Category Archives: Historical Drama

300-2007

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.

Downton Abbey-2019

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.

LBJ-2017

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.

Roma-2018

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)

Cold War-2018

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

Mary Queen of Scots-2018

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 less a total knock than 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. Religious conflict, scandals, and deceit also complicate matters.

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

In the mid-sixteenth century, women in control were rare and often resented by 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 power firmly in women’s hands, 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, Mary and Elizabeth, showcase their acting talents and chops in 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 talented actresses could have played off each other in innumerable ways.

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

The male characters leave little impact, except 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) deserves credit for its female-driven, pro-LGBT stance. Perhaps unrealistic given the period and the questions of historical accuracy looming over the entire film, the production still has problems.

The film ebbs and flows with some high moments and some looming blandness, but overall, it deserves respect and is therefore recommended.

Oscar Nominations: Best Makeup and Hairstyling, Best Costume Design

Loving Vincent-2017

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

Darkest Hour-2017

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

Frost/Nixon-2008

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

Jackie-2016

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

Son of Saul-2015

Son of Saul-2015

Director László Nemes

Starring Géza Röhrig

Scott’s Review #520

80057661

Reviewed November 16, 2016

Grade: A

Son of Saul, arguably the deserving winner of the 2015 Best Foreign Language Film Oscar, is a grim yet refreshing and inventive look at a subject matter cinema has covered at length.

The topic is a heavy, and calling the film a downer is justified, but there is also something brave and even heartwarming about it, and about the central character’s desire to do something decent in the face of death and hatred.

The film is Hungarian and takes place in 1944 when Saul is a prisoner in a Nazi extermination camp.

He is given various duties, considered a “glorified” prisoner, as he takes valuables from the belongings of those gassed and scrubs the floors after the gassing.

He later must dump the dead bodies into a pit to be incinerated.

One day, after a group of Jews is gassed, a young boy is miraculously still breathing. Soon after being discovered, the boy is suffocated. Convinced the boy is his son, Saul is determined to bury the boy properly for religious purposes.

I was immediately struck by two aspects of Son of Saul that set it apart: the camera work and the coloring.

Saul’s character is immediately shoved in our faces from scene one, letting us see things from his point of view. Extreme close-ups of Hungarian actor Geza Rohrig overwhelm the viewer as suffocation is apparent.

When close-ups aren’t used, the camera follows Saul as he performs his duties without emotion, clearly having done them many times before.

We become Saul and experience activities solely as he sees or hears them. This is understated yet compelling.

Secondly, the film has a rustic, beige palette mixed with sickly greens and yellows, muted almost, which is highly effective given the amount of death involved.

Not glossy, the color scheme conveys a sense of ruin and decay without overwhelming the viewer or leaning into total bleakness. The style is a dusty, smoky variety, nauseating at times.

I found this to set Son of Saul apart from other films with the same subject matter, making it distinctive.

Not a happy film, and it’s not a complete downer that leaves you entirely depressed. Saul’s intention to give his son a decent burial (and it is unclear whether the boy is Saul’s son or is hoped to be) is admirable and a small glimmer of goodness in a world full of evil.

Other prisoners aid Saul in his efforts, showing that their world isn’t without hope.

Still, despite the goodness of some of the prisoners, a couple of scenes are tough to take. Early on, dozens of people are huddled naked in a small room.

They are promised coffee, jobs, and most importantly, hope.

Sadly, the viewer quickly realizes the intention is to exterminate them, though the film wisely doesn’t show it visually. A brilliant distinction in Son of Saul is the contrast between the background sound and what is happening near Saul.

We hear the gasping, the pleading, and the screaming of the victims, while the camera stays on Saul and his stoic reactions.

We realize this is a typical day in his life.

Deserving of its accolades in a year of exceptional foreign-language films, Son of Saul (2015) takes a familiar subject matter and adds new, unique elements.

The film also ends on a cliffhanger involving a second young boy, a clever moment in an already superior film.

