Category Archives: Comedy

After Hours-1985

After Hours-1985

Director Martin Scorsese

Starring Griffin Dunne, Rosanna Arquette

Scott’s Review #1,069

Reviewed October 9, 2020

Grade: A-

After Hours (1985) is a gem of a film.

When thoughts of director Martin Scorsese are conjured, Taxi Driver (1976), Raging Bull (1980), and Goodfellas (1993) immediately spring to mind.

Scorsese’s decision to create a pared-down independent film was met with enormous success and accolades for the very first Best Feature indie film victory and Best Director honors.

The experience is a black comedy set in the gritty, unpredictable underbelly of Soho, New York City, in the 1980s.

Mixing comedy with satire, Scorsese leaps from the similar content of The King of Comedy (1983) to this film made only two years later.

Any fan of New York City will cheer with joy at the authenticity achieved by shooting the film on location there. The Big Apple in the 1980s was a notoriously violent cesspool, so the genuine setting and the use of dark streets and alleys are an immeasurable treat and add much zest to this unusual film.

A nice guy, Paul Hackett (Griffin Dunne), works hard as a computer data entry worker by day and shares an encounter with a quirky young woman named Marcy Franklin (Rosanna Arquette) in a Manhattan coffee shop.

After she gives him her number and leaves, he is unable to stop thinking about her and embarks on a late-night adventure to go and see her at her apartment.

The night does not end how he thinks it will, not by a long shot, as he spends the rest of the long night meeting various women and other strange characters as he traverses around the city attempting to get back home. He has lost his money and is broke.

The great aspects of After Hours are its bizarre characters and the cinematography that offers a tantalizing view of downtown Manhattan.

The film is atmospheric and zany in its gloomy, steamy side streets and odd locales, sprinkled with color.

A dingy bar, a sophisticated artist’s apartment, and a man sculpture that follows Paul everywhere are usurped by the film’s strangest and most interesting set, Club Berlin, an “after-hours” club inhabited by punks who want to shave Paul’s head into a mohawk.

I enjoyed this film as a sort of “A Day in the Life of Paul” adventure story, albeit a gothic one.

The film concludes wonderfully as the sun begins to rise, and thus Paul’s wild night finally ends.

I was chomping at the bit with the thought of what a new morning would bring and the possibilities of reuniting with any of the women he encountered the night before, either dead or alive.

Particularly charming to me while watching After Hours, the decade of decadence long past, are the relics that were once commonplace in everyday life. A phone booth, the traditional yellow cabs, and desktop personal computers are heavily featured.

These items, relevant when the film was made, now seem like throwback niceties that make the film endearing and like a glimpse into someone’s time capsule.

I did not pick up on much authentic romance between Paul or any of the female characters- Marcy, June, Gail (Catherine O’Hara), or Julie (Teri Garr), but maybe that’s the point. While one winds up dead, not one, but two of them pursue him, and not in a good way.

The film is mystical, weird, and energetic. The inclusion of Cheech & Chong only adds to the revelry.

Sadly, underappreciated and too often forgotten, After Hours (1985) is a Scorsese treat worth dusting off now and then. The birth of the Independent Spirit Awards owes a lot to this film for grabbing top honors, and the admiration works both ways.

For a glimpse at the creative genius that is Martin Scorsese, this film gets an enormous recommendation.

Independent Spirit Award Nominations: 2 wins-Best Feature (won), Best Director-Martin Scorsese (won), Best Female Lead-Rosanna Arquette, Best Screenplay, Best Cinematography

Adventures in Babysitting-1987

Adventures in Babysitting-1987

Director Chris Columbus

Starring Elisabeth Shue

Scott’s Review #1,067

Reviewed October 5, 2020

Grade: B

Swimming in the myriad of teen comedies that were all the rage in the 1980s, a few good, most bad, Adventures in Babysitting (1987) is one of the “okay” ones.

It’s lightweight, yet fun.

I like the female-centered character who drives the story, likable, and personable, but also strong and bold, capable of handling tough situations without the saving hands of a man.

The antics throughout Chicago are also a major draw, as I loved seeing the city’s landscape and sights. The film is formulaic but works better than most.

The premise is quite far-fetched, bordering on the absurd, and masks no reality whatsoever.

The plot points are gimmicky, silly, predictable, and filled with urban, inner-city stereotypes, playing on the timely feeling of terror at the thought of being lost and in danger amid a major city.

The reality of this decade was of crime-ridden United States cities, and the idea is brilliant for a mostly suburban audience safely nestled in their homes away from any real trouble.

They can securely escape to the cinema where pretend danger awaits.

Elisabeth Shue, a near-novice fresh off her debut film role in The Karate Kid (1984), takes center stage as the cool, pretty girl who is everyone’s best friend, not the least bit snobby.

She plays Chris Parker, the fresh-faced, perky, seventeen-year-old high school senior, who is ditched by her boyfriend on their anniversary and is convinced by her mother to spend the evening babysitting the two Anderson kids, Brad (Keith Coogan) and Sara (Maia Brewton).

Naturally, trouble ensues, and a planned dull evening of popcorn and a movie goes awry.

The gags must not be taken seriously.

Beginning in the friendliness of Oak Park, Illinois, the action quickly spells out danger as a dirty, downtown bus station becomes the next set.

Teenagers and youngsters being left alone in a metropolis is most parents’ worst nightmare, and the film uses this angle to create one perilous situation after another.

The gang even dangles from a skyscraper!

Adventures in Babysitting is director Chris Columbus’s first film and a worthy debut. Soon to hit the big time with the Home Alone film and its sequel (1990-1992), it’s easy to see how those films are patterned after Adventures. The tone is similar, and the antics of a young adult are explored.

Columbus then moved to success with Mrs. Doubtfire (1993) before taking on the Harry Potter films. So, he adopts stories with a youthful or a young person’s point of view.

While watching Adventures in Babysitting, the viewer needs to suspend all disbelief and just go with the experience for the enjoyment.

I vividly recall seeing this film in a theater on a hot summer night with popcorn and soda in tow, eager for a nice, light-hearted experience.

This film delivered then and still does.

The best part is watching Chris and the gang drive a station wagon through downtown Chicago. Could this particular car be any more obvious a symbol of the ‘burbs? Does anyone in a city ever drive a station wagon? The image conjures up a boatload of kids, the shopping mall, and McDonald’s.

Chris is so out of place in the city and the situations so preposterous that we should be annoyed by the hijinks.

But, somehow, the film works!

Of course, the film is riddled with banalities like car thieves, gangs, a dirty blues club, and as many criminals as one can imagine.

For viewers aching for a carefree trip down memory lane, 1980s style, the typical bunch of offerings from John Hughes- the trio of Sixteen Candles (1984), The Breakfast Club (1985), and Pretty in Pink (1986) usually come to mind first.

But let’s not forget a fine and fun film, Adventures in Babysitting (1987), with a subtle message about a young woman taking charge and control, albeit with every other stereotype in the book glaringly on display.

Enjoy the ride.

Adventureland-2009

Adventureland-2009

Director Greg Mottola

Starring Jesse Eisenberg, Kristen Stewart

Scott’s Review #1,066

Reviewed October 1, 2020

Grade: B-

Adventureland (2009) is a cute film. That may seem like a compliment, but it’s not. There is nothing wrong with this film, but it’s a rather safe experience.

In a word, it is fine, nothing more, nothing less.

It plays like a romantic comedy and is mixed with a coming-of-age theme about two young adults merging from kid to adulthood. It’s a story that most of us can appreciate though it’s been done too many times in cinema for this film to do much more with.

The selling point is the excellent acting.

The theme park (aka Adventureland) and the nostalgic 1980s time is a nice touch though it feels like a 2009 film with the actors fitted into retro costumes and hairstyles.

Greg Mottola directed Superbad in 2007 so you can see the influence. He has a knack for directing films with a light comedic touch that will appeal to young adults going through some angst or young, blossoming feelings of love.

The stars of the film, Jesse Eisenberg and Kristen Stewart, terrific actors in their regard, have little chemistry together and that weakens the picture. They are helped immensely by a talented supporting cast, who pick up the slack and improve the film.

Bill Hader, Kristen Wiig, Wendie Malick, and Ryan Reynolds give a comic boost to the events. Unfortunately, despite positive trimmings, the film feels like your standard, every day, independent comedy with little left to separate it from other contemporaries.

It just has big stars.

Likable James Brennan (Eisenberg) anticipates a fabulous trip to Europe after graduating from Oberlin College, having earned it for his achievements.

Unfortunately, his parents Mr. and Mrs. Brennan (Jack Gilpin and Malick) break the bad news to him. They are in dire financial straits and can no longer support him. He must get a part-time job immediately.

The disappointing news disappointed me as well. I was savoring a nice adventure in London, Paris, and Rome.

Sadly, the rest of the film takes place in an amusement park in Pennsylvania.

Predictably, Mottola, who wrote the screenplay as well, offers banal and stereotypical characters such as Mike Connell (Reynolds), the resident mechanic, who is a rival for the affections of Em (Stewart), the love interest of James.

Thrown into the mix are various characters who are a bitch, a sarcastic college student, and a nerd. And, for good measure, James is a virgin. Naturally.

The film nosedives with some slapstick humor and misunderstandings worthy of American Pie (1999).

When Adventureland was made Eisenberg was on the brink of breaking out into a fantastic role in The Social Network (2010) that garnered him an Oscar nomination and credibility.

Stewart, meanwhile, was in the middle of her Twilight (2008-2012) years which made her a household name but was undoubtedly creatively very unfulfilling.

This film is a reminder that actors need to work and make the best of the material they are given.

Truth be told, the main attraction of watching Adventureland is to sit back and admire what was to become of Stewart and Eisenberg. Since the film’s release in 2009, they have traversed meatier and better projects.

Eisenberg has a Tom Hanks or James Stewart likeability. He is someone to whom the average young male can relate and the problems that James must face could easily be challenges the viewer might also have.

In the case of Stewart, what a star this girl is with the right roles. Since 2012 she has declined roles in big-budget films in favor of independent productions for the next few years. She took on a terrific supporting role in the drama Still Alice (2014) as a troubled daughter.

Still young, the future looks very bright for the talented actress.

But, back to Adventureland (2009). This film is only suggested for a glimpse at the early work of Eisenberg and Stewart. Two young stars who went on to enormous critical cinematic success.

Adaptation-2002

Adaptation-2002

Director Spike Jonze

Starring Nicolas Cage, Meryl Streep, Chris Cooper

Scott’s Review #1,064

Reviewed September 24, 2020

Grade: B+

Adaptation (2002) is a kooky film recommended for all writers or lovers of the written word, especially those who have ever suffered from writer’s block.

The film is wonderful for people who are either curious about or obsessed with (me!) how a novel is turned into a screenplay.

With an A-list cast featuring Nicolas Cage and Meryl Streep, the offering is credible and not just a bumbling indie experiment on a shoestring budget.

