Category Archives: Chiwetel Ejiofor

Love Actually-2003

Love Actually-2003

Director Richard Curtis

Starring Hugh Grant, Emma Thompson, Liam Neeson

Scott’s Review #1,438

Reviewed September 8, 2024

Grade: B

Love Actually (2003) is a British romantic comedy perfect for watching around the holidays, especially on Christmas Eve. Perhaps even on Valentine’s Day, the setting is tinsel-laden and filled with holiday merriment and sweetness.

It involves an ensemble cast of dozens but surprisingly not hard to follow. The myriad of stories had me naturally more invested in some than others, preferring the heavy drama to the silly side plots.

The film begins beautifully as a voice-over narrator sets the stage and message of love. He ruminates about pure and uncomplicated love of lovers, and friends, and points out that the messages from the 9/11 victims were messages of love and not hate.

The story then switches among the interconnecting “love stories” of many people.

The quick segment nearly left me in tears and to let the poignant message sink in.

I was pleasantly surprised to find nine stories some of which intersect with others. I am a fan of this type of storytelling but not all of them connect with others which might have made it too confusing or even better layered.

Some stories are not given a lot of exposure but the balance feels close to right.

I preferred the first half of Love Actually to the second. I had heard of the film and finally watched it twenty years later but anticipated more of a sappy romantic comedy than anything of substance, especially since the rom-com master Hugh Grant stars.

I immediately felt an emotional connection to stories like the United Kingdom Prime Minister (Grant) and his romantic connection with Natalie (Martine McCutcheon), a junior member of his household staff. This ‘boy meets a girl from the wrong side of tracks’ felt authentic and laden with possibilities.

Another win is the love story between Sarah (Laura Linney) and handsome creative director, Karl (Rodrigo Santoro). Their buildup and near tryst after a Christmas party had me in their corner, and rooting for the pair to overcome an obstacle involving Sarah’s dependent brother.

Finally, my favorite couple is writer Jamie (Colin Firth) and his Portuguese housekeeper, Aurélia (Lúcia Moniz). Their sweetness and innocence are gleeful and true and rooting for them to get together despite language barriers was easy. 

Richard Curtis, who directs and writes the screenplay, misses an opportunity when he creates an unfulfilling love triangle between newlyweds Juliet (Keira Knightley), Peter (Chiwetel Ejiofor), and best man Mike (Andrew Lincoln). Initially unclear if Mike is smitten with Juliet or Peter the traditional route is chosen instead of an LGBTQ+ presence.  

In one story, the horny British lad named Colin (Kris Marchall) unsuccessfully tries to woo British women and decides to go to America to get laid. Predictably, he meets one hot woman after another in the mid-west USA.

This story is hokey and could have been dropped altogether in favor of more screen time for the more interesting stories.

In the final act, I was disappointed when the film teeters too much towards cheesy with a tepid Christmas pageant where many stories come to a head.

This culminates with a silly chase throughout Heathrow Airport where one character jumps security and outwits inattentive airport personnel to catch his love interest before she leaves on a flight to New York.

Since 9/11 is mentioned in the beginning this tired plot device is surprising given the times of heightened terrorism and deserved respect for airport security.

Curtis rips off Paul Thomas Anderson’s Boogie Nights (1997) in the epilogue by using the same song, ‘God Only Knows’ by the Beach Boys, and the same wrap-up of what happens to the characters.

Despite the thievery, I did enjoy seeing what happens in my favorite stories.

Love Actually (2003) wobbles a bit by trying to have all nine stories pack a punch but the effort is nice and the message of love closes out the film.

We know happiness and Christmas miracles usually don’t pan out but it’s nice to escape and pretend they do.

Maleficent: Mistress of Evil-2019

Maleficent: Mistress of Evil- 2019

Director Joachim Ronning

Starring Elle Fanning, Angelina Jolie

Scott’s Review #1,039

Reviewed July 14, 2020

Grade: B+

Maleficent: Mistress of Evil (2019) is the follow-up to the 2014 film, titled Maleficent, and while not a necessary sequel, it surpasses the original.