Oscar Nominations: 1 win-Best Foreign Language Film (won)

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

Lincoln-2012

Lincoln-2012

Director Steven Spielberg

Starring Daniel Day-Lewis

Scott’s Review #476

70251896

Reviewed September 10, 2016

Grade: A

Lincoln is a 2012 film, which received a slew of Academy Award nominations. However, opinions about the film itself differ.

Lincoln has audiences divided over whether it’s a brilliant film or a snoozefest.

My opinion leans decisively toward the former.

I recognize that (especially the first half) the film is slow-moving, but I found it engrossing and well-made.

Even the subtle aspects (costumes, art direction, lighting) are masterfully done.

I found Daniel Day-Lewis’s (Abraham Lincoln) lengthy stories intriguing, not dull, and a wonderful history lesson.

Steven Spielberg does what he does best- he creates a Hollywood film done well. He’s also done controversial, shocking, or experimental films, but mainstream fare is his forte.

This film isn’t for everyone, but if you have the patience, it will be an enlightening experience. If nothing else, a thing or two may be learned.

Oscar Nominations: 2 wins-Best Picture, Best Director-Steven Spielberg, Best Actor-Daniel Day-Lewis (won), Best Supporting Actor-Tommy Lee Jones, Best Supporting Actress-Sally Field, Best Adapted Screenplay, Best Original Score, Best Sound Mixing, Best Production Design (won), Best Cinematography, Best Costume Design, Best Film Editing

The Tale Of The Princess Kaguya-2014

The Tale Of The Princess Kaguya-2014

Director Isao Takahata

Starring (English Voices) Chloë Grace Moretz, Darren Criss

Scott’s Review #430

80013552

Reviewed June 23, 2016

Grade: B+

The Tale Of The Princess Kaguya is a Japanese animated film released in 2014.

It is a unique film, mixing elements of fantasy and drama, and it is stunning to experience and appreciate from a creative perspective.

Unusual still is the lengthy running time of two hours and seventeen minutes- animated films are typically on the short side.

This is not to say that it drags, although I found it helpful to view it in segments.

Originally made in Japanese, the film has been dubbed in English and features recognizable voices such as Mary Steenburgen, Lucy Liu, and James Caan.

A bamboo cutter, Miyatsuko, discovers a baby girl inside a bamboo tree one day. He and his wife consider her a divine presence and keep her as their own, naming her Princess Kaguya.

Mysteriously, she begins to grow and develop at an alarming rate, becoming the wonder of the village.

Kaguya develops a playful crush on Sutemaru, a handsome peasant.  Led by her parents, Kaguya is taken into a life of nobility and wealth as her destiny.

Her governess attempts to mold her into a regal Princess, but Kaguya is a wandering, free spirit, and rejects the formalities of this life. Her many wealthy suitors clash with her feelings for Sutemaru.

From a story perspective, the film shines as it explores the conflict between wealth and poverty. Kaguya’s parents are not greedy, but they want her to receive just desserts and a life free of hardship, as they are used to.

They want something better for her.

One can relate to the parents’ views, but Kaguya feels differently. She wants freedom, love, and happiness, not a life of rules, procedures, smoke and mirrors.

The filmmakers present the viewpoint of someone “other-worldly”  observing and analyzing planet Earth, warts and all, so the film has a message.

It is not cliched or overbearing in its approach, though- merely honest and sincere.

Every frame in the film appears to be a gorgeous drawing- not conventional, fast-paced animation, but classic, muted, pastel-type colors are used, giving it a softer touch, which astounded me.

If one is not into the story (tough to imagine), one could easily sit back and marvel at the spectacle.

The growing trend in animated films seems to be a return to traditional drawings- think Rudolph the Red-Nosed Reindeer from the 1960s- as evidenced by The Tale Of The Princess Kaguya and Anomalisa (2015), two recent animated features receiving critical acclaim.

This is music to my ears, as these are far superior to the redundant, CGI-laden films.

Oscar Nominations: Best Animated Feature Film

Bridge of Spies-2015

Bridge of Spies-2015

Director Steven Spielberg

Starring Tom Hanks

Scott’s Review #399

80050060

Reviewed April 28, 2016

Grade: B+

Tom Hanks teams with Stephen Spielberg once again in another A-list Hollywood film.