Stars must get paid, which allows the film a mainstream audience, and awards.

The film will be too weird for some.

There is a measure of conceit and self-indulgence (it’s set in Los Angeles after all!) that is sometimes off-putting, but I adored the premise too much and chomped at the bit at what I was offered.

It’s quite non-linear, and the characters sometimes do things that are weird or out of turn.

Adaptation is different (in a good way) and is recommended for its oddness, as I cannot think of another film like it, though Being John Malkovich (1999) would be close.

Director Spike Jonze would later create Her (2013) and, of course, directed Malkovich too.

Charlie Kaufman wrote the screenplay, and the central character is Charlie Kaufman, played by Cage, who also plays Kaufman’s brother Donald, a mooch. Charlie is self-loathing and disheveled but somehow likable.

He struggles mightily to bring words into his head as he nervously sits at his typewriter day after day when he is tasked to adapt the novel, The Orchid Thief, into a film.

The novel’s author, Susan Orlean, played by Meryl Streep, intimidates Charlie, who decides to pay her a visit to New York City.

This film features the best work of Cage’s career. An actor who is “not for everybody”, the performance rivals that of Leaving Las Vegas (1995), in which he won an Academy Award.

A dual role is tough to play, but the actor does so with bombast and confidence, making the characters very different from each other and making me forget they were Cage.

Too often sinking to inferior action films like Face/Off (1997) or Con Air (1997), the actor wisely had an epiphany or something and made a wise decision. Cage does best when he goes for wacky- Raising Arizona (1987) is proof of that.

The supporting players, specifically Streep and Cooper, are fantastic. Streep could fart through a film and still give a great performance, and you can tell she enjoys the part of Susan, which allows her to let loose.

Her character loves sex and drugs and is not above devious shenanigans to get her way.

Cooper, who won the Oscar, is delicious as John Laroche, a theatrical character with missing front teeth who is Susan’s secret lover.

Both provide great entertainment.

Adaptation simply feels good for a thought-provoking writer providing oodles of “writer things” to ponder and discuss with friends after the credits roll.

Many scenes are rich with layered dialogue and rife with originality, making the words sparkle with pizzazz.

And there are enough twists and turns to keep viewers guessing.

One of the most original and kooky films you will ever see, Adaptation (2002) pairs well with Being John Malkovich (1999) for an evening of the odd and absurd, but also films not altogether hard to follow.

The satirical Hollywood theme will both please and annoy, but it’s all good fun and a lesson in creative art cinema.

Oscar Nominations: 1 win-Best Actor-Nicholas Cage, Best Supporting Actor-Chris Cooper (won), Best Supporting Actress-Meryl Streep, Best Adapted Screenplay

About Schmidt-2002

About Schmidt-2002

Director Alexander Payne

Starring Jack Nicholson

Scott’s Review #1,054

Reviewed August 18, 2020

Grade: A-

Anyone familiar with the works of director Alexander Payne knows he is notorious for crafting pictures with wry humor and dark sarcasm, all mixed with emotion.

Election-1999, Sideways-2004, and The Descendants-2011 immediately spring to mind.

Interestingly, several of his projects are set in Omaha, Nebraska, not exactly a hotbed of excitement, but there is a reason for this- he embraces every man.

Payne also has a knack for casting big stars, sometimes before they are big stars, giving them meaty and clever roles to sink their teeth into.

With About Schmidt (2002), he hits the jackpot and obtains the legendary Jack Nicholson, an actor famous for turning down many roles that simply aren’t good.

This already bodes well for the film, which spotlights an older character and plants the spotlight firmly on him, admirable in youth-obsessed Hollywood.

The film is very good, sometimes adding stock characters, but it is an admirable, worthwhile effort with surprisingly strong emotion and sentimentality.

The result was both a critical and commercial success and is highly recommended.

The film kicks off showing Walter Schmidt (Nicholson) staring at the clock in his office, day after day, counting the minutes until his shift concludes and he goes home for dinner.

He has a dull job as an actuary at a life insurance company.

Finally, one day, he retires and, feeling useless, sponsors an African child, and the two become quick pen pals. Suddenly, Walter’s wife, Helen (June Squibb), dies as they are about to embark on a cross-country trip in their Winnebago.

Devastated, he finally goes it alone.

About Schmidt is a film that evokes many emotions: happiness, anger, and sadness.

Walter is a lonely, unhappy man in a loveless marriage with Helen, though he doesn’t have the heart to tell her. She’s a nice lady, but the honeymoon ended years ago, and the spark has dulled.

At the same time, he has a tough time coping with her death and can barely cook, clean, or do laundry. He uncovers a secret about his wife that both sends his life into a free fall and inspires him to summon the nerve to live a little.

Walter is a great character and exhibits the traits of many, many men. He is someone for audiences (especially males) to relate to and fall in love with.

Bored with life, he is used to doing the same thing every day, no doubt eating the same meals, going to bed at the same time each night, etc.

Helen dictates what he does, reducing him to urinating and sitting down. Audiences will champion his reemergence to the land of the living! The fun is witnessing his escapades.

A hilarious sequence erupts when he meets the vivacious Roberta Hertzel (Kathy Bates). She is the mother of Walter’s daughter, Jeannie’s (Hope Davis) intended, Randall (Dermot Mulroney), and has a voracious sexual appetite.

She immediately sets her sights on Walter and attempts to seduce the unwitting man in her hot tub. Bates is terrific in the role, and her nude scene is something to remember.

Major props to the actress for letting it all hang out!

The characters of Jeannie and Randall are not written especially well, and I was not a fan at all. They are “types” meant to complicate the plot or affect other characters in some way.

Actors Davis and Mulroney do their best with what they are provided, but they are meant to be obstacles for Walter to overcome. He loves his daughter and doesn’t want to see her marry a jerk.

Jeannie is angry because her life hasn’t turned out the way she wanted, so she takes it out on Walter.

I did not buy or bond with Jeannie or Randall the way I did with Walter and Roberta.

Nicholson’s performance is one of the best of his career and the most multifaceted.

The final scene, when he returns home to find a note from his pen pal with a sentimental crayon drawing, is electric with emotion, feeling authentic, and is a pivotal breakthrough for Walter.

The character runs the course from submissive and lost to emboldened and strong. It’s a joy to watch his progression.

I love how Payne frequently celebrates and showcases older characters who are more than providers of advice, good listeners, or some other watered-down stock characters.

They have their own stories and enriched, meaningful lives.

About Schmidt (2002) has it all and is one of Payne’s top films, deservedly showcasing this generation in cinema.

Oscar Nominations: Best Actor-Jack Nicholson, Best Supporting Actress-Kathy Bates

Ready or Not-2019

Ready or Not-2019

Director Tyler Gillett, Matt Bettinelli-Olpin

Starring Samara Weaving, Adam Brody

Scott’s Review #1,040

Reviewed July 16, 2020

Grade: B+

A hybrid of dark comedy, horror, and whodunit, Ready or Not (2019) is a splatter of a good time.

Witty and macabre, the film is patterned after Knives Out (2019), Clue (1985), and the television series Riverdale, with a dash of Kill Bill Volume 1 and 2 (2003-2004) peppered in for good measure.

The results are fantastic, gory, and fun, and the pacing is on point. The best aspect is the unpredictability factor, as the conclusion cannot be drawn, and the audience willingly plunges along for a thrilling ride, eager to see what happens next.

The film begins with a mysterious flashback.

A young boy living in a vast mansion is confronted by an injured man begging for help. The boy cries out for his family, who shoots the man dead.

Decades later, happier events transpire as Alex (Mark O’Brien) and Grace (Samara Weaving) enjoy a lavish wedding at the Le Domas family estate.

Alex’s family is extremely wealthy, and he asks Grace if she is certain she wants to join the family. Why wouldn’t she welcome a life of pampering and all the money she can imagine? She readily tells Alex that, yes, she is sure she wants to marry him.

After the wedding, Alex and Grace are summoned by the family to partake in a game, a family tradition. Grace will choose a card, and everyone will play that game.

When Grace chooses the Hide-and-Seek card, the reactions are morose. When she gleefully trots off at midnight to hide, she assumes it is an innocent game.

She quickly realizes that the family is determined to kill her as part of an ancient legend involving a deal to keep the family money secure. Grace spends the night being pursued by members of the family while the household staff is accidentally killed off.

Being a horror film, the rosy start to the movie (the wedding) is delicious and short-lived, as any fan of the horror genre knows that dreary events are soon in store. The fun is waiting for the other shoe to drop and the body count to begin rising.

Ready or Not succeeds most when Grace is being pursued, and when she emerges from the dumb waiter, thinking she will give up the game and enjoy a good night’s sleep, the scenes are spectacular. A house-nanny is shot by a doltish family member who mistakes her for Grace, cowering behind a bed.

At that moment the bride realizes she is screwed.

The final thirty minutes of Ready or Not take a different turn as victimized Grace turns into revenge-seeking Grace. Think Carrie White at the prom after being soaked with pig blood.

As Grace lumbers through the mansion in her blood-streaked white gown, happy to kill any one of the filthy rich family members, she has the most fun pummeling Alex’s mother, Becky Le Domas (Andie MacDowell), to death with a box, which he gets to witness.

Revenge Grace is like Uma Thurman’s The Bride in the Kill Bill double-feature.

Released the same year as Knives Out (2019), both films portray the wealthy characters similarly, rendering them as shallow and unlikable as humanly possible. Insipid, money-hungry, and impolite, they treat each other as badly as those considered beneath them.

Daniel (Adam Brody), may turn out to be Grace’s knight in shining armor but can he be trusted? Can Alex?

Snippets of the 1985 comedy Clue emerge as secret passageways are revealed, and one death is reminiscent of the singing telegram girl’s death, as the character leaps into the room only to be instantly killed. It’s a fun scene and not too seriously intended, which makes it enjoyable.

The gothic nature of the series Riverdale also comes into play with the modern trimmings and dark ambiance.

Ready or Not (2019) successfully produces what it intends to—an entertaining, cleverly written horror yarn. With a clear feminist stance and oozing with wealth and glamour, the rich people are horrible and ultimately get what they deserve.

This is satisfying to the viewer despite the silly motivations of the family.

Played for laughs, the film doesn’t take itself too seriously despite a subdued lesson in overindulgence and entitlement—a crackling, fun late-night offering.

A Prairie Home Companion-2006

A Prairie Home Companion-2006

Director Robert Altman

Starring Woody Harrelson, Tommy Lee Jones

Scott’s Review #1,033

Reviewed June 16, 2020

Grade: B

The final film by legendary and influential director Robert Altman is not his greatest work.

If I were to compare A Prairie Home Companion (2006) to another of Altman’s pictures, it would be Nashville (1975), both of which feature grassroots entertainment.

The latter combines satire amid a political rally in a southern city, while the former celebrates behind-the-scenes events at a long-running radio show in Minneapolis.

