rob Reiner

Starring Woody Harrelson, Jennifer Jason Leigh

Scott’s Review #890

Reviewed April 27, 2019

Grade: B-

LBJ (2017) provides small glimpses of historical interest with a biography about a United States president who is perhaps underrepresented in cinema history compared to other presidents.

The production never catches fire and falls flat with an overproduced film lacking a bombast.

The film can easily be viewed once, never to be thought of again, nor providing the need for analysis or discussion.

Director Rob Reiner creates a glossy, mainstream Hollywood production with questionable casting choices and a muddled feel.

To its credit, the film introduces the fateful day of November 22, 1963, into the story.

As then-Vice President Johnson (LBJ), played by Woody Harrelson, and their wife, Lady Bird (Jennifer Jason Leigh), deplane and embark on a motorcade procession through downtown Dallas, Texas, dire events will follow.

As the violent assassination of President John F. Kennedy (Jeffrey Donovan) soon arrives, the film portrays the initial foreshadowing well, then backtracks to 1960 when the Democratic nominee was up for grabs with both JFK and Johnson in contention.

The film traverses back and forth from pre to post-JFK assassination as LBJ took over the presidency amid the controversial Civil Rights Bill and a still shocked United States public.

A character study develops as the gruff and grizzled man takes center stage to lead the country into the future. The attempt is to show LBJ, the man, at his best and worst, personally and professionally, facing pressure from his cabinet.

Reiner portrays LBJ as complex, brooding, and vulgar but also as a person whose heart is ultimately in the right place. A man we love to hate? Or hate to love?

The film fails from a historical drama perspective and a genre with many in the cinematic chambers.

A powerful political drama is supposed to be compelling, but LBJ feels dull, run-of-the-mill, and highly forgettable.

Some examples of exceptional political film projects are Lincoln (2012), JFK (1991), and Vice (2018). Each has flare, flavor, and a twist or otherwise unusual story construction that LBJ glaringly lacks.

Simply put, the experience feels plain and unimpressive.

Having regrettably not seen the HBO film version entitled All the Way starring Bryan Cranston as LBJ, I cannot compare the two other than from word of mouth that Cranston gives the superior portrayal.

Based on the trailers, I agree with the overall assessment. Harrelson’s version of LBJ is adequate, if not sensational. His mannerisms as President may be effective, but he does not resemble the man too well.

With a waxy, heavily made-up face, Harrelson the actor is unrecognizable and feels staged rather than authentic.

Jennifer Jason Leigh suffers the same fate as Harrelson in the critical role of First Lady Lady Bird Johnson. The actress successfully emulates the appropriate characteristics, specifically facially, but she also appears to be made up, like a wax figure in a museum springing to life.

As Harrelson and Jason Leigh daftly teeter from scene to scene, the result is marginally comical, but LBJ, the film is not a comedy nor a satire, played instead for the heavy drama.

LBJ (2017) is of mild interest but limited as a successful film adaptation of an important figure in United States history. Glimpses of political education for those not alive to experience the tumultuous 1960s are good, but much more was expected from this film than was provided.

Better studies will hopefully be created in the future than what adds up to little more than a snore-fest.

2018 Films, Best International Film Oscar Winners, Drama, Historical Drama, International, International Drama, Mexican

Roma-2018

Leave a comment

Roma-2018

Director Alfonso Cuarón

Starring Yalitza Aparicio, Marina de Tavira

Scott’s Review #862

Reviewed February 2, 2019

Grade: A

Roma (2018) is a film to be experienced rather than merely viewed.

A cinematic, black and white feast for the eyes, and direction to be amazed by is utterly impressive and a triumph in masterful filmmaking.

On par with geographically picturesque epics such as Lawrence of Arabia (1962), the piece is not easy to watch at first. Still, the audience will become enraptured and rewarded with each passing moment as the characters emerge to flawless perfection, reaching a crescendo of magnificent art.