Like Saving Private Ryan (1998), Bridge of Spies (2015) is a historical film. This time, it features the Cold War; the film begins in 1957.

The camera work, artwork, and set decorations are second to none, and the film looks and feels authentic.

As interesting as the overall result is—it felt like a well-made film—something was missing that kept it from being truly riveting, which is why it received a B+ rating.

With Spielberg and Hanks on board, one will get a quality film.

Hanks portrays James B. Donovan, a Brooklyn attorney specializing in insurance law, a negotiation wiz, and someone with experience in the Nuremberg trials.

He is assigned to defend suspected spy Rudolf Abel (Mark Rylance) in what everyone assumes is an open-and-shut case; his guilt is taken as a given.

Abel has been arrested by the FBI and is thought to be a Russian spy. They will release him on the condition that he reveal Soviet contacts, but he refuses.

Meanwhile, an American pilot, Frances Powers, is captured in Soviet territory and taken hostage. To make matters more complicated, an American graduate student, Pryor, is trapped behind the Berlin Wall in East Germany and not allowed by the Germans to leave.

Donovan is pressured to defend Abel in the United States while also making a deal to return the three men to their respective countries.

Hanks, a great actor, is his typical stoic, capable self, and his portrayal reminds me of his role in Captain Phillips (2013), calm, well-mannered- a clear yet quiet leader.

The role is not as flashy as other legendary Hanks roles (Forrest Gump-1994, Philadelphia-1993). The film centers around Hanks and caters to his acting style. His character is always front and center.

Hanks never gives a bad performance, and I admire him in almost anything.

Let’s discuss the role and Mark Rylance’s Oscar-winning portrayal.

Giving a very subdued, nuanced performance, he is good and low-key in what could have been an energetic, over-the-top performance if written that way, but I am not sure I would have handed him the golden statuette over a few of the other nominees in the 2015 Supporting Actor category.

This isn’t a criticism, but I am unsure if he warrants an Academy Award.

Bridge of Spies is very detail-oriented, and every set piece, from late-1950s cars to clothing, hairstyles, and home furnishings, is spot on.

The film was expensive to produce, and no expense seems spared.

The film travels from Brooklyn to the Soviet Union to Germany and gives off a patriotic, Americana flair that feels true to life for the time. There was such a sense of country and community.

Nothing makes this more apparent than the distasteful glares, coldness, and hatred many characters show toward Donovan.

To counteract this, when Donovan is ultimately more the hero, he is revered and celebrated.

As great as the film looks, something about it feels slightly disconnected.

I left wanting more from a story perspective and feeling slightly disengaged at times. I was never riveted or blown away, even though I knew I was watching a well-made film.

This can happen if the story is less compelling than the way the film looks, as with Bridge of Spies.

After I finished watching, I felt I didn’t need to see the film again, unlike truly great films you can watch again.

A slight mention: Bridge of Spies is a “guy’s film.” Amy Ryan, a great actress, does all she can with the film’s only real female role: Donovan’s dutiful, supportive wife, a role written one-dimensionally hundreds of times.

It is a shame her character is not fleshed out. The typical worried scenes, or her fretting for her husband to return home to his family, are purely reactionary and don’t advance the plot.

In this sense, the film deserves criticism for being too traditional.

Bridge of Spies is a good effort but not a tremendous film. It is the kind of film I liked but didn’t love.

Perhaps the names Spielberg and Hanks on the marquee had me expecting more.

Oscar Nominations: 1 win-Best Picture, Best Supporting Actor-Mark Rylance (won), Best Original Screenplay, Best Original Score, Best Sound Mixing, Best Production Design

Selma-2014

Selma-2014

Director Ava DuVernay

Starring David Oyelowo

Scott’s Review #248

80013278

Reviewed June 19, 2015

Grade: A-

An Oscar-nominated factual feast, set in the mid-1960s during the Civil Rights movement, Selma (2014) is a retelling of the life and times of Martin Luther King Jr. and the struggles that black Americans endured during a tumultuous period in history.

The film includes dealings with then-President Lyndon B. Johnson and the famous and important 1965 Selma to Montgomery voting rights march, which led to the signing of the pivotal Voting Rights Act of 1965.