Difficult to criticize anything a genius does; my expectation was much more than what was given.

The film plods along with little excitement or juiciness, so the experience is to enjoy the standard Altman fixtures like a huge cast, overlapping dialogue, and witty chatter.

A melancholy effort since no new material will ever be released by the cinema great, but a chance to celebrate his achievements all the same.

Set in present times, events take place in Saint Paul, Minnesota, a chilly city in the United States Midwest. A long-running live radio variety show, A Prairie Home Companion, prepares for its final broadcast.

The radio station’s new parent company has scheduled the show’s home, the storied Fitzgerald Theater, for demolition and dispatched “the Axeman” (Tommy Lee Jones) to judge whether to save the show.

Prospects are grim as rableak, shows are increasingly seen as outdated.

The many radio stars revel and reminisce in memories as they prepare for cancellation.

Led by the singing Johnson Girls, Yolanda (Meryl Streep) and sister Rhonda (Lily Tomlin), and daughter Lola (Lindsay Lohan), who are most prominent, other characters include cowboy duo Dusty (Woody Harrelson) and Lefty (John C. Reilly); pregnant PA Molly (Maya Rudolph) and the show’s creator and host, Garrison Keillor.

A spirit known as “Dangerous Woman” (Virginia Madsen) also joins the group.

Star power is not the issue here, and it’s pleasing to witness a bevy of A-list Hollywood stars duke it out for screen time.

Anyone familiar with Altman knows he was an actor’s director, meaning he let his actors truly shine and interpret the characters’ motivations.

Garrison Keillor, who wrote the piece, follows Altman’s lead in this area, letting the cast try to bring to life what is on the written page.

Unfortunately, they fail.

While meandering greatly, A Prairie Home Companion has an earthy, humanistic theater-troupe quality. The stars of the radio show are like family, clinging to each other for moral support in times of uncertainty.

This feels nice to the viewer as common compassion is endearing; many of the individuals have spent decades together. Their stories and experiences resonate warmly, and one can’t help but be sucked into their lives.

The problem with this is that the stories go on and on and quickly seem pointless.

There is little doubt whether the show will close. While the people are enamored, nothing much really happens in the film, and it becomes a bore.

The character interactions lack energy and fail to carry the film in any direction. They merely are what they are.

I can appreciate a slow build if there eventually is a payoff. A Prairie Home Companion (2006) never achieves full throttle or hits the gas pedal, so the film exists but doesn’t shine.

With masterpieces such as The Long Goodbye (1973), Nashville (1975), and 3 Women (1977) my expectations were soaring so that may be a part of my letdown.

Prairie Home is not included in my go-to catalog of Altman greats and would teeter at the bottom of a master ranking of his films.

Independent Spirit Award Nominations: Best Director-Robert Altman

Law of Desire-1987

Law of Desire-1987

Director Pedro Almodovar

Starring Eusebio Poncela, Carmen Maura

Scott’s Review #1,021

Reviewed May 8, 2020

Grade: B+

Law of Desire or La ley del Deseo (as translated in original Spanish) is a 1987 film written and directed by Pedro Almodóvar.

Quite groundbreaking for its time and penned by a respected director, the film was rich in offering what was rarely presented in films during the 1980s- a complex love triangle between two men and a trans woman.

The fact that the trans woman is the sister of one of the men is a bonus for the soap opera premise.

In 2020, when LGBTQ+ films are more plentiful in cinemas (at least at the indie level), Law of Desire suffers slightly from a dated feel, and parts drag.

It’s tough to criticize a piece this brazen when it was released in arthouse and musty metropolitan theaters.

As groundbreaking as the film must be given credit for, the story now feels sillier than it should, and more outlandish than it probably intended to be over thirty years ago.

The fabulous setting of Madrid, Spain, is the backdrop for the luscious tale of love, obsession, jealousy, and revenge, think the prime-time television series Dynasty on steroids.

Cocky Pablo (Eusebio Poncela), a successful gay film director with his pick from a bevy of young, good-looking gay males, is madly in love with Juan (Miguel Molina), though he has a roving eye.

Suave Antonio (Antonio Banderas), who comes from a conservative family, is new to the gay scene and falls madly in love with Pablo when Juan goes to find himself.

Tina (Carmen Maura), who likes men and women, has just been dumped and is vulnerable.

Besides the obvious daring gender-bending, this story could be a simple one told many times across many genres.

Almodóvar spins things into a frenzy as the plot unfolds, adding manipulations, subplots, and bizarre characters into the mix.

For example, Ada is Tina’s surrogate daughter and is a precocious ten-year-old girl in love with Pablo. Ada refuses to go back with her mother (Bibi Andersen/Bibiana Fernández) when her mother returns to whisk her off to Milan to meet a man she has just met.

The gay subtext is what is center stage here. Back in the 1980s, the term LGBTQ+ was on nobody’s radar, and having any representation at all in cinema was still a territory barely scratching the surface.

This point kept returning to me throughout the film, and I imagined how fresh the experience would have been to any gay man or gay woman fortunate enough to have seen it. I am not sure any of the characters would serve as great role models, but the representation is nice.

Almodóvar adds a good deal of naked flesh for an added treat.

Several comic scenes arise with gusto. Antonio, who lives at home with a religious zealot of a mother, convinces Pablo to sign his letters from “Laura P”, a character from his latest play, to trick Antonio’s nosy mama.

Tina, not much of an actress, is cast in Pablo’s one-woman theatrical productions. She thinks her performance is great, but Pablo thinks she stinks. The comical moments are the ones that work best, giving the plentiful offbeat characters a chance to let loose and shine.

Towards the conclusion, Law of Desire takes a tragic and Shakespearean turn. A drunken Juan is thrown off a cliff to his death, prompting an investigation with Antonio and Pablo both prime suspects.

Finally, a kidnapping and police stand-off ensues with a murder/suicide providing the film’s final moments.

I am not a fan of the title that Almodóvar chose. Preferably, a title that is a bit more titillating. Even Lust of Desire or Object of My Desire would have been better choices.

Law of Desire screams of a tepid episode of television’s Law & Order.

For a director with such an outlandish approach and such bizarre characters, the title is bland, banal, and tough to remember.

Those seeking a kinky and provocative late-night affair will find Law of Desire (1987) a good old time. It lacks a clear message, instead offering a sexy romp and a dreary ending.

Running the gamut of adding musical score pieces as unique as the 1970s The Conformist, a film also shrouded in same-sex desire, to cheesy 1980s synth-laden beats, adds some confusion.

Nonetheless, diversity and inclusiveness are good recipes to chow down on and celebrate.

A Fish Called Wanda-1988

A Fish Called Wanda-1988

Director Charles Crichton

Starring John Cleese, Kevin Kline, Jamie Lee Curtis

Scott’s Review #1,013

Reviewed April 20, 2020

Grade: B

A Fish Called Wanda (1988) is an intelligent and witty British-American comedy that was a sleeper hit upon its release, garnering critical acclaim and awards.

The heist-flavored production has good comic timing and brisk acting. I adored it not quite as much as most critics, though admirable is a quick wit and energetic timing, to be respected in comedies.

With some silly moments thrown in that feel staged and unnecessary, the film is not as brilliant as some would say and is not a memorable entry in the comedy genre.

A crooked foursome, all from shady backgrounds and manipulative tendencies, come together to commit the heist of the century. They are about to get away with it until the London police arrest one of them.

Can the other three, now on the lam, persuade their comrade’s lawyer to reveal the location of the stolen loot?

Will they double-cross each other to find stolen diamonds that the gang leader has secretly hidden?

The players are con artist Wanda Gershwitz (Jamie Lee Curtis), Otto West (Kevin Kline), her lover posing as her sibling, George Thomason (Tom Georgeson), and his right-hand man, Ken Pile (Michael Palin), an animal lover with a stutter.

Each has their motivations while relying on the others to get what they want, presumably at the other’s expense, as events escalate to dire urgency.

The film gets props for being different.

Frequently, in the comedy genre, laughs are attempted at a dizzying speed, so that often they do not feel fresh. They also usually contain stereotypical or stock characters who serve little purpose other than to move events along for the sake of character development.

A Fish Called Wanda is quirky, to say the least, with some intelligently written dialogue and sequences, especially the reveal of where the key to the safe deposit box containing the diamonds is housed.

The film’s title is a major clue.

The chemistry between the actors is the best part of the film, especially between Kline and Curtis, two actors with exceptional comic timing.

As they spar, bicker, and plot not just against each other but against the others they are in cahoots with, the antics get wilder and wilder.

Kline was recognized with an Oscar nomination for Best Supporting Actor and a win. His character, Otto, is also the most developed.

The final sequence, which takes place at Heathrow Airport in London, is a fun wrap-up to the caper. A gun, a steamroller, and wet cement are key elements in the wacky finale as characters run rampant inside the airport and on the airport tarmac as an airplane is about to take off for parts unknown.

Many other scenes take place in London since that is where the film was shot.

Where the film loses me a bit is in its very limited sense of the subject matter’s meaning. The group is made up of con artists and other unsavory characters, but little more. There are no characters to root for or empathize with, and the events that transpire are quite silly and superfluous.

While the story is fun, what is the point? All the characters manipulate each other, but that is it.

Going against the grain in cinema is always appreciated, and the comedy genre is too often stagnant and trite, rarely feeling fresh.

A Fish Called Wanda (1988) is an encouraging project that dares to offer new and inventive gags and physical comedy. The film hits some high marks and strikes out in others, leaving an uneven result.

Oscar Nominations: 1 win-Best Director-Charles Crichton, Best Supporting Actor-Kevin Kline (won), Best Screenplay Written Directly for the Screen

A Day at the Races-1937

A Day at the Races-1937

Director Sam Wood

Starring Groucho Marx, Chico Marx, Harpo Marx

Scott’s Review #1,011

Reviewed April 13, 2020

Grade: B

The Marx Brothers created a collection of successful films throughout the 1920s and 1930s, including A Day at the Races (1937), which continues the zany adventures of the bumbling men.

Not as laugh-out-loud funny as their earlier works, particularly the memorable Duck Soup (1933), which is considered their best achievement, the film has trademark chuckles and physical comedy for miles that celebrate their vaudeville roots.

A horse and a private sanitarium are the major players in this installment.

The film suffers from a myriad of stereotypes and startling racial overtones, as any apt viewer will likely need to remind themselves of the decade the film was made. Thankfully, these scenes are brief and not the highlight of the story.

A Day at the Races belongs to the Marx Brothers as their klutzy humor and one-liners are the best parts, leaving the romantic leads and the foils as standard characters. Backstage problems were prevalent, leaving some continuity issues for the final product.

Judy Standish (Maureen O’Sullivan) owns the struggling Standish Sanitarium, which she can barely afford to keep afloat. The devious J.D. Morgan (Douglass Dumbrille) owns a nearby racetrack and nightclub and aspires to use the sanitarium space to open a successful casino.