Set during a politically tumultuous time in Mexico City during 1970 and 1971, the film follows a young maid working for a middle-class Mexican family and her perspective on her surroundings.

She serves as housekeeper, going about her numerous duties of mopping, cooking, and even cleaning up the family dog excrement that runs rampant, and she provides emotional support for the family members.

Cleo (Yalitza Aparicio) and her best friend, fellow maid Adela (Nancy Garcia), tend to four children of varying ages and their troubled parents. He is a doctor, and she is the family matriarch.

Antonio and Sofia (Marina de Tavira) have a troubled marriage as he supposedly goes to Quebec for business, and tensions mount among the family.

Through it all, Teresa, Antonio’s mother, resides with the family as Cleo learns she is pregnant, and her boyfriend Fermin flees after hearing the news.

Director Alfonso Cuarón, responsible for the writing, direction, cinematography, editing, and nearly every picture aspect, draws from his personal experience growing up in Mexico City.

Cuarón reportedly created the film as an artful love letter to his beloved family housekeeper, whom he adored. This approach creates a rich personality, intimacy, and a definite family angle.

The film centers mainly around Cleo’s trials and tribulations, but the entire family appears in numerous scenes, making it feel like an ensemble feature.

Cleo is a quiet and modest girl, happily going about her chores and serving the needs of everyone around her. She is treated well by the family and adored by the children, only occasionally enduring the wrath of Sofia’s temper and troubles, but she is loved and appreciated.

In love with Fermin and her only sexual experience, she winds up pregnant, which scares the aggressive and battle-minded young man.

The storyline takes place over a year, so we see Cleo’s entire pregnancy progress and experience her devastation as she gives birth to a stillborn girl.

My favorite aspects of Roma are the simplicity and the monumental touches that Cuarón includes.

The film begins with a lengthy shot of water being thrown on a cement garage and the puddles and circulation of the water. Seen from above is a slow-moving airplane, and numerous background shots of a slowly landing airplane subsequently appear throughout the film.

Is this to represent the slowness of life? Life, death, and near-death experiences are featured in Roma. Cleo’s pregnancy, the death of a baby, and the near-drowning of one of the children rescued by Cleo, despite the girl not being able to swim.

Gorgeous scenes of Cleo traversing through the streets of downtown Mexico City exude beauty. The scenes undoubtedly represent her journey through life and the pain and rewards that she experiences, but they also feature dozens of interesting characters if one pays close attention.

A man lighting a cigarette, a woman gazing, and other ordinary people doing things that look illuminating and like glimpses of the past are featured. The automobiles are representative of the 1970s, as a Ford Galaxy, the family car, is extensively featured.

The film’s cover art (pictured above) perfectly captures the theme of Roma and is highly symbolic. Huddled on the sand at the beach, the family encircles Cleo with expressions of panic, fear, and gratitude.

The black-and-white adds depth, as it could easily be a piece immersed in an art museum. The group of people appears unified and clings to Cleo for dear life, also in a show of support and appreciation.

The photo is endearing and beautiful to look at.

Roma (2018) received an impressive ten Academy Award nominations and numerous year-end accolades, an impressive achievement for a foreign language film.

Those who are patient enough to let the film and its components marinate will be rewarded with a fine appreciation for cinematic artistry.

The dreamlike quality with meticulous attention to detail makes this personal work a fascinating masterpiece.

Oscar Nominations: 3 wins- Best Picture, Best Director- Alfonso Cuarón (won), Best Actress- Yalitza Aparicio, Best Supporting Actress- Marina de Tavira, Best Original Screenplay, Best Foreign Language Film (won), Best Sound Editing, Best Sound Mixing, Best Production Design, Best Cinematography (won)

Independent Spirit Award Nominations: 1 win- Best International Film (won)

2018 Films, Drama, Historical Drama, International, International Drama

Cold War-2018

Leave a comment

Cold War-2018

Director Pawel Pawlikowski

Starring Joanna Kulig, Tomasz Kot

Scott’s Review #861

Reviewed January 29, 2019

Grade: A

Every once in a long while, a modern film set in a different time embodies that era with such authenticity and grace that we forget that it was not shot when the story is told.