The intent was to create a significant studio effort that would generate substantial revenue, and the experiment appears to have been successful.

The production is not as frightening as the title might lead one to believe, and children over the age of ten would be a suitable target audience.

While the screenplay features traditional plot elements and a predictable ending, the real winner is the visual and cinematic treatment, which will leave viewers gasping.

The lush landscapes, odd little worlds, castles, and forests blossom with vibrant colors and exquisite shapes and objects.

It may primarily be CGI, but marvelous all the same.

To recap, the character of Maleficent debuted in the 1959 classic animated Disney film Sleeping Beauty. Maleficent is an evil fairy and the self-proclaimed “Mistress of All Evil” who, after not being invited to a christening, curses the infant Princess Aurora to “prick her finger on the spindle of a spinning wheel and die” before the sun sets on Aurora’s sixteenth birthday.

The character has since “evolved”, now portrayed as a sympathetic character, who is misunderstood in trying to protect herself and her domain from humans.

For five years, Aurora (Elle Fanning) has reigned peacefully as Queen of the Moors with Maleficent (Angelina Jolie) serving as teacher and protector. They have a rapturous relationship and flock and carry on with fairies and animals alike.

Handsome Prince Phillip (Harris Dickinson) proposes to Aurora, thereby uniting her kingdom with his, which is met with caution by his parents, specifically his mother, Queen Ingrid (Michelle Pfeiffer).

When the players gather for a celebratory dinner, Maleficent is mocked, causing her to fly into a rage, setting off a war between humans and fairies.

A key positive, and a notable shift in the story, is that Maleficent, a legendary film villain, is written sympathetically, and the plot device is effective. Rather than have her sparring with daughter Aurora, the duo team up to thwart the devious efforts of the evil Queen Ingrid, who is the real villain.

Jolie and Pfeiffer must have had fun playing the roles, and both perform their respective parts adequately. Favorable to me is Jolie, adding just enough vulnerability to balance her fierce nature and blood-red lips. Pfeiffer plays the role straight, as a caricature, with no redeeming value.

Both roles are fun.

Keeping in mind the target audience, the characters of Maleficent and Aurora are inspiring, especially to young females everywhere. The film adds more than a hint of progressive feminism as both characters are strong and no-nonsense.

This does not detract from their sensitivity or sense of fairness. Both could equally be role models of tough yet compassionate female characters.

In most Disney films, there are heroes and villains, and we all know and expect that. The standard storyline of good revolting against evil is on display, and an epic climactic battle scene gives a customary ending to the film.

Likewise, the fairy tale romance between Prince and Princess is prominently featured, and for my money, Dickinson and Fanning are tremendous in the roles.

The chemistry between the actors is apparent, and there is a nice balance between a believable romance and strong, independent characters.

Queen Ingrid, barely a mention in the original animated film, is turned into an evil shrew, all completely plot-driven. The story is what I expected it to be, but not the film’s high point.

More impressive is how the viewer can easily escape into a world of make-believe and long to stay there forever. Especially for the younger viewers, the Moors are a bevy of magical creatures and fluttering fairies rich with goodness.

The comical Knotgrass, Thistlewit, and Flittle, the red fairy, green fairy, and blue fairy, respectively, make a return appearance, though in a limited capacity. It would have been nice to give them a stronger presence, providing more wisdom, more advice, and more humor, but they serve their comic relief purpose well.

Will there be a third incarnation of Maleficent?

The filmmakers provide a strong likelihood. After Aurora and Philip wed, Maleficent returns to the Moors with the other Dark Fey, teaching the young fairies to fly. She promises to return for Aurora and Philip’s future child’s christening.

This vow seems like an easy setup to build on the original storyline, unlocking the next chapter in this engaging saga.