This film reminded me quite a bit of 2013’s The Butler in subject matter and style-ironic since Lee Daniels was slated to direct and instead signed on for The Butler.

Both feature a charismatic, intelligent Black man struggling with racial issues.

Despite being an independent undertaking, it is glossy, polished, and reflective of the time. Both The Butler and Selma boast a huge casts and feature historical political figures in a tumultuous era.

Selma features a bevy of real-life figures from George Wallis to President Johnson to the obvious leader of the Civil Rights movement, Martin Luther King Jr., and his wife, Coretta Scott King, and the casting is very well thought out.

Tim Roth, David Oyelowo, Tom Wilkinson, and Carmen Ejogo portray their roles professionally and passionately. None of the above received Oscar nominations, and I am okay with that.

I didn’t feel any were definite standouts from a crowded field of talent, though Ejogo could have been in the running with her understated but compelling performance.

I don’t share the drama surrounding the lack of expected Oscar nominations. The truth is, the film was included in the Best Picture category and won Best Song.

While an emotional and compelling film, it is neither a masterpiece nor will it change the art of cinema, though I must stress it is good.

I find Selma to be an important film- a look back on history and the shame and humiliation placed on blacks who attempted to obtain voting rights.

A heartbreaking scene depicts a determined woman (played by Oprah Winfrey) being denied this right by a cold and racist authority figure as she is asked impossible and tricky questions to prove her patriotism, which, of course, she cannot possibly answer correctly.

Yes, the film is directed by a Black woman (Ava DuVernay), and yes, one might argue that it has a Black point of view. However, the film successfully sympathetically portrays several white characters and avoids the assumption that all white people were racist in this period.

Let’s face it- racism still exists, especially in the South, and in the 1960s even more so. I did not find the message in black people vs. white people’s terms, but rather as a humanistic struggle for rights.

And the struggles continue, as the film makes abundantly clear.

While King was a life changer to the black people of the United States, his life was abruptly cut short in his prime. One wonders how much more good this man could have achieved.

The song “Glory” is an emotional, powerful number, especially during the marching and subsequent slaughter scenes, which are highly emotional and effective.

And who will not become teary-eyed as the innocent marchers are beaten and treated like cattle, simply for taking a stand? One will gasp at the senseless bombing scene that rocks a building and takes four innocent little girls’ lives away with it.

Selma transported me to a time before my time and helped me appreciate and understand the positive and negative experiences of a race of people not long ago.

This film inspires and moves me, and it teaches me about a movement that occurred in 1965.

Oscar Nominations: 1 win-Best Picture, Best Original Song-“Glory” (won)

Independent Spirit Award Nominations: Best Feature, Best Director-Ava DuVernay, Best Male Lead-David Oyelowo, Best Supporting Female-Carmen Ejogo, Best Cinematography

Pride-2014

Pride-2014

Director Matthew Warchus

Starring Dominic West, Ben Schnetzer

Scott’s Review #215

80013480

Reviewed January 17, 2015

Grade: B-

Pride (2014), based on a true story, deserves props for delivering a nice message about inclusion and groups of vastly different people coming together as human beings.

While it’s a nice film, the filmmakers play it a bit too safe, and it has a definite formulaic feel to it.

Surely the real story of Pride wasn’t as simplistic as this film felt at times.

The setting is 1984 England. A group of British miners goes on strike over wages.

A group called Lesbians and Gays Support the Miners, made up of gay men and women, became interested in the strike and decided to help the miners and their families.

Why they decided to take on this cause is not fully explained. The National Union of Mineworkers hesitates to accept funds because it fears the publicity a group thought to be perverts would bring.

The film is riddled with clichés- the macho miners resist the help from the gays, many of whom are portrayed as effeminate. The characters who are lesbians look as though the filmmakers wanted to “butch them up”, thereby overdoing the stereotype.

There is a subplot of one gay young man who has not come out to his parents, a well-to-do, pretentious couple. When the truth inevitably comes out, the parents are angry and turn their backs on the teen.

He leaves home to join the gays and lesbians who accept him into their lives with open arms.

