Category Archives: Political Drama

1975 Films, Art, Drama, International, Italian, Political Drama, Top 10 Most Disturbing Films, Top 100 Films, Top 250 Films

Salo-1975

Leave a comment

Salo-1975

Director Pier Paolo Pasolini

Starring Paolo Bonacelli, Giorgio Cataldi, Caterina Boratto

Top 250 Films #56

Top 10 Most Disturbing Films #1    

Scott’s Review #183 

70099045

Reviewed October 9, 2014

Grade: A

 Salo is a disconcerting, highly controversial Italian art film from 1975 that is not for the squeamish nor the prudish.

Many people will revile this film for its distastefulness and despise it entirely — that is, if they even give it a chance, which, unfortunately, many will refuse to do.

But beyond the filth, perversion, and hatefulness that are themes of Salo lies a film that is a work of art and must be experienced by the most open-minded of cinema lovers.

The film is a dreamlike experience that centers on four wealthy Fascist Italian men of great importance and power, circa 1944, who decide to kidnap eighteen teenage boys and girls- the youngsters must be the cream of the crop and flawless in appearance, only the most attractive will do- one girl missing a tooth is immediately cast aside as a reject.

Whether the girl flaunted her marred appearance is open to interpretation.

The youths are then taken to an enormous palace where they are stripped of all clothing and forced to endure four months of torture, sexual perversions, and humiliations at the whim of and for the entertainment of their captors.

Finally, at the end of their terms, most are tortured to death by way of scalping, removal of tongues, or having their sexual organs burned off.

Also living in the palace are four aging prostitutes who enthrall the men, along with the reluctant prisoners, with tales of kinky and perverted sexual encounters from their younger days, mostly involving anal sex.

The film is divided into four sections based on Dante’s Divine Comedy: the Ante Inferno, the Circle of Manias, the Circle of Shit, and the Circle of Blood.

In one sadistically disturbing scene, one of the young girls is forced to eat human excrement by one of her wealthy captors.

In another, during the Circle of Shit, everyone dines on a meal consisting of human excrement, where lewd sex occurs.

One of the female prisoners is tricked into eating food laced with nails- a contest to determine who has the best buttocks results in the winner being brutally murdered.

Everyone in the film is bisexual, and there are repeated scenes of extreme, almost pornographic, violent sex scenes.

On a side note, most of the youngsters (non-actors) reported having a ball while filming Salo and knew not what the film was really about, so the feeling on the set was light-hearted, nothing like the finished product.

While deeply disturbing, Salo is a film that some, or many, will not get or look beyond the obvious for a deeper message. It is a masterpiece in its ugliness, rawness, and political statements, and quite artistic once one gets past the film’s brutality.

Salo contains much political symbolism- the excrement serves as the filth of Nazi Germany and authoritarian figures throughout Europe such as Hitler and Mussolini, the abuse of power that was rampant during the time of the film (World War II era), and the entire film is about the abuse that powerful people (the wealthy fascists equate to powerful Germans) inflicted on the weak (the innocent boys and girls mirror the Jews and the weak).

Is Salo a disturbing, grotesque film? It is. Is it mindless torture for the sake of torture, like movies as extreme as Saw and Hostel? It is not. It is an art film, not a horror film.

Banned in many countries for decades due to the extreme content of rape, murder, and torture of individuals thought to be under the age of eighteen, it remains widely banned to this day in several countries.

Many filmmakers, actors, and historians struggle to preserve the film’s artistic merit.

To fully grasp Salo, one must delve into the filmmakers’ minds and recognize that it is a statement film, filled with symbolism that challenges and questions the politics of its time.

Director Pier Paolo Pasolini was brutally murdered by a male prostitute shortly before the film’s release.

Salo (1975) is one of the most disturbing films I have ever viewed.

2024 Films, Biography, Drama, International, International Drama, Political Drama, Portuguese

I’m Still Here-2024

Leave a comment

I’m Still Here-2024

Director Walter Salles

Starring Fernanda Torres, Selton Mello, Fernanda Montenegro

Scott’s Review #1,464

Reviewed February 9, 2025

Grade: A-

A powerful political drama led by a riveting performance by Fernanda Torres gives a frightening view of government corruption. Her mother, Fernanda Montenegro, also plays a small yet pivotal role in a double dose of brilliant acting.

Ironically, twenty-five years after Montenegro, Torres was nominated for an Oscar for Salles’s film Central Station (1998). What lovely desserts!

Director Walter Salles showcases a loving family at the forefront that provides empathy for the audience. Events slowly build, so time is spent investing in the characters first so that we care about them before becoming immersed in their peril.

Though the setting is early 1970s Brazil, the stark reality is that corruption still exists in many countries, even the United States of America. While Brazil is now a democratic country, the US is teetering towards a villainous dictatorship. Brazil is also still threatened by the villainous right wing.

This adds a layer of fear that something that happened so long ago can quickly occur again.

The story is true.

Eunice Paiva (Torres/Montenegro) investigates her husband Rubens’ (Selton Mello) disappearance while trying to maintain family stability. Rubens is a former Congressman turned civil engineer opposed to military dictatorship. One night, he is taken away for questioning and never returns.

Most of the early events take place in Rio de Janeiro, Brazil. The Paiva family resides in a beachfront house and regularly celebrates with neighbors and friends. The kids play volleyball and enjoy life. One of the kids travels to London with family friends, joyfully exploring her obsession with the Beatles.

Salles perfectly exposes this forty-five minutes or so of celebration before turning to the darkness of the rest of the story.

There is a foreboding quality despite the parties, the drinking, the laughs, the many photographs, videos, and quiet moments between family members.

One of the daughters and her friends are stopped by military guards at a checkpoint and harassed. Eunice sees a tank drive by filled with military personnel. Ruben’s best friend needs to flee Brazil before something terrible happens to him.

Even the lighting turns darker once Rubens, Eunice, and her daughter are questioned at a military facility.

Dark sequences feature Eunice being kept in a dimly lit cell for days, dirty and disheveled.