Oscar Nominations: Best Makeup and Hairstyling

The Lion King-2019

The Lion King-2019

Director Jon Favreau

Voices: Donald Glover, Alfre Woodard, Seth Rogen

Scott’s Review #981

Reviewed January 17, 2020

Grade: B

An impossible feat would have been to eclipse the magic of the stage version or the loveliness of the animated version. Still, The Lion King (2019) offers a different approach as well.

Arguably, this version is both animated and not, infused with computer-generated animation (CGA) and marvelous visual effects, showcasing creativity.

Partial to the two-former offering, this telling is lovely and perfect for the entire family.

The realism of the animals and scenery is remarkable.

To recap, new viewers, the story centers on a den of lions living among the creatures in the “Pride Lands of Africa”. They hunt, prance, love, and guard their territory, mainly from the hungry hyenas, who are kept at bay during peaceful times.

King Mufasa (James Earl Jones) and Queen Sarabi (Alfre Woodard) are fair rulers and anticipate their son, Simba (Donald Glover), taking over the throne one day, much to the chagrin of Mufasa’s evil brother, Scar (Chiwetel Ejiofor), who was passed over for the crown.

Envious of Simba, Scar tricks him and his friend Nala (Beyoncé) into wandering into the land of the hyenas, hoping to cause their deaths. When a heroic Mufasa foils his plot, Scar ups the ante and hatches a scheme to kill his brother.

He not only succeeds but also makes Simba believe he caused his father’s death. Ashamed, the youngster runs away to begin a new life, unaware that he will one day return to save the day.

Props must be given to the filmmakers for their inclusion and cultural authenticity, as many of the characters, especially those at the forefront, are voiced by African-American talent.

This is a notable achievement, considering the film is set in Africa, and it’s unusual for the voices to be Caucasian.

Heavyweights like Jones and Woodard sound polished, especially Jones with his deep and dominant, yet fatherly voice, perfectly cast as the King. Woodard provides gentle warmth and confident complexity.

The musical numbers are terrific.

The film begins with an energetic and tribal rendition of “Circle of Life,” where a legion of wild animals dances together in a warm display of diversity.

The song appears later in the film. The powerful and romantic “Can You Feel the Love Tonight” is performed against a lovely moonlit sky with decadent stars.

The new song “Spirit” performed by Beyoncé is adequate but does not figure into the story as much as it should, seeming more like an afterthought.

The best parts of The Lion King, however, are the astounding visuals.

The contrasting sequences of bright, sprawling African terrain and a magical oasis of colorful flowers and running water, set against the dark and foreboding landscape of the dangerous hyenas, offer the viewer a multitude of delights to savor.

The orange and red colors during the climactic finale are unrivaled in the dazzling bombast of adventure.

As realistic as the elements are in the film, they are also negative. Watching the animals talk and prowl amid the lush landscape felt wonderful, until I realized that all of it is fake.

Real animals were never used; instead, it is a virtual reality tool that creates the illusion of reality.

This aspect slightly saddens me as the genuine quality left me feeling robbed. The possibility of another alternative would have meant a reboot of the animated classic, and I am not sure that would have been wise.

Favreau, once an actor and now a director, known for creating films such as Iron Man (2008) and Iron Man 2 (2010), certainly knows his way around an adventure film.

The story, while containing some menacing moments, also feels a bit safe and lacks the freshness or edginess that the 1994 version possessed. Something seems watered down, and the excitement and heart of the original feel missed.

I will always go back to the animated 1994 treasure for a cinematic feast, but while The Lion King (2019) could have been a disaster, it isn’t. With modernized songs and enough CGA to last a lifetime, I could easily see some people hating the film, but I embraced it for what it is.

Spectacular visual treats await any fan of cinema, as one will ponder how the project all came together.