The female head of the committee is homophobic and vows to do everything in her power to make sure the gay and lesbian group does not succeed in aligning with the miners.

These clichés seemed way too overdone to make the film more dramatic. As a result, some characters come across as one-dimensional.

Even the story revolving around a character with AIDS seems watered down and soft.

On the plus side, casting the brilliant Imelda Staunton as the sympathetic, maternal Hefina is a strong point.

A huge supporter of gays and lesbians, she comically befriends all of them and is curious about their lifestyles. Bill Nighy is also excellent as Cliff, the older miner who turns out to be gay.

Margaret Thatcher, the Prime Minister at the time, is presented as greedy and selfish, with little regard for the miners or labor unions.

Pride (2014) is an earnest, sentimental, feel-good film that deserves adoration for bringing different communities together.

I would have liked to see the film take more risks.

The Great Gatsby-2013

The Great Gatsby-2013

Director Baz Luhrmann

Starring Tobey Maguire, Leonardo DiCaprio, Carey Mulligan

Scott’s Review #142

70244437

Reviewed July 29, 2014

Grade: A

Despite mixed reviews, I loved this movie.

Having read the classic novel The Great Gatsby by F. Scott Fitzgerald, I was familiar with the story of excess and scandal during one sweltering summer in the well-to-do Long Island, NY, community in the 1920s.

Directed by Baz Luhrmann (Moulin Rouge), I found the film’s look lavish, realistic, and gorgeous—with perfect ambiance and a dreamlike quality.

I loved the casting of Leonardo DiCaprio as Gatsby, Carey Mulligan as Daisy, and Tobey Maguire as Nick Caraway.

The chemistry among the three leads is apparent, and the film is visually spectacular, from the costumes to the gorgeous sets. The speech patterns of the era- “old sport” and “row”- are used frequently and seem authentic.

Many complained about the mixing of modern rap music with a film set in the 1920s, which does sound strange on paper, but I enjoyed that aspect of it and feel it gave a contemporary edge to the film.

There are slight adjustments from the novel, but I thought it was a very successful transition to the big screen.

Oscar Nominations: 2 wins-Best Production Design (won), Best Costume Design (won)

Anna Karenina-2012

Anna Karenina-2012

Director Joe Wright

Starring Keira Knightley, Jude Law

Scott’s Review #126

70243443

Reviewed July 22, 2014

Grade: B+

Anna Karenina (2012) is the film adaptation of Leo Tolstoy’s classic novel.

Shamefully, I hadn’t read the novel, but I was familiar with the story, so I wasn’t sure how successful the transition from novel to film would be.

The transition proved to be quite successful, as it would turn out.

Being a fan of director Joe Wright, who did wonderful work directing Atonement in 2007, I consider him a master of costumed period pieces, and Anna Karenina is no different in that regard.

It differs, however, in how it is shot. The film is non-traditional, shot with jarring, quick camera movements interspersed with musical numbers.

It resembles Moulin Rouge (2001) in style and isn’t for everyone’s tastes. I enjoy this technique, and combined with the wonderful art direction/costumes, it makes for modern, unique storytelling.

Keira Knightley is adequate as Anna, but nothing special. I have to wonder if she was cast simply because she is typically the lead in Joe Wright films.

It is a tragedy, of course, and a tale of a lonely, love-torn young woman conflicted between two high-class men.

On a broader scale, it’s a story of the romantic entanglements of the high-class world and their trials and tribulations, centering on Anna.

The film’s look impressed me more than the story did.

Oscar Nominations: 1 win-Best Original Score, Best Production Design, Best Cinematography, Best Costume Design (won)

No-2012

No-2012

Director Pablo Larraín

Starring Gael García Bernal

Scott’s Review #119

70243255

Reviewed July 17, 2014

Grade: B

No is a 2012 Best Foreign Language film nominee that centers around a Chilean ad executive’s campaign to oust a powerful Chilean dictator (Pinochet) from power circa 1988.

The ad executive (played by Gael García Bernal) struggles to create a powerful campaign to influence the media and the voters.

The movie has a documentary-style look and is visually interesting.

You experience firsthand how difficult it was to build a successful campaign amid the political unrest in Chile at the time.