Cold War (2018) is one such film that dares to whisk the viewer to another world with genuine timelessness emboldened by the torturous romantic entanglements of its main characters.

Reminiscent of an Ingmar Bergman film shot in black and white, the film is lovely, tragic, and fraught with historical references. One can dissect the character nuances and atmospheric qualities encompassing the entire experience.

The film is a sum of its parts, with a painful layer of veneer immersed in all the various tidbits. Cold War contains almost no humor but rather doom and gloom.

Amid the ruins of post-World War II Poland, repressed and self-destructive musicians Wiktor (Tomasz Kot) and Zula (Joanna Kulig) forge an obsessive love affair and cannot stay away from each other despite the European cities and countries that stand in their way.

Spanning over a decade, they battle alcohol abuse, rage, and imprisonment as they traverse Poland, France, Berlin, and Yugoslavia.

Zula does obtain some success with her musicianship, but at a steep cost. She is forced to marry a hated man she does not love, many miles away from Wiktor. Still, their romance perseveres over time until the duo makes a fateful decision that leads to a profound climax.

The conclusion of the film is powerful, macabre, and emotional.

To state that Cold War is a tragedy is almost an understatement, though viewers will probably not realize this before watching the film.

When Zula auditions at a Polish house for the musically gifted and Wiktor accompanies her on the piano, sparks fly between them as they meet for the first time.

Zula appears to be a simple farm girl and sings a mountain song in duet with another girl. Spirited, Zula flirts with men but is forever drawn to Wiktor, and their chemistry runs rampant.

The direction, art direction, and cinematography are superb, offering a magnificent look to the film. The use of black-and-white filming gives the piece an immeasurably timeless quality, especially as streets and avenues in Paris emerge from time to time.

They could easily be 1950s France. The lovely halls where the pair performs add ambiance and effect, and musical treasures such as the melancholy main song, performed in multiple languages and tones, sparkle with culture.

With a runtime of only eighty-nine brief minutes, Cold War never feels rushed and compartmentalizes all that it needs to tell in this time period.

The story runs from 1949 until the early 1960s, and the film’s title is no mere accident. The historical reference is plain and obvious. The film also has a bleak and frigid quality in both its surroundings and its characters.

One worth mentioning is a rigid government man who complains that one girl in the chorus is “too dark”; the connotation is one of nationalism.

Multiple comparisons can be drawn to Pawlikowski’s masterpiece Ida (2014), one of which is that Kulig stars in both films.

In addition to the black and white shooting, both films feature a central female character that is tortured, a Nazi occupation of Poland or the after-effects of such an occupation, and the effects of repression or otherwise obsessive behavior featured in both films.

Pawlikowski is superb at crafting these damaged and conflicted characters in his films.

Director Pawlikowski successfully achieves a second Polish film offering that challenges his audiences with remarkable storytelling, a dark mood, and a reminder of the terrible effects of the aftermath of World War II and those left in its wake.

Psychological scars can wound as much as physical scars, as Pawlikowski proves in the characters he draws from and their doomed lives.

Cold War (2018) is an achievement in many ways and makes for a thoughtful conversation after the credits roll.

Oscar Nominations: Best Director- Pawel Pawlikowski, Best Foreign Language Film, Best Cinematography

2018 Films, Drama, Historical Drama, Period Drama

Mary Queen of Scots-2018

Leave a comment

Mary Queen of Scots- 2018

Director Josie Rourke

Starring Saoirse Ronan, Margot Robbie

Scott’s Review #851

Reviewed January 2, 2019

Grade: B+

A period piece with all the trimmings for brilliance (on paper anyway), Mary Queen of Scots (2018) is a very good film, but its pacing misses the mark, preventing it from being a truly great film.