Despite the compelling nature of 1970/1971, I breathed a sigh of relief when events moved to 1996 and, finally, 2014. The lighting became sunnier, the family had moved on, and their lives had a new meaning.

Enough raves cannot be given for Torres’s performance. Instead of giving Eunice a weepy, overly emotional quality, she plays her as strong and confident, always in control. Torres relays the woman’s pain, confusion, and heartbreak through her eyes and facial mannerisms, relaying her agonizing uncertainty.

Montenegro plays Eunice, an elderly older woman with late-stage Alzheimer’s disease, in a short but powerful scene.

Eunice knows her husband is involved in anti-military communications and supports him as a brilliant woman. She is not a simpering weak woman but an empowered, confident one.

Eunice returns to college and graduates law school at forty-eight, becoming an expert on Indigenous Rights.

So, the character and real-life figure inspire women and men to persevere under extreme circumstances. Both Eunice and Rubens are heroic.

As if there was ever doubt, Rubens Paiva’s true fate is revealed during the end credits, amid photographs of the real Paiva family.

Justice was never served.

The film portrays a biography of a man who wants to do the right thing and surrounds himself with allies and intellectuals who share his beliefs.

In the terrible state of United States politics in 2024, I’m Still Here (2024) resonates deeply on many levels. This compelling work teaches me a lesson in standing up for what’s right amid uncertainty and fear and connecting with like-minded people.

I may not need to see the film again, but the message was clear and hit home.

Oscar Nominations: 1 win-Best Picture, Best Actress-Fernanda Torres, Best International Film (won)

1977 Films, Drama, Political Drama

Julia-1977

Leave a comment

Julia-1977

Director Fred Zinnemann

Starring Jane Fonda, Vanessa Redgrave, Jason Robards

Scott’s Review #1,283

Reviewed July 31, 2022

Grade: A

Jane Fonda leads the charge in a powerful and gorgeously shot drama named Julia (1977), centering around pre-World War II and the impending Holocaust.

The drama is based on the playwriting of Lillian Hellman, a famous playwright, which depicts the relationship between two close friends and the unexpected consequences that arise when one desperately needs help from the other.

When Lillian (Fonda), a renowned playwright, reunites with her childhood friend Julia (Vanessa Redgrave) in Russia, the writer is asked to smuggle funds into Germany to aid the anti-Nazi movement.

In the mix is Lillian’s mentor, Dashiell Hammett (Jason Robards), who is unaware of her dangerous assignment.

I immediately relish the film mainly because the message is extremely female-empowering, and a dynamic friendship between two women is examined. This does not happen enough, successfully, in films even to this day.

Given the World War II theme, one would naturally assume the film would center around men, not women, and plenty of female spies and the like are featured.

Added to the mix is the astounding cinematography of Germany, Poland, and Russia. In truth, the film was shot in England and France for security and restrictive reasons, but it could have fooled me since the countries look authentic and believable.

Julie looks polished, and that’s hardly a gripe. The production design and costumes are perfectly shot and colored. It’s not a dowdy or drab film, and it depicts a little amount of violence or torture, choosing to focus on relationships and intrigue.

The suspenseful train sequence is brilliant in every way, sprinkling in Hitchcockian touches and enough nail-biting to make the long scene a key takeaway. Lillian must keep her intentions secret as she travels toward Russia, and each train scene, whether it’s the peril of being checked at the border or eating in the dining car, is captured perfectly.

A slight suspension of disbelief is the casting of the beautiful Fonda as the plain-looking playwright Lillian Hellman. In some scenes, she is made up to look haggard, tired, and homely, but the trick never works for a minute.

It’s even giggle-worthy, and it’s recommended to sit back and watch Fonda deliver a splendid performance, forgetting altogether that she is portraying the writer.

In other movies, it might have only been about Fonda from an acting perspective, but in Julia, the spoils go round and round. At the very least, Redgrave, Robards, and Maximilian Schell, who plays a pivotal character named Johann, must be mentioned. Each brings professionalism and believability to their characters.

But quieter parts by a woman passenger and a girl passenger are my favorites. They go from cheery to serious, speaking in a sort of code, not stating that they are helping Lillian, but obviously using facial expressions to reveal true alliances.

A delightful point to make is that Julia is Meryl Streep’s first film role, albeit in a tiny part.

Speaking of Redgrave, when she won the Best Supporting Actress Academy Award, she made an infamous speech that marked a great controversy.

In her acceptance speech, she thanked Hollywood for having “refused to be intimidated by the threats of a small bunch of Zionist hoodlums whose behavior is an insult to the stature of Jews all over the world and to their great and heroic record of struggle against fascism and oppression”.

This was preceded by members of the Jewish Defense League picketing the ceremony and followed by some boos and retorts to her comments.

But back to the film, Julia does not end in a happily-ever-after way. A major character is killed, and a baby is lost forever. But that’s part of the truth about creating a film that harkens back to a day when non-conformity led to death.

Julia (1977) is a vital film that still holds up tremendously well, and in a world still filled with chaos and oppression, it’s a powerful reminder of cinema’s power.

Oscar Nominations: 3 wins-Best Picture, Best Director-Fred Zinnemann, Best Actress-Jane Fonda, Best Supporting Actor-Jason Robards (won), Maximilian Schell, Best Supporting Actress-Vanessa Redgrave (won), Best Screenplay-Based on Material from Another Medium (won), Best Cinematography, Best Costume Design, Best Film Editing, Best Original Score

1982 Films, Australian, Drama, Political Drama, Romantic Drama

The Year of Living Dangerously-1982

Leave a comment

The Year of Living Dangerously-1982

Director Peter Weir

Starring Mel Gibson, Sigourney Weaver

Scott’s Review #1,266

Reviewed June 16, 2022

Grade: B+

The Year of Living Dangerously (1982) is a solid political drama with enough intrigue, romance, and superior cinematography by Russell Boyd to recommend it.

It’s not an American film but an Australian one, which gives it an authentic flavor even though events are primarily set in Indonesia.