Hugo Z. Hackenbush (Groucho Marx), a horse doctor, treats the wealthy Mrs. Upjohn (Margaret Dumont), who she thinks is a “real” doctor, and agrees to back the sanitarium financially, but only if Hackenbush runs it.

Suspicions arise when Morgan and his business manager attempt to locate the real Hackenbush in Florida.

Meanwhile, Judy’s fiancé, singer Gil Stewart (Allan Jones), who performs in Morgan’s nightclub, has just spent his life’s savings on a racehorse named Hi-Hat. He hopes that the horse he purchased from Morgan will win a big race and the money will save the sanitarium.

Hi-Hat is afraid of Morgan and runs away whenever he hears Morgan’s voice. All the principal players gather for a hysterical conclusion as an exciting horse race ensues with a case of mistaken identity mixed in for good measure.

The main attractions are Groucho, Harpo, and Chico, as they provide a robust dose of clumsy, action-filled pranks, misunderstandings pop, and bops that keep them fluttering about the silver screen in a fast-paced fashion.

The other characters serve as either foils or support for the trio of funny men, so much so that they feel like stock characters. Jones and O’Sullivan have some chemistry as the straight leads and a few tender moments, but neither is the film about them.

The running time of one hour and fifty minutes feels long for a genre film like this, and several scenes meant only to balance the physical comedy could have been eliminated.

The famous exchange between Hackenbush and Mrs. Upjohn, in which she exclaims, “I’ve never been so insulted in all my life!” and he replies, “Well, it’s early yet,” is a classic comedy and heartwarming to the eyes and ears, as the pacing between the characters is nice.

A Day at the Races (1937) feels dated during some scenes and is a stark reminder that inclusion did not always exist in cinema and that laughs were to be had at the expense of minority groups. Putting this aside, the writing is witty and entertaining as a comic creation and a perfect showcase for the Marx Brothers to continue their fantastic run of films.

The film might be suggested as part of a marathon or binge-watching effort rather than as a stand-alone since better chapters can be found elsewhere.

Oscar Nominations: Best Dance Direction

Tag-2018

Tag-2018

Director Jeff Tomsic

Starring Ed Helms, Jeremy Renner, Jon Hamm

Scott’s Review #1,010

Reviewed April 10, 2020

Grade: D

Tag (2018), starring Ed Helms, weakly attempts to re-create some semblance of magic that The Hangover trilogy (2009-2013) initially had, in which the actor starred.

The result is an over-the-top and self-indulgent mess that incorporates the standard gags that raunchy comedies always do and a little more.

The characters are caricatures, and the film provides no character development or anything fresh to stay with the viewer after the credits roll at the end.

The most interesting part is post-credits, where the real-life figures the film is based upon appear.

The film gets off to a dumb start as Hogan Malloy (Helms), an established physician, inexplicably gets a job as a janitor at an esteemed corporation to go undercover and “tag” Bob Callahan (Hamm).

The childhood friends, along with “Chilli” Cilliano (Jake Johnson), and Kevin Sable (Hannibal Buress) attempt to pursue and “tag” their other buddy Jerry Pierce (Jeremy Renner), who has alluded to the “loser award” for the past thirty years, given to the member last tagged during May, when their annual contest is held.

The rest of the film piggybacks on this premise as the group pursues Jerry in tired form as adventures ensue. The specifics are running through other people’s apartments, tumbling down fire escapes, impersonating older women, and continued use of backflips, stop-motion editing, and nutty situations.

You get the idea.

The least appealing quality of Tag is that it feels forced and too derivative of similar films. The filmmakers try to create a “buddy film” and a camaraderie between the characters that never amounts to much. The reason for this is that they embed each character with specific qualities that define them instead of making them fresh or creative in any way.

We meet Chilli as he smokes pot with his father, revealing that he is divorced, unemployed, and a pothead. Bob is uptight, business-like, and the ladies’ man. A token black character (Kevin) is the comic relief.

The characters are one-note and uninspired.

Other weak points from a character standpoint are prevalent. Hogan is written as the “straight man,” meaning the most sensible of the group. He is the main character and has a competitive streak that his wife, Anna (Isla Fisher), shares.

Her character is most irritating as she has fits of rage and then turns sweet. Fisher has been cast in raunchy comedies for most of her career, so it would be nice to see her branch out to better roles.

Finally, Hogan’s mother, the local bartender, and a fitness worker are written poorly.

As a bonus, the film adds a homophobic sequence to offend audiences. Meant for laughs, as are most offensives, the male fitness worker is lightly interrogated as the men attempt to locate Jerry.

A back-and-forth involving presumptive oral sex is written as a joke, and in addition to being unnecessary, the sequence goes on and on.

Wishful thinking is for genre comedies to finally create something fresh and stereotype-free or make mockeries of groups of people.

Predictably, the conclusion is silly and trite. The film culminates in a hokey wedding scene when the friends are tricked by Jerry’s fiance, who fakes a pregnancy and miscarriage in a gag-worthy effort. A moment of feigned sincerity is followed by a juvenile rapid-fire torrent of “You’re It!” that would make a ten-year-old boy roll his eyes in disbelief.

Tag is not a complete disaster. If one sticks to the entire watch, a couple of tidbits of pleasure emerge. Familiar classic rock songs like Danzig’s “Mother,” Ozzy Osbourne’s “Crazy Train,” and “Mmm Mmm Mmm Mmm” by Crash Test Dummies are interspersed throughout the running time.

An added romantic triangle between Bob, Cheryl (Rashida Jones), and Chilli has potential if it were not relegated to a subplot with no resolution. Both men have chemistry with Cheryl and possess some likeability.

A film that will certainly wind up in the $1.99 (or less) bargain bin, Tag (2018) might have been a relaxed effort by the cast of actors to shoot, but they must have had more fun than anyone watching it will have.

With big-name stars and an interesting premise on paper anyway, the film fails to deliver the goods, embellishes based on a true story to the max, and results in a complete waste of time.

(500) Days of Summer-2009

(500) Days of Summer-2009

Director Marc Webb

Starring Zooey Deschanel, Joseph Gordon-Levitt

Scott’s Review #1,002

Reviewed March 20, 2020

Grade: B

(500) Days of Summer (2009) is an unconventional love story that deserves props for being different, but never completely catches fire as a film effort.

What it tries to do left-of-center from most conventional romantic comedies is to be admired, but I did not feel much connection to the characters and the result seemed pointless.

The independent film garnered some praise for being unique and clever, but this is out-shined by a gnawing, forced feeling, like the filmmakers are trying to be edgy for the sake of being edgy, adding in contrived story elements.

The lead characters conveniently both like an obscure band and an obscure artist, throwing them immediately together.

The film is a modest effort but will only be remembered as an indie project with a bit of unfulfilled potential.

When his girlfriend, Summer (Zooey Deschanel), unceremoniously dumps him, greeting card copywriter and hopeless romantic Tom (Joseph Gordon-Levitt) spins into depression and begins reflecting on the year-long relationship the pair spent together, looking for clues as to what went wrong.

As he rummages through the good times and the bad times, his heart reawakens to find what is most important.

The Los Angeles backdrop sets the tone for the five hundred days of Tom and Summer.

Director, Marc Webb, a first-time director at this point, now known more for The Amazing Spider-Man reboot franchise (2012-2014) steers in an experimental direction.

Shown somewhat like a “year in the life” of the young lovebirds blossoming relationship, the film is presented in a nonlinear narrative, jumping between various days within the five hundred days of Tom and Summer’s relationship. There is an on-screen timer showing the day, which is a nice addition.

Props are given for the creativity Webb infuses. The romantic comedy genre, not my favorite, is constantly saturated with formulaic films, predictable from the start.

Frequently told from the female perspective, (500) Days of Summer tells the story from the male perspective, even reversing the traditional gender stereotypes. Tom is the lovesick romantic, and Summer is the rough-and-tumble, one-night-stand type.

This is nuanced and throws the entire genre upside down.

The characters are questionable and the ablest to relate to is Tom. There is some confusion and mystery with some motivations. The audience can understand how Tom falls head over heels for Summer, immediately smitten.

His depression is deep and to be taken seriously, but he is depressed because of Summer, and any history or previous causes of depression are not mentioned. It feels like his depression is a convenient way of adding a story element.

Summer is even more perplexing and not deeply explored. Is she merely playing the field? After a song and dance scene where she explains she is not looking for anything serious and wants a casual romance, she suddenly marries another man.

She hurriedly tells Tom that she discovered her husband was her true love and that she now believes in love, whereas Tom doesn’t anymore.

Again, this feels more like storyline-dictated writing versus anything character-rich.

Despite receiving a Best Screenplay Independent Spirit Award nomination, two Golden Globe Award nominations, and oodles of praise, (500) Days of Summer (2009) is a non-conformist piece with some nice moments but feels irrelevant.

The lead actors are talented and do a decent job with the material given, but meander through the experience since it is more about the film than the acting.

The result is not a pure dud, but neither is it a pedigree winner.

Independent Spirit Award Nominations: 1 win-Best Feature, Best Male Lead-Joseph Gordon-Levitt, Best Screenplay (won)

50/50-2011

50/50-2011

Director Jonathan Levine

Starring Joseph Gordon-Levitt, Seth Rogan

Scott’s Review #1,001

Reviewed March 17, 2020

Grade: B+

The subject matter of cancer is an incredibly tricky one to portray in a film. Especially tough when any comedic bits are incorporated- the risk lies with jokes not going over well or being misinterpreted.

With 50/50 (2011), director Jonathan Levine and writer Will Reiser craft an intelligent and genuine story, based on a true one, led by upstart actor Joseph Gordon-Levitt, shining in the lead role.

Comic actor Seth Rogan is on board to cement the comedy elements.

Healthy twenty-something Seattle resident, Adam Lerner (Gordon-Levitt) experiences severe back pain and is shocked to learn he has a malignant tumor in his spine. Devastated, his world is turned upside down.

Adam is usually accompanied by his best friend Kyle (Rogan).

While Kyle is brash and outspoken, Adam is reserved and mild-mannered. They are opposites, but inseparable friends. Adam is dating artist Rachael (Bryce Dallas Howard), whom Kyle despises adding conflict to the story.

The screenplay and Gordon-Levitt’s performance are the superior aspects of 50/50. The title of the film is poignant because Adam is given the dubious news that he has only a 50/50 chance of surviving his cancer.

The young actor provides heart and soul to his challenging role and his acting is such that scenes do not feel cliched or manufactured. This, naturally, is due to the excellent writing by Will Reiser.

He crafts a sincere script that is straightforward, avoiding razzle-dazzle, but one that is also heartfelt.

My only criticism with 50/50 is that I would have liked a bit more darkness. As we all know, real-life cancer patients must endure the ravages that brutal disease inflicts. The film never really goes there and shows how devious the disease is and what happens to the human body.