Oscar Nominations: Best Visual Effects

The Martian-2015

The Martian-2015

Director Ridley Scott

Starring Matt Damon, Jessica Chastain

Scott’s Review #379

80058399

Reviewed February 19, 2016

Grade: C-

The latest film from heralded director Ridley Scott (notable for classics Blade Runner-1981, and Alien, 1979), The Martian (2015), is a science-fiction/space adventure about a believed-dead astronaut (Matt Damon) trapped on Mars after his fellow team members thought he was dead.

NASA and a crew of rescuers fervently attempt to save him as supplies run out.

Extremely resourceful, Mark Watney (Matt Damon) cleverly avoids death by using his wits to survive and prosper on the challenging planet.

Hot on the heels of several other high-profile modern science fiction offerings, such as Interstellar (2014) and Gravity (2013), The Martian features a big Hollywood star in the lead role.

Much of the action is Watney on his own, attempting to grow to produce, ration food, and keep his sanity- think Tom Hanks in Castaway (1996) except on another planet, and with a “Hab”, an indoor operations station left by his abandoned crew.

The Martian has received accolades, even winning the Golden Globe for Best Musical or Comedy Film, though that is poor categorization.

The film has snippets of humor and a few songs in the background, but that is it. Maybe some late 1970s disco songs constitute a musical?

I found The Martian to be a Hollywood mainstream film in every sense. That may be a high compliment to some, but I expect more.

It is not that The Martian is a bad film, it is not, but it is mediocre, and has all the elements of an average offering. The film was going for an emotional experience that I did not experience.

I had little doubt that the ending would be sweet and wrapped in a bow.

Mark Watney is the typical all-American character in a “guy film”. He hates disco and loves ketchup. The film makes him a guys guy, so therefore the average film-goer will relate to him.

He is in good shape, cracks jokes, and is likable.

But that is also a problem with the character and The Martian. He lacks substance. We know little about him except he has parents who never appear on-screen.

The way that the film touts him as the hero and is cheered and praised, while in real life would be warranted, it just feels forced and contrived.

This is not a knock against Matt Damon, who does a decent job.

My beef is that the character is not fleshed out.  The well-built Damon at the beginning of the film versus the scrawny Damon at the conclusion is a facade as a body double was used in the later scenes.

This lack of authenticity disappointed me.

I expected more from the supporting cast. Jessica Chastain, Jeff Daniels, Chiwetel Ejiofor, and Kristen Wiig play one-note types that any actor could have played.

Why were big stars cast at all?

Chastain as a mission commander, Daniels as Director of NASA, Ejiofor as NASA mission commander, and Wiig as a Public Relations specialist. The casting, in particular, of Wiig in the straight-laced, stale was mysterious to me, and it was not a particularly good portrayal….and I am a Wiig fan.

The humorous parts in The Martian are contrived and not dissimilar to countless other films with the smart-ass remarks all containing a bland quality. Lines like “Eat your heart out Neil Armstrong” seem silly and unnecessary.

I expected more wit.

Let me be fair- the visual effects (it is space after all) are impressive, and it was fairly interesting to see what is supposed to be the planet of Mars, but really in this day and age of CGI effects the film is not that spectacular.

 I would much rather be given a compelling story than visual treats any day of the week.

My review of The Martian may seem harsh, but only because I expected more from it than I was given.

With several Oscar nominations including Best Picture, I anticipated a top-notch film, and The Martian did not come close.

Mediocrity, straightforward, and predictable describe The Martian (2015) film.

I have heard that the novel is fantastic and added it to my reading list.

Oscar Nominations: Best Picture, Best Actor-Matt Damon, Best Adapted Screenplay, Best Sound Editing, Best Sound Mixing, Best Production Design, Best Visual Effects

12 Years a Slave-2013

12 Years a Slave-2013

Director Steve McQueen

Starring Chiwetel Ejiofor, Lupita Nyong’o, Michael Fassbender

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 a book was written on the subject by the real Solomon Northup 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 it for seemingly an eternity until an action occurs, 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)