The fact that the film is based on a true story adds a level of interest.

While watching the film, it felt like 1988, and I felt transported back in time, unlike many period films where sets look dressed up for the period.

A detraction of No (2012) was its painfully slow pace, which occasionally made it drag.

Oscar Nominations: Best Foreign Language Film

Lee Daniels’ The Butler-2013

Lee Daniels’ The Butler-2013

Director Lee Daniels

Starring Forest Whitaker

Scott’s Review #81

70266686

Reviewed June 30, 2014

Grade: A

Director Lee Daniels is a recent favorite of mine (Precious-2009, The Paperboy-2012), and his latest, The Butler (2013), is an excellent, true-story undertaking.

While the trailer looked appealing, I was concerned that the film might be overwrought or have a Hollywood sappiness.

While it’s a Hollywood film, it is also a powerful, emotional experience.

The viewer is taken on a journey from 1926 through the current president from the viewpoint of White House butler Cecil Gaines (Whitaker), who serves several presidents and is privy to the goings-on in the White House.

Forest Whitaker plays him, and Oprah Winfrey plays his boozy, troubled wife.

Both give tremendous performances.

The Butler is a political journey through time and I love the authenticity of each decade from the sets to the costumes to the hairstyles.

The casting of the Presidents is curious (Robin Williams as Eisenhower and John Cusack as Nixon), but works nonetheless.

The rivalry between Cecil Gaines and his rebellious son is interesting, as the viewer sides with each of them at different times.

The film is more emotional than I anticipated and much of the audience was teary during scenes of heartbreak and triumph.

I feel The Butler (2013) is a must-see for everyone.

Kon-Tiki-2012

Kon-Tiki-2012

Directors Joachim Rønning, Espen Sandberg

Starring Pål Sverre Hagen

Scott’s Review #78

Reviewed June 28, 2014

Grade: C+

I don’t know what’s happened to the nominating process for the Best Foreign Language Film Oscar (it’s been controversial for years). Still, you used to be able to count on any of the five nominated films to be interesting, edgy, and even controversial.

These days, a few of the nominated films barely squeak through, rise above mediocrity, and are such mainstream stories.

Kon-Tiki (2012) is one such film.

It tells the tale of a Norwegian scientist determined to sail, via raft, from Peru to the Polynesian islands to prove a Sun God, centuries ago, made the same voyage.

He forms a team and off they go.

Supposedly based on a true story, the team faces the typical challenges in an oceanic adventure: bad weather, sharks, the raft in peril, and dissent among the ranks.

These high-sea clichés have gotten to me recently. The film is similar in context to Life of Pi, also made in 2012.

It’s not a bad film, but there is nothing special about it either, and it has glossy and safe written all over it- the score is Spielberg to the nines, who has nothing to do with this film.

The five adventurers are bronzed with buff bodies when nobody was buff in the 1940s when this film is set, and the scruffy beards, after months of sailing, look perfectly phony.

For the top-tier foreign language group, I expected something more cutting-edge and with more substance.

Oscar Nominations: Best Foreign Language Film

Anastasia-1956

Anastasia-1956

Director Anatole Litvak

Starring Ingrid Bergman, Yul Brynner

Scott’s Review #68

Reviewed June 24, 2014

Grade: B+

Anastasia (1956) is an exquisitely shot historical drama set in Paris and Denmark circa 1928.

The film tells the story of a surviving member of the Romanov Dynasty who was discovered in early 20th-century Russia. But is she an imposter or the real heir?

This is the central question that the film encompasses.

The set and art direction are gorgeous.

Ingrid Bergman is flawless as a tortured, lost, amnesiac woman who attempts to discover herself and her feelings. Unsurprisingly, she won the Best Actress Oscar this year (1956).

How wonderful to see Helen Hayes (typically a stage actress) as the Dowager Empress.

It is interesting to see Natalie Schaffer (Lovey Howell of Gilligan’s Island fame) in the film.

My only slight knock is that I didn’t sense any chemistry between Bergman and Yul Brynner, but the romantic element is certainly secondary to the fascinating period drama.