If Mad Max (1979) didn’t make Mel Gibson a full-fledged pinup star, The Year of Living Dangerously certainly did because it made him a romantic ladies’ man in addition to a rugged action star. He has a ton of good looks and charisma at this point in his career and arguably has never looked better.

One could say (okay, I flat-out will) that Gibson is upstaged, unintentionally so, by stage actress Linda Hunt, who gets the role of her life as a highly intelligent Chinese-Australian man with dwarfism who is key to the entire plot.

Hunt won the Academy Award for flipping gender norms on their head and making the film more progressive and memorable than it deserves. Her performance is timeless and rich in character flavor.

If not for Hunt and Gibson as the standouts, the film would be lost in the shuffle among the myriad similar political dramas that emerged in the 1980s.

Missing (1982), starring Jack Lemmon and Sissy Spacek, and Victory (1981), starring Sylvester Stallone, are the films that remind me of The Year of Living Dangerously.

Blow Out (1981) and No Way Out (1987) are two of the best political drama films of the decade, and are assuredly influenced by All the President’s Men (1976), one of the best in the genre.

There are so many others that The Year of Living Dangerously feels forgotten and too similar to a standard formula to stand out. It also suffers at times from being either a romantic drama or a political thriller, and it struggles to mesh the two in a satisfying way.

After journalist Guy Hamilton (Gibson) arrives in Jakarta, Indonesia, he forms a friendship with dwarf photographer Billy Kwan (Hunt), through whom he meets British diplomat Jill Bryant (Sigourney Weaver).

Bryant falls in love with Hamilton and gives him key information about an impending Communist uprising. As the city becomes more dangerous, Hamilton stays to pursue the story. However, he faces more threats as he gets closer to the government, putting him and others passionate about the political turmoil in great peril.

The romance between Guy and Jill is not bad, but Weaver has had so many better roles than this one that it feels throwaway. She’s a smart lady who falls madly in love with Guy so easily that the formulaic context is obvious.

The movie poster makes the pair look like Rhett and Scarlett in Gone with the Wind (1939), unintentionally providing humor and ambiguity about what the film is going for.

It does best when it sticks to the political message.

The film is laden with foreign mystique and intrigue largely due to the exotic locale of Indonesia (the film was shot in the Philippines, which is a good double).

The plot is absorbing for what it is, and the peril the journalists face is exciting. This parleys well with the real-life situation the film is based on. In 1965, Indonesia was a hotbed of corruption and danger, and director Peter Weir managed to pull these sequences together well.

The main flaw is that Weir doesn’t seem to know if he is crafting a political thriller or a romantic drama.

Back to the astounding Linda Hunt, the best scene of the film occurs when her character dies in Guy’s arms.

Forget Weaver, the emotional core of the film belongs to Gibson and Hunt, who have tremendous chemistry. The ambiguity of Billy, mostly because we know the gender of Hunt, is delicious.

In the end, the conclusion is mostly a happy one, albeit predictable, and the storyline feels unsatisfying.

A nice effort and relevant in 1982, The Year of Living Dangerously has energy and polish. It just feels too familiar and similar to other genre films to stand out, save for Linda Hunt and Mel Gibson.

Oscar Nominations: 1 win-Best Supporting Actress-Linda Hunt (won)

2006 Films, Biography, Drama, Political Drama, Royalty

The Queen-2006

Leave a comment

The Queen-2006

Director Stephen Frears

Starring Helen Mirren

Scott’s Review #1,253

Reviewed May 8, 2022

Grade: A

Before the Netflix series, The Crown (2016-2023), loudly stomped into existence and took the world on a historical journey through the trials and tribulations of British royalty, there was The Queen (2006).

Starring Helen Mirren, the film is a quiet telling of the life and times of Queen Elizabeth II, especially immediately after the death of Princess Diana and the conflict and contention that took place.

Ironically, The Crown was created and primarily written by Peter Morgan, who also wrote The Queen.

He created The Crown because of The Queen, so there is an instant correlation between the two brilliant projects, and the handwriting is very similar.

Stephen Frears, who also directed Judi Dench to an Oscar nomination for Philomena (2013), is at the helm and earned an Oscar nomination for directing, as well as a win for Mirren.

The Queen is a terrific film across the board, and Mirren is phenomenal in her portrayal of the grand dame. She cleverly fuses stiffness and stoicism with subtle warmth and humanity few see from the queen, at least publicly.

Layers of complexity are provided to an already mysterious public figure.

Following the death of Princess Diana in a fiery auto accident, Great Britain’s Queen Elizabeth II (Mirren) and Prime Minister Tony Blair (Michael Sheen) struggled to reach a compromise on how the royal family should publicly respond to the tragedy.

The family’s need for privacy and the public’s demand for an outward show of mourning are in the balance. It causes mayhem and drama behind the sacred walls of Buckingham Palace.

The performances by Mirren and the direction are what make The Queen pure magic and a standout among the many royalty-themed films that have emerged since the beginning of motion pictures.

First of all, Mirren looks like Queen Elizabeth II, and this goes way beyond wearing glasses and a sweater or having the same hairdo. She encompasses the role, and this is no small feat.

The mannerisms, speech patterns, and low-key attitude are the amazing nuances the actress can somehow channel.

It feels more than Mirren dressing up like royalty and showing up scene after scene. She does something much more with the queen’s unspoken looks and inner workings that becomes apparent to the viewer.

Frears chooses to include many close-ups of the characters, mainly of Mirren, which focus on what each character is thinking and pondering.

The film is very subdued, with a lovely musical score adding texture and appeal to each frame. The inclusion of archival footage lends a powerful sense of realism.

Merely nine years after the real-life death of the uber-popular Diana, the event was still so fresh in the minds of viewers that releasing The Queen at this time was a stroke of genius.

It’s no secret that while Queen Elizabeth II is respected, she is worlds away from wildly popular Diana and emits a coolness that baffles the public.

Thanks to Mirren, the public gets a glimpse into the heart and soul of a mysterious person, and that’s a good feeling indeed.