I get that the film toes the line carefully, but despite shaving his head, Adam does not lose much weight or suffer other visible indignities.

The toned-down approach feels PG-rated rather than R-rated as it might have been.

This can largely be forgiven because the main message of the film supersedes this point. The film shows that love and friendship can be the best healers and the root of good, kind, humanity. This is something every viewer can take and learn from and it makes the film lovely and worthy to witness.

The romantic comedy elements do not work, and I am not even sure they are necessary. The main draw is the undying friendship between Adam and Kyle and Adam’s experiences with other cancer patients along his journey.

Combining comedy and cancer is not an easy task, but thanks to exceptional writing and a talented cast, 50/50 (2011) succeeds in its achievements.

The film and Gordon-Levitt were rewarded with Golden Globe nominations but missed out on any Oscar nominations. If the intended result of the film, is to ease cancer patient’s minds about their situations and provide some meaningful entertainment, the film is a major win.

Independent Spirit Award Nominations: 1 win-Best Feature, Best Supporting Female-Anjelica Huston, Best First Screenplay (won)

Bread and Chocolate-1974

Bread and Chocolate-1974

Director Franco Brusati

Starring Nino Manfredi, Anna Karina

Scott’s Review #996

Reviewed March 6, 2020

Grade: B

Bread and Chocolate (1974), known in Italian as Pane e cioccolata, is a mixed dramatic and comedic offering by Franco Brusati, a well-known Italian screenwriter and director.

The film is charming and tells of one man’s trials and tribulations trying to make it as a migrant worker in a foreign country- in this case, neighboring Switzerland. He is conflicted by the opportunities presented and the catastrophic way his life is screwed up at every turn.

The film is meaningful and poignant, but sometimes has no clear path. A commonality is the representation of differing cultures.

Nino (Nino Manfredi) is a hard-working Sicilian man who heads for Switzerland in search of a better life- the time is the 1960s or the 1970s, when this was a common occurrence. Despite his best efforts to fit in with his neighbors, he never quite seems to make it, haplessly going from one situation to the next.

He befriends a Greek woman named Elena, a refugee who harbors secrets, and is supported by her for a time. He forages a career as a waiter and befriends a busser.

As his luck dwindles, he is reduced to finding shelter with a group of Neapolitans living in a chicken coop, surviving on the same chickens they tend.

With bizarre gusto, they frequently emulate the chickens, strangely parading around their quarters like animals.

The main character, Nino, reminds me of the character Roberto Benigni played in the 1997 gem Life Is Beautiful. In that film, Guido tries to shelter his son from the horrors of war.

In Bread and Chocolate, Nino has a zest for life, using humor to survive and get through daily situations, slowly realizing his dire straits.

Both characters are scrappy and daring: Nino humorously urinating on a tree or awkwardly stumbling upon a dead body in the woods.

The film’s theme centers on the conflict between staying in Switzerland to find a better life and returning in shame to his homeland, Italy, which is assumed to be a failure. Nino constantly wrestles with this quandary and discusses this point with his family photos in his bedroom.

In two instances, he nearly gets on a train headed back to Italy but changes his mind. The film does not do a great job explaining or showing what is so awful back in Italy.

Bread and Chocolate is difficult to categorize because it is neither a straight-ahead comedy nor pure drama. As the film progresses, it loses some of its situational comedy in favor of melancholy and sadness.

I am not sure this is a great decision, as we often wonder whether we should laugh with Nino or feel bad for him. Perhaps both?

The film scores big on comedy, as evidenced by several laugh-out-loud restaurant scenes. Nino, clearly not knowing what he is doing, struggles to peel an orange properly to serve a guest. He emulates another waiter with hilarious results.

Later, he offends a snobbish, sophisticated woman after she blames him for causing her to fall to the floor.

The strangest scene occurs when the chicken people spy on four gorgeous Swiss siblings bathing in a nearby river. Gorgeous and tranquil, they are the definition of stunning and lush.

Charmed by the idyllic vision of the group, Nino decides to dye his hair and pass himself off as a local. The images of the cackling and dirty Italian people, with their snickering and drooling, set against the peaceful family, are both beautiful and odd.

The scene could almost be featured in an Ingmar Bergman art film.

Bread and Chocolate (1974) is a film about a man’s journey that can be classified as an adventure, drama, art film, or comedy, and sometimes crosses genres too much.

The comedic antics draw rave reviews, but the film slips a bit when it ventures into dramatic territory, becoming middling and overly preachy.

Actor Nino Manfredi breathes all the life he can into a film that is appealing, but not quite marvelous.

21 Jump Street-2012

21 Jump Street-2012

Director Phil Lord, Chris Miller

Starring Channing Tatum, Jonah Hill

Scott’s Review #992

Reviewed February 20, 2020

Grade: C+

21 Jump Street (2012) is a nostalgic ode to the general style of the 1980s, more specifically a popular television series that ran from 1987 to 1991.

The teen police drama launched the successful career of actor Johnny Depp.

He starred as the good-looking leader of a team of young police officers who can pass for high school students, and infiltrate potential drug rings, prostitution circles, or other such shenanigans.

The film is hardly high art nor cinematic genius. The gags are silly and trite, other times not funny at all. But the film contains a freshness that feels cool, sleek, and fun and a throwback to the decade of materialism, and the film never apologizes for this.

The combination of stars Jonah Hill and Channing Tatum have nice chemistry, turning a standard buddy film into something bearable to watch.

The film is formulaic, but not dull.

The filmmakers strive for an action-comedy hybrid even though the series was only conventional drama and taught a lesson with each episode. They also change course and focus on two characters instead of a group making it more of a guy movie.

Honor roll student Morton Schmidt (Jonah Hill) and popular underachieving jock Greg Jenko (Channing Tatum) reunite seven years after graduating high school at the police academy where they are studying to be cops.

Eager to leave their juvenile problems, and their dislike for each other behind, they use their youthful appearances to go undercover at a local high school as part of a Jump Street unit.

As they trade in their guns and badges for books and bagged lunches, Schmidt and Jenko risk their lives to investigate a violent and dangerous drug ring.

They slowly realize that high school is nothing like they left it just a few years earlier, and they revisit the terror and anxiety of being a teenager again and all the issues they assumed they had left behind.

The film is mediocre and while there is nothing wrong with the film, nothing is outstanding about it either. As the setup poises the audience, Morton and Greg are opposites in every way and must come together to achieve a common goal.

This is a standard cliche told countless times in films such as Stir Crazy (1983) and 48 Hours (1982), the reference being one of the 1980s.

Speaking of the decade of excess, 21 Jump Street achieves what it sets out to in this regard with a clever nod to a revived scheme from that decade.

Set in present times, the film is nonetheless a nod to teen films of the day.

Wild comedy and lavish adventures are in order in every high school situation imaginable. Dating, AP chemistry class, and the senior prom are heavily promoted so that any viewer above the age of twenty-five can reminisce.

A fun and necessary quality is the inclusion of a few of the original cast of the television series-Holly Robinson Peete, Peter DeLuise, and Johnny Depp all appear in cameo roles. This is a treat for fans of the original series and a tribute to its creation, though nothing else is utilized very well and no other history ever quite measures up.

Robinson Peete’s role is nice because she appears as a police officer.

While doing little to honor the television series it is based on, instead of churning out more of a male cop film, the incorporation of the original cast does deserve praise.

The lead actors are charismatic and clever in their roles which saves the film from being a disaster.

21 Jump Street (2012) kvetches too far into slapstick instead of sending an important message to its audience, which it could have.

The box-office hit was followed in 2014 by an unnecessary remake, aptly entitled 22 Jump Street.

101 Dalmatians-1996

101 Dalmatians-1996

Director Stephen Herek

Starring Glenn Close, Jeff Daniels

Scott’s Review #989

Reviewed February 13, 2020

Grade: C+

The classic animated Disney film 101 Dalmatians (1961) is brought to life in a live-action adaptation thirty-five years later, offering a fresh spin on the revered original.

Unfortunately, the result is nothing special save for Glenn Close’s brilliant performance as the dastardly Cruella De Vil.

Otherwise, the reworking is too amateurish and largely unnecessary, especially as compared to the brilliance and charm of the original.

Thankfully, not modifying the London setting, American video game designer Roger Dearly (Jeff Daniels) lives with his pet dalmatian, Pong.

Lonely, Roger trudges along through life without a love interest. During a walk, Pongo sets his eyes on a beautiful female Dalmatian named Perdy.

After a chase through the streets of London that ends in St. James’s Park, Roger discovers that Pongo likes Perdy.

Her owner, Anita Campbell-Green (Joely Richardson), immediately falls in love with Roger, and the duo is inseparable.

They get married along with Perdy and Pongo. Anita works as a fashion designer at the House of de Vil. Her boss, the pampered and glamorous Cruella de Vil (Close), has a passion for fur.

Anita, inspired by her Dalmatian, designs a coat made with spotted fur, and Cruella is intrigued by the idea of wearing Anita’s dog. She hatches a plot to steal and kill the puppies for her lavish gain.

The scenes between the dogs are cute and work better than the intended romantic relationship between the humans—a daring pursuit in the animated feature that does not shine through with real actors.

Either the chemistry between Daniels and Richardson does not exist, or the scene is too forced, or perhaps both. I did not buy the love-at-first-sight, stars-aligning moments.

I bet most audiences didn’t either. The result is a banal and stale connection between Roger and Anita, meant to be the core of the story.

Enough cannot be said for what Close brings to the role. The actress delivers a tremendous performance and sinks her teeth into the most prominent and interesting role in the film.

With a sinister sneer, a flowing red-and-white coat, and a token cigarette holder, she provides Cruella with dazzling menace.

Careful not to overact and result in a juvenile character, she relishes the role, providing just enough comedy without being too scary. The performance is perfect.

A negative is that, unlike the animated version, none of the animals have speaking voices. This detracts from the earnest quality of expressive, talking animals.

What pet owner does not imagine what their cat or dog would sound like if they talked?

Instead, the puppies sniff and look cute, distracting themselves and leaving them unclear about what feelings they have. One wonders why the decision was made in this way, but it does little to provide texture.

101 Dalmatians are too cute for their own good, which limits their sophistication. The original had British intelligence and a cultural voice, with small, yet important details, like falling rain, that live-action cannot mimic.

The 1996 version is kid-friendly, but brings little to the table, lacking interesting flair. Why not teach a lesson about the dalmatian dog breed rather than settle for simply an adorable slant?

Rumors abound that parents adopted dalmatians for their children after seeing the film and were forced to return them, rather than invest time in study, realizing that raising a dalmatian is hard work.

The idea of remaking an adorable, cozy Walt Disney classic from the 1960s with a fresh approach is admirable. The live-action detail could add a new twist or inventive spin that appeals to a new generation of youngsters.

Unfortunately, 101 Dalmatians (1996) works unwell, barely rising above mediocrity, with an aura of fluff and gimmicks that feel forced and trite.