Every scene is first-rate in production and style, and gorgeous filming. Every frame looks like a painting.

Oscar Nominations: 1 win-Best Actress-Ingrid Bergman (won), Best Music Score of a Dramatic or Comedy Picture

Golden Globe Nominations: 1 win-Best Performance by an Actress in a Motion Picture-Drama-Helen Hayes, Ingrid Bergman (won)

12 Years a Slave-2013

12 Years a Slave-2013

Director Steve McQueen

Starring Chiwetel Ejiofor

Scott’s Review #62

70284282

Reviewed June 24, 2014

Grade: A

At the time of 12 Years a Slave’s (2013) release, a ton of buzz began circulating. Was it that good?

Considered the front-runner to win the Best Picture statue, it did go on to win the top honor.

The film is not easy to watch. It is brutal and heart-wrenching at times. I will spare the details, but the most intense scene involves a whip.

There are scenes of torture, degradation, and cruelty against the slaves by the slave owners.

While tough to watch, I applaud the film for not glossing over the atrocities of slavery. Some have criticized it for being a retread of similar films, but I disagree. It is worlds more intense than watered-down versions.

However, the film is not a downer.

Yes, a class of people is beaten down and victimized, but they also rise above and never give up hope. The fact that it’s a true story, and that the real Solomon Northup wrote a book about it, makes it all the more powerful.

The performances are outstanding (Ejiofor, Fassbender, Paulson, and Nyong’o).

The look and cinematography are sharp, and I love the distinctiveness of the North and South scenes. The setting is stifling hot and dreary.

There are at least two scenes where the camera pans on a shot and holds for what feels like an eternity until something happens, which makes the scenes effective.

While difficult to watch, 12 Years a Slave (2013) should be viewed by everyone to see how far society has come, not forgetting how far we still need to go to eliminate discrimination and victimization.

Oscar Nominations: 3 wins-Best Picture (won), Best Director-Steve McQueen, Best Actor-Chiwetel Ejiofor, Best Supporting Actor-Michael Fassbender, Best Supporting Actress-Lupita Nyong’o (won), Best Adapted Screenplay (won), Best Production Design, Best Costume Design, Best Film Editing

Independent Spirit Award Nominations: 5 wins-Best Feature (won), Best Director-Steve McQueen (won), Best Male Lead-Chiwetel Ejiofor, Best Supporting Male-Michael Fassbender, Best Supporting Female-Lupita Nyong’o (won), Best Screenplay (won), Best Cinematography (won)

Anne of the Thousand Days-1969

Anne of the Thousand Days-1969

Director Charles Jarrott

Starring Richard Burton, Geneviève Bujold

Scott’s Review #56

60010091

Reviewed June 22, 2014

Grade: A-

Anne of the Thousand Days (1969) is one of the better historical dramas I have seen.

One can become absorbed in the history of royalty and learn a lot. It has a clear Shakespearean quality to it (tragedy) and is compelling in many ways.

It tells the true story of the tumultuous relationship between Henry VIII of England and his second wife, Anne Boleyn, whose union produced one of the most famous queens, Elizabeth I.

Henry VIII’s first wife, Katherine, was discarded amid much controversy and political intrigue.

The drama is part of what makes this film so enjoyable, along with the historical element. It is dramatic, but not a soap opera, and the acting is superior.

The film also has gorgeous costumes and cinematography.

Unfortunately, the finale of the beheading left too much to the imagination, and a more graphic scene would have put it over the top.

The film is near excellent, though.

Oscar Nominations: 1 win-Best Picture, Best Actor-Richard Burton, Best Actress-Geneviève Bujold, Best Supporting Actor-Anthony Quayle, Best Screenplay Based on Material from Another Medium, Best Original Score for a Motion Picture (Not a Musical), Best Sound, Best Costume Design (won), Best Art Direction, Best Cinematography

Golden Globe Nominations: 4 wins-Best Picture-Drama (won), Best Director-Charles Jarrott (won), Best Actor-Drama-Richard Burton, Best Actress-Drama-Geneviève Bujold (won), Best Supporting Actor-Anthony Quayle, Best Screenplay (won), Best Original Score