However, Mirren couldn’t have delivered fully without the talents of Michael Sheen as Prime Minister Tony Blair. Generations apart and with differing views, they spar and respect each other, slowly forging a friendship of sorts.

The Queen (2006) hardly needs bombs, bombast, or quick editing to get its point across, though speaking of editing, a fantastic job of it with family scenes of Diana.

The film lures the viewer into its web and makes them feel like an insider amongst the walls of royalty.

Oscar Nominations: 1 win-Best Picture, Best Director-Stephen Frears, Best Actress-Helen Mirren (won), Best Original Screenplay, Best Costume Design, Best Original Score

1982 Films, Best Picture Oscar Winners, Biography, Drama, Epic, Political Drama

Gandhi-1982

Leave a comment

Gandhi-1982

Director Richard Attenborough

Starring Ben Kingsley

Scott’s Review #1,189

Reviewed October 30, 2021

Grade: A

Ben Kingsley delivers an astonishing performance as Mahatma Gandhi,  the steady-handed lawyer who stood up against British rule in India and became an international symbol of nonviolence and peaceful understanding until his tragic assassination in 1948.

Entitled simply Gandhi (1982), the film is directed by Richard Attenborough, who had previously created masculine offerings such as The Great Escape (1963) and The Sand Pebbles (1966).

Calmly, the director creates a grandiose epic, but one that is thought-provoking and introspective in its humility.

I was incredibly affected by this picture.

As beautiful as the cinematography and other trimmings are, the message stands out to me most. One man’s spirit and thirst for fairness and human equality are beyond inspiring decades after the film was made.

Thanks to Kingsley, the biography infuses an infectious sense of what it means to a human and makes human decency the desired goal.

The film belongs to Kingsley. Despite hosting a cast of literally thousands, he is the only name worth mentioning. He is that superior.

Attenborough, who teams with screenwriter John Briley, presents major events in the life of Mohandas Gandhi (Kingsley).

The film starts suddenly in January 1948, when an elderly Gandhi is on his way to an evening prayer service and is shot point-blank in the chest in front of a large number of dumbfounded greeters and admirers.

His state funeral is shown, with a procession attended by millions from all walks of life, and a radio reporter speaking eloquently about Gandhi’s world-changing life and projects.

The film then returns decades earlier, when Gandhi, a young man, has a violent and racist experience. He vows to dedicate himself to nonviolent resistance. Initially dismissed, Gandhi eventually became internationally renowned, and his passive-resistance gatherings moved India towards independence.

Gandhi has been criticized for its extraordinary length with a running time of three hours and ten minutes. A suggestion is to watch the film in multiple sittings, though the best approach is to see it on the big screen.

Unfortunately, I didn’t, but I fantasized about the massive sequences and how gorgeous they would look in cinemas.

The story, acting, production, and pretty much everything else about Gandhi is a ravishing spectacle.

It’s worth its weight to sit back and watch Kingsley completely immerse himself in the role. The actor deservedly won the Best Actor Academy Award and, despite his oodles of other film roles, is best remembered for this one.

I’m half-surprised that it didn’t typecast him, since he is so identifiable in the role.

I want to mention two aspects that some might notice less than others, but that are simply astounding. The cinematography of India’s deserts, towns, and cities is rich in detail and accuracy. If one cannot go on a trip to India, the next best thing is to watch this film instead. You’ll get a good dose of realism.

South Africa is also featured.

The costumes brilliantly showcase Indian flair and culture, so much so that I felt I had been to an interesting country at the time the film portrayed the events, nestled amid the luxurious colors and good taste.

Post-1982, the epic film genre exists rarely, if ever, anymore.

Long gone are the days of brilliance like Gone With the Wind (1939) or Lawrence of Arabia (1962), which are truly a delight to lay one’s eyes on.

Gandhi deserves to be appreciated as much as those other films, despite being released in a less-than-artistic decade in cinema.

Gandhi (1982) is a wonderfully tragic film that leaves the viewer feeling sad yet inspired to carry the torch one brave man picked up.

A history lesson is also a lesson in humanity and in the courageous fight one man waged. Military power is not the way to achieve change in the world.

Oscar Nominations: 7 wins-Best Picture (won), Best Director-Richard Attenborough (won), Best Actor-Ben Kingsley (won), Best Screenplay-Written Directly for the Screen (won), Best Art Direction, Best Cinematography (won), Best Costume Design (won), Best Film Editing (won), Best Makeup, Best Original Score, Best Sound

2021 Films, Biography, Drama, Political Drama

Judas and the Black Messiah-2021

Leave a comment

Judas and the Black Messiah-2021

Director Shaka King

Starring Daniel Kaluuya, Lakeith Stanfield, Jesse Plemons

Scott’s Review #1,176

Reviewed September 9, 2021

Grade: B+

I wanted to love Judas and the Black Messiah (2021).

I still champion the importance of the story, however, and the timeliness of its release. The film has some moments of glory where a bombastic scene occurs that immediately reins the viewer back into the fold.

However, other parts drag and feel fragmented or otherwise confusing, to the point where the film sometimes bored me, and I hate admitting that.

I teetered back and forth between a B+ grade and a B grade, and, perhaps channeling my political side, I finally settled on a very generous B+ determination. Before I watched the film, I would have bet on an A or an A-. Alas, it was not to be.

That the film was made and exposed a mass audience to the trials and tribulations of the late 1960s Chicago racial tensions that helped create the Black Panthers organization is, of course, a huge win.

But I wanted more. Much more.

A major gripe is that the song from the film, winner of the Best Original Song Oscar, only appears over the end credits and has nothing to do with the film. Having a tacked-on feel, the song, performed by H.E.R. and others, is not particularly memorable either.

The title is “Fight for You”, possessing images of battle and courage, which fit the theme of the film, but the song itself is pretty lackluster.

The plotline is a challenge to follow, but goes something like this. The FBI recruits small-time Chicago thief Bill O’Neal (LaKeith Stanfield) to infiltrate the Illinois Black Panther Party and is tasked with keeping tabs on their charismatic leader, Chairman Fred Hampton (Daniel Kaluuya).