Fantastic acting and wonderful photography are the high points of an otherwise uneven experience, even if most of the components are intact.

This is not so much a total knock as a light critique, as the film is ultimately quite good and just missing the big oomph to take it over the top.

Saoirse Ronan stars as Mary Stuart, the likable Queen of France, who has returned to her native Scotland to reclaim the throne after her husband dies. Only eighteen years of age, she initially refuses pressure to remarry, but conflict ultimately ensues with Queen Elizabeth I (Margot Robbie), who rules neighboring England and Ireland.

The women admire each other from afar but develop a rivalry in power and love. To complicate matters, religious conflict, scandals, and deceit are also present in the story.

The feminist theme is inspiring and makes the film better than merely a soap opera of two rival females sparring over men.

In the mid-sixteenth century, women in control were hardly commonplace and relatively resented by the men forced to serve the “whims of women,” as one male character puts it.

Constantly showcased are males’ attempts at wooing the women in hopes of gaining power and ultimately the throne.

Still, director Josie Rourke (a woman) keeps the power firmly among the women, showing they can be as tough as they are sympathetic.

Furthermore, Mary Queen of Scots continues its progressive agenda with a startling LGBT subplot, which largely enriches Mary’s image.

One young androgynous male friend, presumably a bodyguard, frolics with Mary and other maids and confesses that he feels more like a sister than a brother to her. She accepts him wholeheartedly with an added message of “being your true nature.”

Later, the character suffers a terrible fate that devastates Mary. Regardless of the accuracy, this is a nice addition with an inspiring message.

The acting, particularly among leads Ronan and Robbie, is fantastic. Both young “it” women in Hollywood, the roles of Mary and Elizabeth, showcase their acting talents and chops for handling period piece roles.

Ronan, with flawless pale skin and authentic red locks, is beyond believable as Mary, who exudes strength yet kindness in the role she tackles. She can be stubborn but also fun and light, and Ronan has no trouble making the role her own.

Hot on the heels of playing the trailer trash character of Tonya Harding in I, Tonya (2017), Robbie hits it out of the park and does a one-eighty with the role of Elizabeth. Insecure and barren, afflicted with a skin disorder and a balding head of hair, the actress infuses the character with sensitivity and composure.

Robbie portrays her insecurity and yearning for unconditional love as she wears bawdy wigs and pancake makeup to hide her affliction.

Rourke’s mistake is not including more scenes of Ronan and Robbie together, save for one treasured scene at the end of the film. This is a wasted opportunity, as the treasured actresses could have played off each other’s talents in innumerable ways.

A knock-down, drag-out fight scene would have been a treasure to view.

The male characters do not leave much impact other than perhaps Lord Darnley (Jack Lowden), Mary’s bisexual second husband. As he betrays her on her wedding night with another man, Mary sees little use for him besides producing a child.

The handsome blonde actor adds some pizzazz, but is ultimately unlikable, as are the other similarly written men. Mary’s half-brother and Elizabeth’s advisor (Guy Pearce) are fine but ultimately underdeveloped.

Mary Queen of Scots (2018) is an effort to be commended for its female-driven and pro-LGBT stances. Perhaps unrealistic given the period and questions of historical accuracy looming over the entire film, problems with the production do exist.

The film ebbs and flows with some high moments and some looming blandness, but overall, it is to be respected and thereby recommended.

Oscar Nominations: Best Makeup and Hairstyling, Best Costume Design

2017 Films, Animated, Biography, Drama, Historical Drama

Loving Vincent-2017

Leave a comment

Loving Vincent-2017

Director Dorota Kobiela, Hugh Welchman

Voices Douglas Booth, Saoirse Ronan

Scott’s Review #738

Reviewed April 5, 2018

Grade: B+

Loving Vincent (2017) is a unique animated feature that is quite the artistic experience and vastly different from any typical film of this genre.

