Category Archives: Comedy

The Prom-2020

The Prom-2020

Director Ryan Murphy 

Starring Meryl Streep, James Corden, Nicole Kidman

Scott’s Review #1,101

Reviewed January 17, 2021

Grade: A

Hollywood legends Meryl Streep and Nicole Kidman take on singing and dancing roles in the lovely and timely film, The Prom (2020).

James Corden joins them in a prominent role in a musical based on the popular and recent Broadway production of the same name.

The LGBTQ+ storyline is important and influential, but doesn’t overshadow the fun. The message is perfectly incorporated in the delicious comedy romp.

The Prom reminds me of John Waters’ Hairspray from 1988 or even the fun remake from 2007. Instead of racism, the topic is now homophobia, with a few characters rebuffing the lifestyle.

Most of the performances are over-the-top, but the film works on all levels. The one-liners are crackling and polished, especially by Streep and Corden.

Director Ryan Murphy has become a favorite of mine for creating both extremely dark and light-hearted projects alike that usually slant towards LGBTQ+ recognition and inclusion.

His treasured FX series American Horror Story (2011-present) and miniseries The Assassination of Gianni Versace: American Crime Story are excellent examples of this.

I drool with anticipation over what his next offering might be.

High school student, Emma Nolan (Jo Ellen Pellman), wants to bring a female date to the upcoming prom. Chaos has erupted after the head of the PTA (Parent-Teacher Association), Mrs. Green (Kerry Washington), has canceled the prom.

The setting is Indiana, where same-sex couples face conflicts with the town’s traditional beliefs and values. Little does she know that her daughter, Alyssa (Ariana DeBose), is Emma’s secret girlfriend. The school principal, Tom Hawkins (Keegan-Michael Key), supports Emma and has leaked the story to social media outlets.

Meanwhile, in sophisticated New York City, snooty broadway stars Dee Dee Allen (Streep), Barry Glickman (Corden) are devastated when their new musical flops.

They join forces with struggling performers Angie Dickinson (Kidman) and Trent Oliver (Andrew Rannells) and take a bus trip with the cast of Godspell to champion Emma’s cause and drum up sympathy from their fans and critics.

The rest of the film, as one might expect, features bursts of song and dance, teaching the stuffy residents of small-town Indiana to accept and even embrace Emma and her LGBTQ+ brethren.

Amid a flurry of misunderstandings, mainly between newly dating Tom and Dee Dee, Emma and Alyssa, and Alyssa and her mother, a lavish prom is funded for the town, high school students, straight and gay, to flock to and co-mingle in unity.

While The Prom (2020) is sheer fantasy and real life doesn’t usually work out so perfectly, the sentiment is meaningful, and the film takes a progressive stance.

Hairspray-2007

Hairspray-2007

Director Adam Shankman

Starring Nikki Blonsky, John Travolta

Scott’s Review #1,095

Reviewed December 28, 2020

Grade: B+

Hairspray (2007) is a fun film, without being superfluous. The third incarnation of the musical treat doesn’t disappoint, offering a brighter production.

A safer affair than the 1988 escapade directed by naughty filmmaker John Waters, it’s nonetheless not a “watered” version either. It loses none of the charm that the original had and includes plenty of big-name stars.

In short, it’s a solid summer popcorn flick with sing-along tunes and a cool vibe.

The important message of racial relations is not lost nor dismissed.

The setting is early 1960s Baltimore, Maryland, a city rife with racial problems representing the entire United States during that decade.

Our star, Tracy Turnblad (Nikki Blonsky) is a chubby, bubbly, sixteen-year-old, who wants nothing more than to trudge through the school day and come home and indulge in her favorite television show, The Corny Collins Show, a popular local dance competition.

Tracy auditions for a spot on the show and wins.

She became an overnight celebrity, a trendsetter in dance, fun, and fashion. She and her fans hope that her new status as a teen sensation is enough to topple Corny’s reigning dance queen, Amber von Tussle (Brittany Snow), and bring racial integration to the show.

Amber’s racist mother, Velma (Michelle Pfeiffer), runs the television station and thwarts Tracy’s efforts, fueling tension and a dance competition between Tracy and Amber.

The casting is a big part of the success.

Blonsky, making her film debut, carries the film flawlessly. Both energetic and empathetic, she is the perfect girl next door and relatable for any young girl who is not a stick figure.

More broadly, she represents anybody who feels like a misfit or is put upon for not being classified as perfect.

Her joy and sincerity as she sings and dances to “Good Morning, Baltimore” and “I Can Hear the Bells” is infectious and makes her a perfect protagonist.

The supporting cast is delightful and laden with A-list Hollywood stars having a ball with their over-the-top roles.

My favorite is John Travolta as Tracy’s mother and compadre, Edna. Fans of Hairspray know that Edna is always cast with a male actor in drag, and Travolta is fantastic. His mannish body and movements only make the character more fun and fabulous.

And with his beehive hairdo and pink ribbon, he is so darn cute!

Tracy’s father, Wilbur, is played by Christopher Walken. His love for his wife and daughter is sweet. Pfeiffer fuels her one-note character with venom as the racist woman gets her just due.

Director Adam Shankman focuses on the musical numbers, and that’s just fine.

For added pleasure, he includes both John Waters and Rikki Lake (the original Tracy) in cameo roles, which is a treat for anyone who has seen the original.

The best numbers occur when the entire company joins in, especially the wonderful finale, “You Can’t Stop the Beat”. Besides being musically contagious, the song sends an important message of progression and embracing change.

Despite the fluffy trimmings, the important message of racial inequality is not overlooked, nor does it feel dated in the year 2007.

Racism is still an issue. Justifiably so, the racist characters like Velma and Prudence Pingleton (Allison Janney) look ridiculous with outrageous fear for anyone different than themselves.