At first, O’Neal enjoys the danger of manipulating both his comrades and his FBI primary contact, Special Agent Roy Mitchell (Plemons). Hampton’s political power grows as he falls in love with fellow revolutionary Deborah Johnson (Dominique Fishback).

To complicate matters, she becomes pregnant.

Meanwhile, O’Neal becomes conflicted. Does he align with The Panthers and where his heart lies, or thwart Hampton’s efforts by any means necessary, as FBI Director J. Edgar Hoover (Martin Sheen) commands?

The acting is fantastic, and along with the message, it is the film’s best part. Justified controversy ensued over the placement of Kaluuya and Stanfield in the Supporting Actor category at the Oscars; both received nominations, and Kaluuya was the victor.

It’s evident to me that Stanfield is the lead character, so it’s a shame he wasn’t nominated for a Best Actor award.

With Chadwick Boseman positioned to be the clear winner for Ma Rainey’s Black Bottom (2020) and shockingly losing to Anthony Hopkins for The Father (2020), was the thought that another black actor in the category might ruin Boseman’s chances?

We’ll probably never know.

Kaluuya and Stanfield are both mesmerizing, and I look forward to their subsequent projects, especially Kaluuya, whom I fell in love with after his turn in Get Out (2017).

A heavily made-up Martin Sheen is a treat to see in a woefully too-small role as J. Edgar Hoover.

The rest of the film is pretty good. The climax is thrilling and almost bumped the movie up a grade for me. Without giving too much away, it involves a bloody shoot-out, a real-life interview, and highlight footage. I love the reality the latter provides.

But then I remembered the snail’s pace it took to get to this point and how the other good scenes paled in comparison with a plodding pace.

I adored the characters and fell in love with the sweet, though doomed, romance between Hampton and Deborah. I yearned for them to live happily ever after, even after my hunch told me this was not in the cards for them.

My hunch was correct.

The intent was to evoke outrage in the audience at the unfairness that people of color endured in the late 1960s.  I was angrier still at the realization that they are still being maltreated in the time of George Floyd and others.

Judas and the Black Messiah (2021) receives hands-down significant praise for its intent and acting, but disappoints in terms of delivery and final product. It is not equal to the sum of all its parts.

Oscar Nominations: 2 wins-Best Picture, Best Supporting Actor-Daniel Kaluuya (won), Lakeith Stanfield, Best Original Screenplay, Best Cinematography, Best Original Song-“Fight for You” (won)

2020 Films, Drama, Political Drama

The Trial of the Chicago 7-2020

Leave a comment

The Trial of the Chicago 7-2020

Director Aaron Sorkin

Starring Sacha Baron Cohen, Eddie Redmayne, Joseph Gordon-Levitt

Scott’s Review #1,136

Reviewed April 26, 2021

Grade: B+

The Trial of the Chicago 7 (2020) is a Hollywood film with an important message. It’s conventional and explores a historic episode of great importance, and the story is told well with many liberties taken for effect.

Director Aaron Sorkin sticks to a familiar formula, peppering humor with the standard heavy drama, and creates a film that will appeal to mainstream audiences. He was rewarded with several Oscar nominations for the film.

It’s a crowdpleaser first and foremost.

I would have been bothered more by the traditional approach had the subject matter not been so weighty or not presented in a left-leaning way, which it was.

Solidly anti-war, this made the film more powerful and meaningful, though some of the comedic elements seemed silly and trite, and added to lighten the mood.

The period is 1969, though the main subject at hand occurs in 1968, so there is much back and forth. After antiwar activists clash with police and National Guardsmen at the important 1968 Democratic National Convention in Chicago, violence erupts.

Charged with conspiracy and inciting to riot, seven of the protestors are put on trial. The charges are controversial because a new president, Richard Nixon, has just been elected, and a revenge-seeking Attorney General lusts for an example to be made of them.

The casting is tremendous.

John Doman is fabulous in the quick role of the evil Attorney General John Mitchell (historians know that he was later a convicted criminal), and Frank Langella makes Judge Julius Hoffman into the asshole he was.

I’ve never been as impressed with Sacha Baron Cohen (or rather, this is the first time I’ve been impressed) as he steamrolls into the role of Abbie Hoffman, a social and political activist.

Eddie Redmayne, John Carroll Lynch, Mark Rylance, and Joseph Gordon-Levitt also deserve praise as either a member of the seven or lawyers for either side.

Whether or not specific accuracy is achieved is not top of mind for me. The Trial of the Chicago 7 provides a historical account of the events that unfolded the night of the riots and the subsequent courtroom proceedings the following year. I’m okay with a few exaggerations for cinema’s sake.

The product is a safe and glossy affair and incredibly slick to the eyes.

The editing is fantastic. Snippets of the real Chicago riots of 1968 are interspersed with the created scenes, creating a sound effect through the back and forth. But before this, real-life comments from Martin Luther King Jr. and Robert Kennedy kick off the action. Both assassinated, their existence is essential to witness before the point at which the film is ever made.

Justice is not always served. Sorkin’s point in including the sequences seems to hit home that there are good politicians out there fighting for truth and fairness.

My favorite scene is the final one. At the end of the trial, Hayden (Redmayne) is given a chance to make a case for a lenient sentence. However, over Judge Hoffman’s objections, Hayden uses his closing remarks to name the 4,752 soldiers who were killed in the Vietnam War since the trial began.

This act prompts many in the court to stand and cheer. Viewers will as well.

The main problem that gnawed at me is the same concern I had when I realized that Sorkin was at the director’s helm. He is a dazzling screenwriter, making the dialogue crisp and rich with intelligence.

But, known for television successes such as The West Wing (1999-2006) and Sports Night (1998-2000), this causes The Trial of the Chicago 7 to look like a made-for-television production versus a raw film experience.

I realize that Sorkin will likely never be a film auteur. Sorkin is the reason that The Trial of the Chicago 7 is a B+ film and not an A film.