The saving grace is Glenn Close, a tremendous talent who gives it her all despite subpar material.

Stick to the original 1961 version.

Sex Tape-2014

Sex Tape-2014

Director Jake Kasdan

Starring Cameron Diaz, Jason Segel

Scott’s Review #980

Reviewed January 15, 2020

Grade: C

Sex Tape (2014) is a cliched, by-the-numbers, standard romantic comedy that meets expectations, but does little to exceed them.

It is a raunchy affair, perhaps too raunchy for some, and riddled with juvenile moments.

The film contains good chemistry between the leads and is fun up to a point. The final sequence strays too far into dumb, situation comedy-style moments, with too many seen-before stereotypes, that take away most of the preceding fun.

With universally scathing reviews, I expected to hate the film salivating over the opportunity to craft a good, old-fashioned terrible review, but, Sex Tape is marginally fair to middling.

After reuniting again after starring in Bad Teacher (2011), Cameron Diaz and Jason Segel do what they can with the material given, offering strong convictions and fluid moments of enamored charm.

In a supporting role as the boss, Rob Lowe is fine in a stock role, and the child actors are abhorrent (what else is new in romantic comedy casts?)

The film treats the viewer to a brief backstory, narrated by Annie, about the fresh romance between twenty-somethings, Jay and Annie Hargrove (Segel and Diaz).

Much in love, they can barely keep their eyes off each other and have sex at the drop of a hat. Once they settle down and have kids, their romantic interludes must be balanced and scheduled amid bath time, feedings, and the necessity of sleep.

Annie writes a popular blog, expressing the challenges of being a mom, as she bucks for a well-paying job at a company run by Hank Rosenbaum (Lowe).

One day, while feeling naughty, Jay and Annie rapturously and spontaneously decide to record their session of hanky panky on video, to enjoy later.

Predictably, an error occurs, and their lovemaking session is inadvertently synchronized to video to several iPads the couple had given away over time, which is the entire cast.

They struggle to retrieve the iPads and erase their session while being blackmailed by an anonymous viewer.

The strength of Sex Tape is the pairing of Diaz and Segel because without them the film would be nonsense. Chemistry and antics are everything in physical comedy films, and these two have it down.

We accept that the married couple, despite it being ten long years, is still in love with each other, avoiding the doldrums. What they need is a spark and it is fun watching them come up with a sneaky idea.

Even when the film gets bad, the actors are a hoot.

The supporting cast is what one usually gets in a romantic comedy and the wonder is why these characters are always written as a “type” and not better fleshed out.

Examples are Jay and Annie’s best friends, Robby and Tess Thompson (Rob Corddry and Ellie Kemper), one-dimensional and offering merely extensions of the lead characters, with no character development of their own.

The same can be said for Annie’s mother (played by Nancy Lenehan).

The studio’s attempts to promote the latest technological tool, the iPad, to death is strongly evident. If one more iPad appeared on screen I would have screamed. And how is it possible to record yourself in numerous sexual positions with an iPad?

How did they move the iPad and get into those positions? Why did everyone and their brother have an iPad? A weak explanation alluded to Jay’s occupation being somehow responsible.

Sex Tape (2014) does not rewrite the comedy roadmap and will assuredly be forgotten over time- might this film’s bad reviews and the disastrous remake of Annie (2014) be why Diaz retired from acting altogether?

Regardless, for a pleasant Saturday night of silly laughs over a Cosmopolitan or two, this film is okay but for fans of Diaz, watch There’s Something About Mary (1998) instead.

Beyond the Valley of the Dolls-1970

Beyond the Valley of the Dolls-1970

Director Russ Meyer

Starring Dolly Martin, Cynthia Myers

Scott’s Review #976

Reviewed January 2, 2020

Grade: B+

Beyond the Valley of the Dolls (1970) was initially intended as a sequel to the 1967 film Valley of the Dolls but was revised as a parody of the commercially successful but critically panned original.

This was not altogether a smart move, since it would have been interesting to see a coherent follow-up exploring the lives of the original characters, rather than a similarly named film with little to do with the first.

Instead, the film plays like frenetic mayhem, with jarring editing, a peculiar character switch and storyline, and completely over-the-top vulgarity. Still, the film is fun and extravagant, but hardly on par with Valley of the Dolls.

I would not even recommend watching them in sequence- the confusion would only be doubled.

To call Valley of the Dolls a “serious” film is laughable, but compared to Beyond the Valley of the Dolls, it is.

Director Russ Meyer is known for successful sexploitation films that feature campy humor, satire, and large-breasted women, such as Faster, Pussycat! Kill! Kill! (1965) and Supervixens (1975) are at the helm to create the bombastic and eye-dropping shenanigans.

Famous film critic Roger Ebert co-wrote the screenplay along with Meyer.

Three young women, MacNamara (Dolly Martin), Casey Anderson (Cynthia Myers), and “Pet” Danforth (Marcia McBroom), front a struggling rock band, The Kelly Affair, managed by Harris Allsworth (David Gurian), Kelly’s boyfriend.

The four travel to Los Angeles to seek Kelly’s estranged aunt, Susan Lake, an heiress to a family fortune. Fans of Valley of the Dolls will need to know that Susan is supposed to be Anne Welles, the film’s central character.

A battle ensues as Susan graciously offers to give some of her fortunes to Kelly, but Susan’s unsavory financial adviser, Porter Hall (Duncan McLeod) will have none of it. Amid the drama, Kelly meets a gigolo who feuds with Harris, while Harris is pursued by a sexually aggressive porn star named Ashley St. Ives (Edy Williams).

Events all take place against the backdrop of the nightly Los Angeles party.

While the plot is not the central aspect of Beyond the Valley of the Dolls, the renaming of Susan from Anne, the same character, and the recasting of Barbara Parkins as Phyllis Davis make things confusing.

Adding to this point, Parkins was initially cast as Anne/Susan but was abruptly fired from the production. This makes any comparisons to Valley of the Dolls other than the title alone, unwise and a waste of time.

The lively revelry is the fun and the beauty of Beyond the Valley of the Dolls.

The film has a calm, groovy vibe and epitomizes the late 1960s psychedelic, colorful aura. The free love and expressionism make the experience a wild yet liberal-minded one, which is suitable for a film like this.

The intention is to entertain and to express women’s confidence. While the female characters are exploited, they are also driven and comfortable in their own skin.

A fun fact, and cause for musing, is that as wild and exploitative to women (and men) as Beyond the Valley of the Dolls is, Ebert was primarily responsible for penning the script.

In the 1980s, the critic, whom I am a cherished fan of, panned many of the 1980s horror/slasher flicks, especially Friday the 13th (1980), for exploiting women, but he had no issue exploiting them years earlier.

Makes one ponder the hypocrisy of his comments.

Beyond the Valley of the Dolls (1970) is daring and never plays it safe. With a hip edge and plenty ahead of its time in same-sex character representation, the film is unique and brimming with hilarious, bizarre antics.

The plot is rather silly and goofy, and unsurprisingly panned by critics, but it has become a cult classic, and with repeated viewings, it has grown on me more and more.

The production is meant to be watched late at night for better appreciation.

8 1/2-1963

8 1/2-1963

Director Federico Fellini

Starring Marcelo Mastroianni, Claudia Cardinale

Scott’s Review #973

Reviewed December 27, 2019

Grade: A-

For fans of acclaimed and experimental Italian film director Federico Fellini, a straightforward plot is rarely the recipe of the day with his projects.

With 8 1/2 (1963), he creates a personal and autobiographical story about a movie director who is pressured into another project but lacks the creative ideas and inspiration to fulfill the task.

We can all relate to this in one way or another.

The film is confusing, beautiful, elegant, and dreamlike, precisely what one would expect of a Fellini production. His film also hints at a more profound message and complexities.

The recommendation is to experience the film rather than analyze or over-analyze it. Let it marinate over time and relish in its offerings.

Guido Anselmi (Marcello Mastroianni) is a famous Italian film director who suffers from director’s block after he is tasked with directing an epic science fiction film and attempts to do so.

Experiencing marital difficulties, he decides to spend time at a luxurious spa where he has strange reoccurring visions of a beautiful woman (Claudia Cardinale), is visited by his mistress Carla (Sandra Milo), and is criticized by a temperamental film critic.

When Guido’s film crew arrives at his hotel to start production, he becomes overwhelmed by the mounting pressures and escapes into a world of memories. He visits his grandmother, dances with a prostitute, and relives his time at a strict Catholic school.

The film critic dismisses Guido’s attempts to incorporate these memories into his new film. The rest of the film is a mishmash of odd occurrences as Guido attempts to make his film.

Fans of Fellini’s other works will undoubtedly fall in love with 8 1/2, and since the film is about film, this scores points in my book.

His other famous works, Roma (1972) and Amarcord (1973) are similarly semi-autobiographical but differ in that they are more straightforward stories- as much as can be said about a Fellini film.

Usually lacking much plot, 8 1/2 resembles Juliet and the Spirits (1965) more than the others for comparison’s sake. Fantasy and reality are interspersed, making the film challenging to follow.

It appears to be about a man on the brink of a nervous breakdown and is a complex and personal study. As Guido spirals out of control and teetering towards insanity, he also muses about his situation. These highs and lows, told comically, make 8 1/2 even more challenging to figure out and react to.

My previous suggestion to experience 8 1/2 becomes credible as the film rolls along. Viewers may be unsure of what is happening, if not downright perplexed, but energy pulls one into its clutches with masterful sequences and potent embraces of life, love, and culture.

This must be attributed to the look and style of the film.

8 1/2 won the Academy Awards for Best Foreign Language Film and Best Costume Design (black-and-white) and is considered a highly respected and influential work of art by most film critics.

Appreciated mostly for its beautiful cinematography, it also delves into the meaning of life with a live-and-let-live approach.

Lovers of avant-garde works of interpretation and expressionism will be giddy while experiencing ruminating thoughts following 8 1/2 (1963).

Having only seen the film once and embraced it wholly as a work of art but frustrated by the lack of tangible meaning, I advise seeing it a second, a third, or even a fourth time for a deeper appreciation and understanding.

I plan to heed my suggestion.

Oscar Nominations: 2 wins-Best Director-Federico Fellini, Best Story and Screenplay Written Directly for the Screen, Best Foreign Language Film (won), Best Art Direction, Black-and-White, Best Costume Design, Black-and-White (won)

A League of Their Own-1992

A League of Their Own-1992

Director Penny Marshall

Starring Geena Davis, Tom Hanks

Scott’s Review #970

Reviewed December 18, 2019

Grade: B

Sports films are too often predictable affairs with fairy tale endings. They are also typically male-driven.

A League of Their Own (1992) is warm and sentimental, and while director Penny Marshall plays it way too sweet and safe for my tastes, there is a measure of feminism that is admirable and a bit different.