Being the first of its kind to be a wholly painted animated feature, hopefully, other films will follow suit, resulting in an exuberance in creativity.

While Vincent van Gogh’s biography is fascinating, the dramatic plot often left me wondering about the accuracy of all the details.

Still, the film is to be celebrated for its progressive and edgy nature.

Cleverly, the actors starring in the vehicle act while they are subsequently drawn so that the viewer can imagine the action as if it were a standard film since the drawings mirror the actors involved.

For example, Saoirse Ronan can clearly be distinguished as the daughter of a local boatman, who was rumored to be keeping close company with van Gogh before his death. We know it is the actress, but in painting form, eliciting a surreal experience.

The action begins one year following tortured artist, Vincent van Gogh’s, tragic suicide. Postman Joseph Roulin asks his son Armand to deliver Van Gogh’s last letter to his brother, Theo.

Suspicion surrounds the artist’s death as mere weeks earlier his mood was calm and level-headed, making his death cause for alarm. From this point, Armand traverses throughout France to spend time with those who had dealings with Van Gogh during the last days of his life.

Those characters include his doctor, an innkeeper, and others who may hold clues to his death’s mystery.

From a story perspective, Loving Vincent is a compelling piece as mystery and suspicion are cast around the actual death of the artist. This is not so much a whodunit as we know of the resulting suicide, however, the film casts some doubt about the why of that fateful night.

Did someone drive Van Gogh to take his own life suddenly? What was the romantic situation between either Marguerite or perhaps even Adeline? The supposed copying of Van Gogh’s art by his doctor, Dr. Paul Gachet, is fascinating.

Through these dramatic and intriguing facets, I began to wonder what was factual and what was not.

The brilliant part of Loving Vincent is the unusual and artistic method by which the film is created.

The fact that the film is about one of the most respected and appreciated artists of all time is no accident, and this perfectly encapsulates the overall tone of the film.

Throughout the one hour and thirty-four-minute duration of the film, I was continually enamored by its ” look.” Exquisite and quite beautiful, the filmmakers chose classically trained painters over traditional animators, and I feel this makes all the difference.

The use of actual Van Gogh paintings was an instrumental part of the film, which was modified to fit into the allotted screen room. The cast performed the film, as if it were a play, in front of a green screen, and then the painters created their magic—pretty incredible!

Also, mind-blowing uses colors to change the time of day (brightness and darkness), which results in a highly effective tone.

By creating a visual masterpiece of cinematic beauty, Loving Vincent (2017) is a feast for the eyes.

Although it is unclear whether the story is true to form or whether facts are embellished, the film succeeds as a work of art and provides a good glimpse into the life of one of the world’s most beloved and tortured artists.

Oscar Nominations: Best Animated Feature Film

2017 Films, Biography, British, Drama, Historical Drama

Darkest Hour-2017

Leave a comment

Darkest Hour-2017

Director Joe Wright

Starring Gary Oldman

Scott’s Review #718

Reviewed January 24, 2018

Grade: A-

Darkest Hour (2017) is a British historical film that showcases legendary actor Gary Oldman’s astounding portrayal of Winston Churchill.

Known for numerous other fine-acting performances in films such as the Harry Potter series (2001-2011), JFK (1991), and Batman Begins (2005), this performance easily transcends all of the others as he brings perfection to complex role-infusing humor, drama, and many idiosyncrasies of the storied historic figure.

Churchill is the best role of Oldman’s lengthy career.

Director Joe Wright, famous for classy European films such as Pride and Prejudice (2005), Atonement (2007), and Anna Karenina (2012), traditionally offers rich, intelligent experiences with an upper-crust, often British theme and fills his characters with wry humor and wit.

In Darkest Hour, a film that belongs to Oldman, by the way, Churchill is the master of gruff sarcasm and cantankerous charm.