The late 1960s were a prominent and sometimes tragic time in United States history. The Trial of the Chicago 7 delves into a pivotal event where several were railroaded and punished for something they did not do.

The film makes sure that the railroaders get their just desserts, and that’s fun to see.

Oscar Nominations: Best Picture, Best Supporting Actor-Sacha Baron Cohen, Best Original Screenplay, Best Cinematography, Best Film Editing, Best Original Song-“Hear My Voice”

2008 Films, Biography, Comedy, Drama, Political Comedy, Political Drama, Satire

W.-2008

Leave a comment

W.-2008

Director Oliver Stone

Starring Josh Brolin

Scott’s Review #1,130

Reviewed April 7, 2021

Grade: B+

I’ve said it once, and I’ll say it again- the United States political landscape forever changed with the dastardly 2016 presidential election.

Presidents pre- and post-2016 are held to a completely different standard.

We didn’t see this coming.

That said, the film W. (2008) is a biography and satire of George W. Bush, the forty-third president of the United States, who held office during the deadly 9/11 attacks.

Thought by some to be a moron, director Oliver Stone is careful to ease up on the obvious mockery and barbs that are usually thrown at Bush. There is some of that, but surprisingly, the film contains some sympathetic moments.

For example, a clever addition is a complex relationship between father and son, something shadowed from the spotlight. At least I was never aware there was any friction between Dad and Son.

Fans who lean or are conservative may not like the film. It’s not exactly pro-Bush, but neither is it anti.

It simply tells a good and accurate story.

Stone wisely features an all-star cast and offers a retrospective chronicling the life and political career of George W. Bush, from his troubles as a young adult through his governorship of Texas and to the Oval Office.

It’s well-made because it provides the uninformed viewer with an important history lesson.

The lineup is juicy, featuring an array of elite Hollywood stars. Josh Brolin sinks his teeth into the title role while Elizabeth Banks is more low-key as former First Lady Laura Bush.

In support, James Cromwell and Ellen Burstyn play George H.W. Bush and Barbara, while Richard Dreyfuss is fantastic as Dick Cheney.

Finally, Thandie Newton is as delicious as Condoleezza Rice.

Flashbacks are key to his life events, revealing the rise of George W. Bush from ne’er-do-well party boy and son of privilege to president of the United States.

After giving up booze for religion, George mends his restless ways and sets his sights first on the Texas governorship, which he achieves, then on the presidency.

By a fluke, he achieved this too, but lost the popular vote, forever a bee in his bonnet.

However, the country’s involvement in the Iraq War affects his reign and decreases his approval rating.

The historical accuracy appears to be valid, and most details are taken from non-fiction books. That’s why the film is perfect for those who wish to brush up on their history or who are intrigued about the life and times of a modern president.

Just be prepared for a bit of comedy.

To be fair, there are moments in W. when it feels like a long Saturday Night Live sketch, and the characters are caricatures.

It’s not exactly a parody, nor is it a documentary either. Sort of a hybrid.

The heart of the film belongs to Josh Brolin (reportedly, he stepped in for Christian Bale at the last minute). Major props go to Brolin for a nuanced, spot-on characterization of the former president.

He’s got the mannerisms down and turns of the head, his walk, and speech patterns. He is careful to take a controversial public persona and portray him with both humor and humanity. Never completely silly, but not as a straight man either.

The real Bush always had a bit of a devilish ” aw, shucks persona.

Post 2016, it’s tough to care much about W. (2008), though. It’s a “of its time” film. Too much has happened since the Bush years, or even since 2008 when the film was made.

Donald Trump made so many things irrelevant. I can’t wait until a satire emerges about him.

You know one is coming.

2012 Films, Drama, HBO, Political Drama

Game Change-2012

Leave a comment

Game Change-2012

Director Jay Roach

Starring Julianne Moore, Woody Harrelson, Ed Harris

Scott’s Review #1,094

Reviewed December 23, 2020

Grade: B

Sarah Palin is an idiot. John McCain is not. We didn’t know that in 2008. We do now.

Somehow their different worlds collided as partners in crime for the 2008 United States Presidential election, she was the vice-presidential nominee to his.

McCain’s people wanted a fresh face, someone with charisma, who could help defeat the surging U.S. Senator from Illinois, named Barack Obama.

Game Change (2012), an HBO film, chronicles how an unknown female governor from Alaska was chosen as McCain’s running mate without proper vetting, leading to one of the biggest political fiascos of the twenty-first century.

The production is a well-acted, well-paced affair that makes even the most liberal viewer (me!) sympathize, ever so slightly, with Palin, who was thrust into the spotlight at lightning speed.

Julianne Moore takes center stage, giving the political figure empathy and some heart. Supporting turns by Woody Harrelson as the campaign’s senior strategist, Steve Schmidt, and Ed Harris as John McCain provide levity.

The acting is the best part of the film. Otherwise, the film might have been best served as a documentary (more about that below).

As believable as Moore, Harrelson, and Harris are, they feel like performances rather than authenticity. They try to give their best interpretations of the players instead of immersing themselves in their bodies.

Maybe that’s the point of the film?

I love how the film opens.

In 2010, after the debacle has ended, Steve Schmidt sits uncomfortably before Anderson Cooper from CNN. He asks Schmidt if Palin was chosen as the VP candidate because she would make the best vice president or because she could win the election.

The question is quite poignant and the basis for the entire film.

Another excellent sequence is set during the Republican National Convention. Palin’s speech is well received, bombastic even, and energetic, catapulting her as the potential saving grace of the party.

Sadly, for her, the campaign becomes concerned that she is ignorant about many political issues and grossly unprepared. These scenes are the weakest- the audience laughably realizes she believes Korea is one country, and many other gaffs follow.

But, unless you’ve been hiding under a rock, this is common knowledge.

Game Change makes a mistake by editing too many snippets of real-life interviews and other news media moments. This detracts from the dramatization that is the intention and makes me wonder why a solid documentary wasn’t made instead.