The cast is well-known and provides professionalism and energy, but the film is little more than mediocre and strikes out towards the end with a far too pretty ending, doing exactly what these genre films normally do.

It’s as if Marshall has a great idea, but then decides not to teeter too far left of center.

Beginning in 1988 (present times), elderly Dottie Hinson attends an opening of the new All-American Girls Professional Baseball League exhibit at the Baseball Hall of Fame.

She reunites with several of her former teammates and friends, prompting a flashback to 1943, when the main story takes place.

With many young men off fighting World War II, the Major League Baseball franchise is at risk. A women’s league is bankrolled, prompting the recruitment of several players and the formation of the Peaches and the Belles. They face off in the World Series to dramatic effect.

The film is nice and welcoming, providing a haven for filmgoers seeking a solid story and a heartwarming sensibility. The lead actors, Tom Hanks and Geena Davis, respectively the team manager and star player, provide strength and do the best they can with the roles given.

During the early 1990s, both were big stars, and while their characters are not romantically linked, their chemistry is zesty.

Hanks as Jimmy is a bit predictable and gruff, at first being little more than a male chauvinist, but eventually coming around to respect the women.

For fans of baseball, the film will be delightful. With enough action scenes on the outdoor diamond to please those fans, one might forget that the teams are made up of women.

The demographic sought after is female, but the sunny settings and standard hot dogs, peanuts, and popcorn result in the film projecting a wholesomeness that should also appeal to men.

The supporting characters are too one-dimensional and cliched. The biggest offenders are the characters of “All the Way” Mae Morabito (Madonna) and Doris Murphy (Rosie O’Donnell).

The pop star, a horrid actress, in my opinion, is written way too cornily, cracking gum and talking tough, while O’Donnell is intended to be her sidekick.

The duo is street-smart and grizzled New Yorkers, but the casting never really works, and the action feels very formulaic, losing its luster very early on.

While Marshall incorporates brief moments of tragedy, one minor character’s husband is killed in action during the war, and all the action is safely in the United States, the war serves as more of a backdrop than a major player.

More common are syrupy scenes between characters who, at first, miscommunicate a misunderstand each other, but then forge a close bond. And do we ever really believe Jimmy will not become the women’s biggest fan?

A League of Their Own (1992) is a decent watch and marginally enjoyable in a fluff way. It provides little edginess and could have provided darker story points than it does.

Instead, it shows a slice of Americana and Apple Pie approach that, while not all bad, is not all good either, feeling limited by its sentimentality.

The film could be much worse and features characters the viewer can root for and cheer on, whether it’s a home run or a safe slide into third base.

This is mainly a result of the stellar cast that Marshall presents.

Toy Story 4-2019

Toy Story 4-2019

Director Josh Cooley

Voices: Tom Hanks, Tim Allen, Annie Potts

Scott’s Review #966

Reviewed December 10, 2019

Grade: B

Toy Story 4 (2019) is the fourth installment in the Pixar/Disney-produced Toy Story series, now nearly twenty-five years old!

The glitter is beginning to fade on a once-endearing franchise, and hopefully, this is the last one- additional segments are not needed unless desperation develops.

After a slow start and too many retread moments, the film shows bombast and familiar heart and tenderness in the finale, presumably wrapping up the long story with a neat bow.

The animation is vivid and colorful, almost astounding, and makes up for an otherwise unnecessary story.

In a flashback sequence, nine years after Toy Story 2, Bo Peep (Annie Potts) is donated to a new owner, and Woody (Tom Hanks) begrudgingly decides to maintain his loyalty to the owner, Andy.

Years later, and now a teenager, Andy donates a forgotten Woody to a young child named Bonnie, who lacks the affection for the toy that Andy had. When Bonnie makes and bonds with Forky, a toy made of plastic, Woody struggles to convince Forky that each is more than garbage.

When Bonnie and her parents embark on a summer road trip to an amusement park, Woody and other familiar faces are along for the ride.

The group meets other forgotten toys, some benevolent and some sinister, at the park and a nearby antique store. Woody’s dear friend and comic relief, Buzz (voiced by Tim Allen), is in the mix and helps all the toys realize that they are not forgotten and that they can still bring joy to children.

The film provides an unwieldy list of celebrities in major and minor roles. The incorporation of characters like Chairol Burnett, Bitey White, and Carl Reineroceros (voiced naturally by Carol Burnett, Betty White, and Carl Reiner) may not be necessary.

Still, it’s fun to watch the credits roll and see who’s who from the cast.

The minor characters are little more than window dressing, but the creativity is admirable.

The main story of abandonment, loyalty, and discarding of one’s toys is ample and pleasant, but has occurred in every segment thus far in the series.

Do we need to see this again? Yes, it is an essential message for both children and adults, but why not simply watch the first three installments of Toy Story, each brilliant in their own right?

Toy Story 4 plays by the numbers with little surprises.

One glaring notice is how almost every single adult is either incompetent or played for laughs.

I understand that the main draw is the toys and outsmarting the adults is half the fun, but when Bonnie’s father assumes his navigation system is on the fritz, rather than catching on to the fact that one of the toys is voicing the system, one must shake one’s head.

Suspension of disbelief is increasingly required in these types of films.

Toy Story 4 picks up steam in the final twenty minutes with a thrilling adventure through the amusement park and a cute romance between Woody and Bo Peep.

When the long-forgotten toy Gabby Gabby (Christina Hendricks) emotionally rescues a lost child, she is rejuvenated and breathes new life into both the child’s life and her own.

In a darling moment, Forky meets another creation named Knifey. Knifey suffers from the same existential crisis as Forky once did, and Forky immediately becomes smitten with her, both realizing that even though they are odd-looking, they still matter.

The nice lesson learned is that even toys from the 1960s and 1970s can provide warmth and comfort to a young child and are more than “of their time”.

This is a clear and bold message that resonates with human beings and acknowledges that advanced age does not come with an expiration date.

Everyone matters and brings importance. The underlying theme is heartwarming and central to the film, bringing it above mediocrity.

What should certainly be the final chapter in a tired franchise that continues to trudge along, the bright message and strong animations remain, but the film feels like a retread.

Given that Toy Story 3 was released in 2010, Toy Story 4 (2019) needs to bring the series to a conclusion before installments 5, 6, 7, or 8 result in a dead-on-arrival sequel.

Oscar Nominations: 1 win-Best Animated Feature Film (won), Best Original Song-“I Can’t Let You Throw Yourself Away”

Jojo Rabbit-2019

Jojo Rabbit-2019

Director Taika Waititi

Starring Roman Griffin Davis, Scarlett Johansson

Scott’s Review #955

Reviewed November 6, 2019

Grade: A

Jojo Rabbit (2019) is, quite simply, a satire.

This type of film, and this style of filmmaking, is not intended for all palates. The subject of Nazis and Adolf Hitler will hit too close to home for some viewers, especially considering this film is being classified as a comedy, albeit a dark one.

With this risk in mind, the film has a fabulous message, is quirky, well-acted, and a marvelous piece of work. But it is a gradual, acquired taste, and not everyone will leave theaters feeling satisfied. I sure did.

Director Taika Waititi, a Jewish man, is careful to toe the line with his story, teetering close to the edge, but never going too far overboard.

He is careful not to offend those who may have close ties to World War II, the horrific events that took place, or disrespect the scars that remain.

Instead, he teaches a lesson of acceptance, humanity, and pathos. A laugh one moment leads to tragedy and tears the next, making Jojo Rabbit quite the robust emotional experience.

The time is the 1940s, setting Germany, as Roman Griffin Davis portrays the title character, a Hitler Youth who finds out his mother (Scarlett Johansson) is hiding a Jewish girl, Elsa (Thomasin McKenzie), in their attic.

Energetic and excitable, he joins a training camp where he is unable to kill a defenseless rabbit, earning him his new nickname. Jojo slowly comes to question his beliefs while dealing with the intervention of his imaginary friend, an idiotic version of Adolf Hitler (Waititi).

He eventually forges a close bond with Elsa.

As the film begins, it immediately reminds me of Wes Anderson’s distinctive storytelling style. Think The Royal Tenenbaums (2001) or Moonrise Kingdom (2012).

With quick editing and fast-paced monotone dialogue, the characters initially appear silly and trite, yet offer witty responses to unusual situations. As the relationships deepen, the audience comes to fall in love with them.

Davis is an outstanding child actor and the heart of the film.

Johansson’s Rosie, the mother, is secretly anti-Nazi. She’s got flair, pizzazz, and a good pair of shoes. She states that to dance is to be alive, offering Jojo words of wisdom. They come upon a few dangling bodies perched in the center of town for all to see.

They have been caught aiding Jewish people and are a deadly symbol to present. Rosie tells Jojo not to look away, for these people did what little they could.

This scene is a poignant one.

Captain Klenzendorf (Sam Rockwell), a Nazi captain who oversees the youth camp, initially appears to be a buffoon and a one-dimensional character. He deepens as not just his patriotism, but his sexuality is called into question.

The LGBTQ angle is implied, but only lightly touched upon, so that the point remains vague and mysterious.

The Captain stands very close by his second-in-command, Finkel, and a scene at the pool will make many wonder about the proper relationship between the men.

Finally, Yorki, Jojo’s best friend, is just adorable, providing sweetness and genuine quality that is undeniably benevolent. McKenzie, as the frightened yet strong Elsa, is courageous to a fault. Stubborn and inflexible, she softens to Jojo as they get to know each other.

Her mysterious boyfriend, Nathan, never seen on-screen, plays a prominent role and is a key to the relationship between her and Jojo. The characters are an integral part of the film.

Made in 2019, a volatile time on planet earth, and especially in the United States, the film breathes fresh air into the world of inclusion and acceptance. Much of this is slowly revealed as events transpire to a crescendo.

As the war ends, several lives are forever changed, some for the better, others tragically, but each is connected to the others, enriching their respective lives.

Waititi celebrates the gifts, joys, and heartbreaks of life.

Jojo Rabbit (2019) is a film that prompts the viewer to think critically and challenges them to reconcile innocence and evil. Despite the subject matter, the film is neither cold nor harsh, and it does not disrespect history.

Incorporated are death and tragedy, mixed with learning and strong relationships.

The film is a great experience and an essential find among many routines and mainstream projects. Jojo Rabbit perks up the cinema, and hopefully the viewer, with a beautiful message.

Oscar Nominations: 1 win-Best Picture, Best Supporting Actress-Scarlett Johansson, Best Adapted Screenplay (won), Best Production Design, Best Costume Design, Best Film Editing

Yesterday-2019

Yesterday-2019

Director Danny Boyle

Starring Himesh Patel, Lily James

Scott’s Review #952

Reviewed October 29, 2019

Grade: B-

Yesterday (2019) is a film that is silly but sentimental, oozing with a nice quality that becomes tiresome towards the conclusion.

For those seeking a safe experience, the film will be deemed as wonderful, but for those with an appetite for a left-of-center grit, the film will only marginally entertain. It’s safe.