During the tumultuous time of 1940,  with the barbaric grips of Nazi Germany settling upon both England and France (Allies in World War II), a disheveled England is frustrated with their current Prime Minister, Neville Chamberlain, for being weak.

Chamberlain begrudgingly appoints Winston Churchill as his successor, amid limited support.

The film discusses Churchill’s early days in charge as the war and the Nazi presence loomed larger and larger- especially as the historic Dunkirk situation comes into fruition.

Darkest Hour is a good quality film —it has a certain historic richness and the feeling of experiencing a worthy and relevant film. For those of us who did not live during the 1940s, the film will likely serve as an educational experience into the events of the day.

Hundreds of films have been made over time that have explored the events during World War II in fantastic detail, but this film is unique in that it not only provides a perspective of the Allied countries “back against the wall” situation but the ups and downs and pressures that Churchill, the man, faced.

Despite a few quick clips of Hitler and very old black-and-white footage and newspaper headlines of the crazed leader, the focus is not on the enemy country. No actor was used to play Hitler; rather, the focus is on Churchill and the decisions he made and the influences he was faced with.

Pressured to appease the militant German country and reach a “peaceful” deal, Churchill instead listened to the voices of the ordinary, everyday, British people to get his decision to fight the Germans and not back down.

Clever and relevant to 2017 cinema, the film spotlights the famous Dunkirk situation, when British forces were trapped on the shores of Dunkirk, with German planes looming overhead.

Many men were saved, thanks in large part to Churchill and British and French civilian boats that aided in the rescue.

The 2017 film Dunkirk would make an excellent companion piece to Darkest Hour because its subject matter is similar to that of Darkest Hour.

Not surprisingly, both films received Academy Award nominations for Best Picture.

A great lesson I carried away from the film is with Churchill himself.

Sure, I knew that he was the Prime Minister of England during the 1940s and was instrumental in the events of the bloody war, but I knew little about the man himself.

Thanks to Wright and, of course, Oldman, the viewer will learn the good and bad characteristics of this man. A heavy drinker, commonly downing champagne with lunch and brandy the rest of the day, he was initially not well-liked, nor taken very seriously by British royalty.

With Churchill’s bubbling personality, Oldman is fantastic at filling the role with humor, frustration, and just the correct amount of empathy and concern.

Despite his temper, we can tell that he loves his country and is proud of the people living there—that is why he is adamant about conquering the enemy. So, we know he is a good man despite his temper tantrums.

Oldman also successfully embodies the mannerisms that this historical figure contained.

Kristin Scott Thomas also gives a worthy performance, albeit in a small role, as the mature and graceful wife, who can both support and match wits with her husband.

Thanks to a brilliant acting performance by Gary Oldman, who takes on a difficult role that could easily be botched by lesser talent, Darkest Hour is a 2017 historical drama worth seeing.

He makes a film that could have been dull and flat into a worthy watch to both learn something and be amazed at a truly great acting performance.

Oscar Nominations: 2 wins-Best Picture, Best Actor-Gary Oldman (won), Best Production Design, Best Cinematography, Best Makeup and Hairstyling (won), Best Costume Design

2008 Films, Drama, Historical Drama, Political Drama

Frost/Nixon-2008

Leave a comment

Frost/Nixon-2008

Director Ron Howard

Starring Frank Langella, Michael Sheen

Scott’s Review #595

Reviewed January 8, 2017

Grade: B+

Adapted from a Broadway play, director Ron Howard creates a powerful film surrounding the infamous 1977 interview between former President Nixon and interviewer David Frost.

Frank Langella and Michael Sheen star.

For someone too young to remember Nixon or the Watergate scandal, the film was very enlightening and historical for me on a personal level.

Frost/Nixon is also a very human story and well-made.

The interview scenes are fantastic, as the constant back-and-forth, cat-and-mouse, each man looking for an opportunity to either pounce, avoid, or gain the upper hand is rich with character-driven possibilities.