Jay Roach, who directs Game Change, revels in close-ups, especially of Palin, perhaps as a nod to her being thrust onto every television station in the United States.

Danny Strong screen writes the project.

The duo sets up the predictable situations nicely. Palin’s disagreements with McCain, the woman, not his choice. For reference, he wanted Joe Lieberman, a moderate from Connecticut who was considered “boring”.

Let’s give the most credit to Moore. The actress doesn’t exactly embody Palin. She is more like a dressed-up impersonator, hardly Charlize Theron flawlessly playing Aileen Wuornos.

But what she does do is successfully make the audience care about her and feel sorry for her. Palin had no idea what she was in store for, nor knew what she signed up for. Moore portrays the emotions well.

Moore carries the film. Palin became a source of venom and mockery after her embarrassing interview with Katie Couric in which she was unable to name any magazines.

She quickly became the whipping girl rather than the ‘it” girl.

The message is competent without feeling preachy or overpowering, but there is something a bit dull about Game Change. Schmidt and Nicole Wallace chose Palin, making the enormous mistake of knowing very little about the woman.

Game Change (2012) is recommended for those who want to be entertained or who desire a history lesson without seeing the real people.

I still think a documentary would have worked better.

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, Biography, Comedy, Dark Comedy, Drama, Political Drama, Satire

Vice-2018

Leave a comment

Vice-2018

Director Adam McKay

Starring Christian Bale, Amy Adams, Steve Carell

Scott’s Review #849

Reviewed December 31, 2018

Grade: A

Following 2015’s The Big Short, Adam McKay once again creates an intelligently written, thought-provoking political film based on facts and historical accounts.

With Vice (2018) he focuses on former Vice President Dick Cheney and his rise through the political ranks to second in command.

Brilliant and wise in every way, the film is fair-minded in its approach. Predictably, in this era of “fake news,” it will be embraced by liberals but shunned by conservatives.

In the first seconds of Vice, a disclaimer appears stating that Cheney was a private man with secrets, but the filmmakers did their best to relay accurate information. The salty language in this clip will likely elicit chuckles, but McKay stays the course with his statement.

Immediately, the film flashes to the September 11 attacks with Cheney sitting in crisis mode, about to make an important decision.

Vice then retreats to 1963 Wyoming as a drunken college-aged Dick Cheney (Christian Bale) is pulled over for erratic driving after a barroom brawl. He is nearly dumped by his girlfriend and future wife Lynne Cheney (Amy Adams), who threatens to find another man if Dick does not straighten out.

He manages an internship and an admiration for Donald Rumsfeld (Steve Carell), a staunch Republican and White House Chief of Staff, and begins his political climb.

In clever form, the film is narrated by a character named Kurt (Jesse Plemons), who we do not know is connected to Cheney until the end of the film. This adds an added measure of intrigue to the overall film, as we know a secret will be revealed.

Vice is also unique in direction, with constant back-and-forth timeline scenes and quirky humor throughout. Are the Cheneys portrayed as ridiculous? No, but sardonic humor is directed at them as their ambitions and power-hungry motivations are completely exposed.

The film does a great job of taking the viewer through the political state of Cheney’s administration, roughly the early 1970s until 2008, when Obama took office. The Clinton years are completely skipped, but that is more to do with Cheney being in the private sector rather than an intentional slight.

The Nixon years and the George W. Bush years are given hefty screen time and the latter is portrayed as nearly a buffoon as Rockwell portrays him as a boozy, dumb frat boy.

Bale is startlingly good as Cheney and deservedly steals the show. In addition to the forty-pound weight gain, the actor endured the facial and hair treatments (props to the makeup department!) and became the man.

His body movements, smile, and speech patterns are daringly good. With a sneer and a calculating grin, we see the wheels spinning in Cheney’s head numerous times, and Bale is incredible at portraying these thoughts to the audience.

The film contains many well-known actors in vital supporting roles worth noting. The depictions of the following are examples of excellent casting with spot-on representations: Tyler Perry as Colin Powell, LisaGay Hamilton as Condoleezza Rice, Sam Rockwell as George W. Bush, Alison Pill as Mary Cheney, and Lily Rabe as Liz Cheney.

All portrayals are excellent to watch, especially for viewers who remember the real-life people involved.

Some will undoubtedly complain that the film has a “liberal slant” and portrays Cheney as power-hungry and self-serving. While this is a valid point, and McKay makes left-leaning choices, the director bravely carves the film into an experience that goes both ways.

More than a few scenes (including the final scene) justify Cheney’s actions, in his mind anyway. Claiming to do what is suitable for the people and be a true American, his actions and yearning for power can be understood to some degree, or perhaps by some people.

Vice (2018) is controversial and undoubtedly divisive, which is unsurprising given the current state of American politics. It tells an inspiring and rich story of an elusive politician’s life and policies, daring to be forgotten, that still resonate across the United States.

The more I ponder this film’s importance, the greater it becomes, but stay past the credits for arguably the best moment in the movie and of monumental importance in 2018.

Oscar Nominations: 1 win-Best Picture, Best Director- Adam McKay, Best Actor- Christian Bale, Best Supporting Actor- Sam Rockwell, Best Supporting Actress- Amy Adams, Best Original Screenplay, Best Makeup and Hairstyling (won), Best Film Editing

2008 Films, Biography, Drama, Favorite Film of the Year, LGBTQ+ Drama, LGBTQ+ Films, Political Drama, San Francisco

Milk-2008

Leave a comment

Milk-2008

Director Gus Van Sant

Starring Sean Penn

Scott’s Review #744

Reviewed April 18, 2018

Grade: A

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The film shows the many close relationships that Milk formed throughout the 1970s, including his steady lover Scott Smith, played by James Franco.

The two actors share solid chemistry, as they are both fun-loving and driven in their hopes for what they aim to achieve.

Sadly, Milk’s drive eventually outweighs Smith’s, and they ultimately drift apart while retaining a special bond.