Director Danny Boyle (2008’s Slumdog Millionaire) chooses a charismatic British-Indian actor, Himesh Patel, for the starring role in a film that any fan of the rock band The Beatles should see.

Jack Malick (Patel) is a struggling musician who resides in Lowestoft, England, a suburb of London. Unsuccessful, he is nonetheless encouraged by his manager and childhood friend, Ellie (Lily James), to reach for the stars and never give up his dreams of achieving success.

One day, he is hit by a bus during a global blackout and is hospitalized with a head injury and missing teeth. When he performs the Beatles song “Yesterday” for his friends, they are blown away by its genius.

Jack realizes that the entire world has never heard of the legendary band and capitalizes on the stroke of luck, becoming a rock n roll superstar.

The massive song catalog of the Beatles featured in Yesterday is the best part of the film. The pleasure is in wondering which songs will appear next and in what context. Jack awkwardly “debuts” the song “Let it Be” to his parents, who continuously botch the name of the song, only showing mild interest.

Next, Jack furiously attempts to remember the lyrics to “Eleanor Rigby”, a difficult song lyrically. Other gorgeous classics featured are “The Long and Winding Road”, “Here Comes the Sun”, and “Something”.

A sentimental nod and appearance of a John Lennon figure is a nice touch and a worthy dedication to the deceased legend. The key here is wondering what would have become of the assassinated star had he not been famous.

The film approaches this when revealing that Lennon would be an older man today. Lennon tells Jack in a sentimental scene that he has lived happily with his wife by his side. If only this had been the case.

Patel is charming and a character to root for. As the butt of jokes made by his friends, who truly adore him, he is neither the handsome lead nor the wimpy co-star, more of a hybrid of the two.

We want him to achieve musical success because he is a nice guy, but we are glad when he finally confesses to the phony plot, as predictable as that revelation is to the film. Patel’s best scenes occur on stage when he either rocks out to the guitar or adorns us with a piano ballad.

Other than the above notes, Yesterday was only mildly entertaining, as it mixed a musical with a romantic story that does not work. If the audience is expected to root for Jack and Ellie to get together, then the idea falls flat.

The pair has no chemistry, nor is Ellie even remotely written as being the type who would live the rock ‘n’ roll lifestyle or want to. She is an elementary school teacher and asks Jack to give up his dream and lead a simple life in the suburbs. Who would do that?

Yesterday is riddled with stock characters, some of whom may or may not exist in real life. As much as I love actress/comedian Kate McKinnon, her overbearing character of Debra Hammer doesn’t showcase her best work.

Driven and cold, the character is played for laughs with her over-the-top behavior, but it feels too much like a part written to showcase McKinnon. Jack’s parents are cliche-filled characters, doting around with confused expressions and seeming to be overwhelmed by all events.

A musical film that cringes with a safe and saccharine feel, saved only slightly by the bevy of mostly 1960s hits by the Beatles, some of which lyrically are dissected and showcased.

Yesterday (2019) features pop star Ed Sheeran, who does not act or contribute to the film. Way too polished and superfluous for its good, Boyle, a worthy director, should have added some edginess rather than going for safe pop.

Thank goodness the film is about the Beatles rather than the Backstreet Boys.

Eighth Grade-2018

Eighth Grade-2018

Director Bo Burnham

Starring Elsie Fisher, Josh Hamilton

Scott’s Review #935

Reviewed August 27, 2018

Grade: A-

Occasionally, a film rich with authenticity and pure honesty comes along, and Eighth Grade (2018) is one of those films.

Bursting with a lead character who brings a genuine sincerity to a complex role, director Bo Burnham gets the best out of emerging talent, Elsie Fisher, in an autobiographical story about teenage angst and awkwardness that nearly everyone can recollect from those hated middle school years.

The coming-of-age story follows the life and struggles of an eighth-grader, Kayla Day (Fisher), during her last week of classes before graduating from junior high school.

She struggles with severe social anxiety but produces secret YouTube videos in which she provides life advice to both herself and her audience. She has a clingy relationship with her sometimes overbearing father, Mark (Josh Hamilton), who adores her but is careful to provide Kayla with freedom and balance, her mother apparently out of the picture.

Eighth Grade feels fresh and rich with good, old-fashioned, non-cliched scenes as audiences fall in love with Kayla and her trials and tribulations.

The stereotypes would abound in a lesser film attempting to appeal to the masses, but this film is going for intelligent writing.

The scenes range from touching to comical to frightening. A tender father and daughter talking over a campfire provides layers of character development for both Kayla and Mark as an understanding is realized.

As Kayla ogles over her classmate Aiden, voted student with the nicest eyes, to Kayla’s demoralizing win for quietest student, she bravely attempts to get to know the boy.

Realizing that to win his heart, she must provide dirty pictures of herself or perform lewd acts, she hilariously watches oral sex tutorials and nearly practices on a banana in a scene rivaling any from the crude American Pie (1998).

To expand on this, the audience will experience concern for Kayla as she winds up in the backseat of a strange boy’s car, encouraged to take off her top, going rapidly from comedy to alarm.

Enough cannot be said for Fisher’s casting as Kayla. Reportedly seen on a real-life YouTube channel, Burnham plucked the fledgling young actress from the ranks of the unknown.

The bright young star will surely be the next big thing with her innocent yet brazen teenage looks- she is only sixteen! With pimples and a pretty face, she admires yet despises popular kids and resorts to telling one-off stories.

Fisher gives Kayla sass and poise mixed with her anti-socialism.

Befriended by a pretty and popular high school student assigned to be her buddy, Kayla awakens with gusto, finally seeing there may be life after middle school and maybe, just maybe, high school will not be as torturous as earlier years.

A cute add-on is an adorable relationship that develops between Kayla and just as awkward Gabe in the film’s final act. They dine over chicken nuggets and bond over a nerdy television show they love.

Hamilton deserves accolades in the more difficult role of the father of a thirteen-year-old. Smart is how the film shares his perspective on current events. He can be daring, as when he enters Kayla’s room to nearly catch her practicing her kissing technique, or creepy, as when he follows Kayla to the mall to see her new friends.

However, his deep affection and admiration for her provide a deep warmth seldom seen in teenage films.

Burnham is careful not to stifle the film with fluff or redundancy but rather makes it timely and relevant. The incorporation of the internet, text messaging, and the never-ending use of smartphones makes any older viewer realize that over ninety percent of thirteen-year-olds use these devices, and social media is the new normal.

The sobering realization is that painful teenage experiences do not end when the three o’clock school bell signals the end of the day.

When the students endure a drill to practice measures to survive a school shooting attack, the reality hits home that this is now also a part of a teenager’s everyday life. American life for the young has changed immensely since most of us were of this age, and Burnham does a bang-up job of reinforcing this importance.

Whether the viewer is elderly or middle-aged, has fond memories of middle school, or cringes at the thought, yearbooks safely packed up in boxes to bury the memories, every viewer can take something away from Eighth Grade (2018).

Excellent casting and an infusion of several cross-genres make this film a fresh and memorable independent comedy/drama deserving of a watch.

Independent Spirit Award Nominations: 1 win- Best Feature, Best Female Lead- Elsie Fisher, Best Supporting Male- Josh Hamilton, Best First Screenplay (won)

With Six You Get Eggroll-1968

With Six You Get Eggroll-1968

Director Howard Morris

Starring Doris Day, Brian Keith

Scott’s Review #931

Reviewed August 15, 2019

Grade: B

A film that influenced the creation of the iconic television series, The Brady Bunch (1969-1974), or the reverse, depending on the timeline or who you ask, With Six You Get Eggroll (1968) is a cute family romantic comedy, hardly exceptional fare.

It becomes too silly during the final act.

The film follows the merging of two families into one big blended family, and its heart is the romance between two middle-aged singles looking for new love despite their baggage.

Abby McClure (Doris Day) is a widow raising three boys somewhere in northern California. She dutifully runs her deceased husband’s lumberyard while feeling unfulfilled in the romance department.

When her overzealous sister, Maxine (Pat Carroll), tricks her into inviting widower Jake Iverson (Brian Keith) to her dinner party, the pair do not connect. Still, they are drawn to one another as they become better acquainted.

Predictable obstacles come their way, including misunderstandings and backlash from their kids.

With Six You Get Eggroll is Day’s last film and certainly not one of her best offerings, but it is nonetheless moderately enjoyable.

The filmmaker intends to showcase a romance between Abby and Jake so that the elements are set up in a way that makes the characters likable, leaving a very predictable experience.

When Jake arrives at the party early and sees Abby at her disheveled worst, or after Jake makes up an excuse to leave the evening early but runs into Abby later at the supermarket, it’s the sort of film that has a happy ending.

As such, the chemistry between Day and Keith is palpable, making the film charming. If they had no chemistry, the film would be a bust, but their slow-burning fondness for each other works well for this genre.

They share a spontaneous evening of champagne and small talk at Abby’s house, and excitedly plan a date for the next day, only for Jake to make an excuse, leaving Abby perplexed.

When Abby sees him with a much younger woman, we feel her disappointment. After all, Abby is well past forty in a world where middle-aged women are not the pick of the litter anymore, as sister Maxine annoyingly reminds her.

When the young woman turns out to be Jake’s daughter, we smile with relief, along with Abby, because we like the characters and want them to be together.

The children: Flip, Jason, Mitch, and Stacey (a young Barbara Hershey) add little to the film and are merely supporting characters. They dutifully add obstacles to their parents’ happiness by squabbling over bathroom space or resenting one parent for taking the other away.

Conversely, Maxine and Abby’s housekeeper, Molly (Alice Ghostley), adds excellent comic relief, keeping the film from turning too melodramatic and providing natural humor.

The Brady Bunch comparisons are pretty apparent to any viewer who has seen the television series, and who hasn’t. The blended families and the G-rated dramatic crises are the most certain, and the period and clothes are almost identical.

Molly the maid could be Alice the housekeeper, and the actor (Allan Melvin) who plays Sam “the Butcher” from the television series appears as a Police Sergeant.

I half-expected the musical scores to mirror each other.

The film has some mild flaws aside from its predictability. The introduction of a band of hippies (though cool to see M*A*S*H alums Jamie Farr and William Christopher in early acting roles) and a speeding chicken truck resulting in arrests is way too juvenile and plot-driven.

A much better title could have been thought up for the film; With Six You Get Eggroll doesn’t exactly roll off the tongue, and it has nothing to do with the story.

Finally, Abby’s masculine profession is only shown in the opening scene and has nothing to do with the story.

For a wholesome late 1960s-themed evening, With Six You Get Eggroll (1968) is a moderate affair with cliches and a cheery tone, but also some genuine chemistry between its leads.

The sets and colors fit the times well, and Day is always top-notch. Perhaps one could skip this film and watch a sampling of The Brady Bunch reruns; the experience would be almost the same.