The scuttlebutt and the behind-the-scenes scrambling by Nixon’s men is good drama.

In particular, Frank Langella steals the show as President Nixon. He is confident, strong, yet vulnerable, and sad.

An acting Tour De Force by Langella.

Oscar Nominations: Best Picture, Best Director-Ron Howard, Best Actor-Frank Langella, Best Adapted Screenplay, Best Film Editing

2016 Films, Biography, Drama, Historical Drama

Jackie-2016

Leave a comment

Jackie-2016

Director Pablo Larrain

Starring Natalie Portman

Scott’s Review #576

Reviewed January 1, 2017

Grade: A-

Natalie Portman carries the 2016 biographical-drama film based on the life of Jackie Kennedy and the events directly following the assassination of John F. Kennedy in 1963.

The film does not retread conspiracy theories or feature more than a few brief glimpses of JFK himself. Instead, it tells Jackie’s story and what she faced throughout the ordeal.

The film wisely uses flashbacks to show the famous tour of the White House, which Jackie gave shortly before the President’s death.

It is a bravura performance by Portman as Jackie.

Director Pablo Larrain, primarily known for achievements with foreign-language films (the Chilean film No (2012), comes to mind), rather than the American history genre, is successful in his work with direction.

The film is gloomy, both in tone and with the terrific brooding musical score composed by Mica Levi, with its loud, abrupt sound effects.

The overall feel of the film is foreboding and dark.

The main activity is told through a famous Life interview that Jackie Kennedy gave a week after the assassination. The reporter was Theodore H. White, who was slightly less than sympathetic in demeanor toward the First Lady.

Held in Massachusetts, Jackie is still pained in peaceful tranquility away from the limelight.

Portman successfully reveals two sides of Jackie Kennedy to the audience. Not simply the smiling debutante she always portrayed publicly, Jackie was also a complex, feisty woman.

She vehemently wanted the world to see how brutal the assassination was, how proud she was of her husband, and how she would not back down from holding a lavish and public funeral procession for her deceased husband.

Jackie was met with harsh criticism and defiance for her desire. A proud woman, she did not wish to run away and hide from the terrible events.

Jackie is mostly a quiet, introspective film. Much of the film is about Jackie being interviewed, and there are flashbacks of her giving the White House tour.

Typically, Portman portrays Jackie as prim, proper, and demure. She is always filled with class and grace.

In one riveting sequence, though, we see Jackie walking through the White House, smoking cigarettes and drinking vodka. She appears alone and vulnerable, having just lost her husband.

Portman embraces her pain, and the audience grieves with her. She is alone in more ways than one. We see her not only as a First Lady but also as a sad woman in her agony.

Portman is fantastic in her mannerisms and tone of voice.

I loved the continuous usage of flashbacks to tell the story. Still, the film does not delve into an unneeded history lesson. We all know what happened. The point of the film is to answer curiosity about Jackie.

What is most effective is the focus on Jackie’s reactions and how Jackie handled the events.

In a grotesque scene rivaling any horror film, we are right there with Jackie in the car that fateful day as a shot rings out, blowing JFK’s head wide open. Sinking into Jackie’s lap, she later candidly describes to the Life magazine reporter how she attempted to hold the remains of his head together.

We then see her wandering around, her beautiful pink suit smeared with blood.

A quiet yet compelling and mesmerizing film, Portman is the main draw. She channels emotions of heartbreak, sadness, and composure.

Jackie was a fantastic First Lady who was always graceful and proper, but Portman shows another side of her that very few people knew about.

In addition to this fine acting, Jackie (2016) is a dark, brooding film that successfully tells this woman’s story.

Oscar Nominations: Best Actress-Natalie Portman, Best Original Score, Best Costume Design

Independent Spirit Award Nominations: Best Feature, Best Director-Pablo Larrain, Best Female Lead-Natalie Portman, Best Editing