Emile Hirsch is nearly unrecognizable as Cleve Jones, a young man whom Harvey inspires and mentors throughout the pivotal decade.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

2017 Films, Drama, Political Drama

The Post-2017

Leave a comment

The Post-2017

Director Steven Spielberg

Starring Meryl Streep, Tom Hanks

Scott’s Review #715

Reviewed January 15, 2018

Grade: A-

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

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

The film is an intelligent piece of writing.

Its crisp script and quick editing allow for a believable foray into a different time, when newspapers were hot and rotary telephones, telephone booths, and polyester outfits were all the rage.

Spielberg is brilliant at setting just the right mood and tone to transport the audience back to 1971, on the eve of the enormous Watergate scandal.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Hanks, however, underwhelms as the gruff editor-in-chief of the Post, Ben Bradlee. Given the actor’s enormous talents, I was expecting a meatier performance, which does not materialize.

I also anticipated an equal balance of Hanks and Streep, but the film belongs to Streep.

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

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

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

A neat trick Spielberg creates is to only show Nixon in shadows, wildly gesturing and threatening, similar to Trump’s mannerisms—this is no accident.

The entire work of The Post seems to be a big call-out by Spielberg, a devout liberal, to the Trump administration.

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

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

In 2017, the current state of the media versus the White House has never been more controversial, disdainful, and even hateful, as the “truth” is often tough to come by or even to distinguish.

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

For this reason alone, The Post (2017) must be a film we celebrate and model ourselves after—how timely indeed.

Oscar Nominations: Best Picture, Best Actress-Meryl Streep

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

1991 Films, Drama, Epic, Political Drama, Political Thriller, Thriller

JFK-1991

Leave a comment

JFK-1991

Director Oliver Stone

Starring Kevin Costner

Scott’s Review #536

60031474

Reviewed December 4, 2016

Grade: B+

JFK (1991) is a very well-made film. Still, it must be taken with a grain of salt, as the director, Oliver Stone, reportedly took many liberties, and the film is open to interpretation about what is true and what is embellished.

At three hours and twenty-six minutes, the film is epic in proportion.

The film recounts the events leading up to the assassination of President John F. Kennedy through the eyes of a former District Attorney from New Orleans, James Garrison, played by Kevin Costner.

Garrison filed charges against New Orleans businessman, Clay Shaw (Tommy Lee Jones), and in his view, was in cahoots with Lee Harvey Oswald to kill the president.

Stone suggested that President Lyndon B. Johnson was involved in the coup, which led to considerable controversy.

The plot is quite intricate and at times tough to follow, but the editing alone is impressive. I loved the authentic, real-life footage that Stone immerses throughout the film.

As we know, the assassination in 1963 was tragic and fraught with controversy that still abounds today.

Stone was wise to make a film of this caliber despite the lack of clarity about what is true and what is not.

I guess we may never know.

Oscar Nominations: 2 wins-Best Picture, Best Director-Oliver Stone, Best Supporting Actor-Tommy Lee Jones, Best Screenplay Based on Material Previously Produced or Published, Best Original Score, Best Sound, Best Cinematography (won), Best Film Editing (won)

2012 Films, Biography, Drama, Historical Drama, Period Drama, Political Drama

Lincoln-2012

Leave a comment

Lincoln-2012

Director Steven Spielberg

Starring Daniel Day-Lewis, Sally Field, Tommy Lee Jones

Scott’s Review #476

70251896

Reviewed September 10, 2016

Grade: A

Lincoln is a 2012 film, which received a slew of Academy Award nominations. There appear to be differing opinions about the film itself, however.

Lincoln has audiences divided over whether it’s a brilliant film or a snore-fest.

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 found it to be a wonderful history lesson.

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

This film is not for everyone, but if you can find 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

2015 Films, British, Drama, Political Drama

Suffragette-2015

Leave a comment

Suffragette-2015

Director Sarah Gavron

Starring Carey Mulligan, Helena Bonham Carter

Scott’s Review #291

80046819

Reviewed December 1, 2015

Grade: A-

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

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

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

Their lives are bleak.

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

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

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

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

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

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

How sad to think this happened.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

1951 Films, Drama, Political Drama, Science Fiction

The Day the Earth Stood Still-1951

Leave a comment

The Day the Earth Stood Still-1951

Director Robert Wise

Starring Michael Rennie

Scott’s Review #155

60026578

Reviewed August 18, 2014

Grade: B+

The Day the Earth Stood Still (1951) is one of the best, most credible, original science fiction thrillers. It has stood the test of time, considering it is over sixty years old.

Made in 1951, the film is a message movie about a spaceship that suddenly arrives on planet Earth in the United States Capitol of Washington, D.C.

Michael Rennie is fantastic as Klaatu, the calm, poised leader of the spaceship. Along with Gort, a 7-foot-tall robot, Klaatu intends to deliver a message of peace and humanity to Earth’s leaders.

The arrival sets off a panic, and Klaatu is captured, only to escape and meet local townspeople as he tries to pass himself off as human and deliver his message.

The Day the Earth Stood Still is a liberal-slanted, anti-war, pro-tolerance, and acceptance movie, but also a good, old-fashioned black-and-white science fiction thriller rolled into one.

It’s an important film.

It is an edgy, questioning film that can easily still be viewed and appreciated today (sad that not much seems to have changed in the world after all these years).

It is political, and the Washington, D.C., setting is wise and symbolic.

While a handful of humans are portrayed as intelligent and accepting, most of Earth’s human beings, especially politicians, are portrayed as war-happy, foolish individuals.

The viewer will question the world around them and, hopefully, begin to question political decisions and the horrors of war that continue unabated.

Golden Globe Nominations: 1 win-Best Original Score-Motion Picture, Best Promoting International Understanding (won)

2013 Films, Biography, Drama, Historical Drama, Political Drama

Lee Daniels’ The Butler-2013

Leave a comment

Lee Daniels’ The Butler-2013

Director Lee Daniels

Starring Forest Whitaker, Oprah Winfrey

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.

He is played by Forest Whitaker and his boozy, troubled wife is played by Oprah Winfrey.

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 quite interesting as the viewer sides with each individual 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.