Tracy and her friends champion causes such as anti-racism, integration, and being true to oneself, which are central themes of the film, along with the merry songs.

While I still prefer the 1988 version of Hairspray for its seedier a colder vibe, Hairspray (2007) is a colorful rendition that exposes a new generation to the chirpy, danceable tunes while maintaining the important themes.

It’s a family-friendly affair and a very funny experience without sacrificing any credibility.

Calendar Girls-2003

Calendar Girls-2003

Director Nigel Cole

Starring Helen Mirren, Julie Walters

Scott’s Review #1,090

Reviewed December 11, 2020

Grade: B+

A clever female version of The Full Monty (1997), the middle-aged, bordering on senior-citizen characters, nudity comparisons notwithstanding, Calendar Girls (2003) has standard similarities.

The film is a light-hearted affair, charming and fun, with positive and inspiring messages about friendship and helping with cancer research.

How can a film like this not bring a smile to the viewer’s face? It did to mine.

That said, it’s hardly high drama or material that requires much thought or dissection. I’d wager to say you only need to see it once.

There lies a situational or clichéd theme as the women face the predictable, awkward moments, but the film entertains in style.

Calendar Girls is based on a true story, adding merit, appreciation, and an endearing quality. It’s a feel-good film if there ever was one, which is just fine in this case.

The film was a box-office smash, and why not? It’s a comically robust experience.

A likable group of “women of a certain age” conspires to launch a calendar that showcases their best assets for all to see.

Before this sounds too scandalous or corny, the ladies do it for a good cause and not for any titillating pleasure.

The women are British and, while attractive, are average-looking gals with womanly figures. These tidbits lead to humorous and embarrassing situations, as some of the women are more modest than others, especially in the conservative, crusty town they live in.

This causes shock among the prudish townspeople.

Chris (Helen Mirren) and Annie (Julie Walters) are best friends. When Annie’s husband dies of leukemia, they conjure up the idea of creating a nude calendar, where women pose while doing traditional duties like baking and knitting. The proceeds will go to research for the deadly disease.

Unexpectedly, Chris and Annie, along with others from the Women’s Institute, of which they are members, achieved worldwide success and were even invited to Los Angeles to appear on The Tonight Show Starring Jay Leno.

The women clash over their success and differing life paths before reconciling and deciding that their ordinary lives aren’t so bad. They happily resume their nice lives away from the spotlight.

The comparisons to The Full Monty (1997) must be mentioned because they are obvious. Whereas the men in The Full Monty strip on stage, the women prefer more modesty, nestled behind calendars for safety, but both groups hail from the English countryside and are regular folk.

Since nudity is the word of the day, both groups possess average bodies and champion worthy causes. Like it or not, this setup produces giggles.

The “calendar girls” are a relatable group that is a marketing genius, and allows the film to achieve much merit. Who would care if a bunch of supermodels posed nude while baking cookies?

No, the everywoman factor is sky-high, allowing the film to be appreciated and savored.

Because Mirren and Walters, two respected British actresses, appear in Calendar Girls, the film has added respectability.

After all, would either choose a project less than credible? The obvious answer is they make the film better than it might have been. Penelope Wilton does too.

There is a classiness the ladies bring that lets us sink into our theater seats and revel in the good-natured comedy, assuring ourselves we are seeing something of quality, too.

Calendar Girls (2003) is so like The Full Monty that they ought to be watched back to back. Perhaps a naughty night in, with a bottle of wine and some cheese, ready to embark on delights and jolly laughs.

Back to School-1986

Back to School-1986

Director Alan Metter

Starring Rodney Dangerfield, Sally Kellerman

Scott’s Review #1,089

Reviewed December 7, 2020

Grade: B

Back to School (1986) is a formulaic, mid-1980s comedy featuring obnoxiously loud funnyman, Rodney Dangerfield, the comedian you may love to hate.

On paper, this film might have been a train wreck, but some proper pacing and good casting save it from being classified as a drivel. Let’s be clear- it’s not great filmmaking, but it serves a purpose- to amuse and delight.

A vehicle for Dangerfield with a character mirroring his real personality, the film works. With a brisk one hour and thirty-six minutes, the film sticks to the script, not wasting time getting its point across, nor pretending to be some serious film with a clever message.

No, there is little special or inventive about the film, but it’s light, entertaining fun.

The premise, a middle-aged man who returns to college and tries to persevere, is a setup rife with standard situations and comedic moments.

Director Alan Metter, known for gag films, one of his most notable, and the big studio Orion, takes full advantage of the task at hand. They provide a mainstream summer popcorn-flick approach.

Presumably, the story was conjured up by a group tasked with crafting an appropriate story for Dangerfield, and they succeeded.

The film delivers what it sets out to.

This might be a nice, nostalgic watch for parents and soon-to-be college-bound kids to watch together.

Thornton Melon (Dangerfield) is a wealthy corporate tycoon who wants his son, Jason (Keith Gordon), to get the college education that Thornton was unable to receive.

While enrolled in college, Jason is unhappy and ready to quit. Thornton decides to enroll in the same college, determined to achieve his respect.

Jason tries to fit in with his peers, while Thornton falls in love with his literature professor, the sophisticated Dr. Diane Turner (Sally Kellerman), and feuds with the college dean, David Martin (Ned Beatty).

Predictably, Thornton is hardly the college type, so he pays others to write his papers for him, which is all the fuel that the dean needs to ruin him.

He also attends parties and raucous events, preferring these to study groups. Thornton is eventually found out and forced to pass an exam to prove himself.

A more straight-ahead approach would have been to make Thornton an unsuccessful man, thereby making his need to return to school more important and his son’s desire to obtain a college education more powerful, but this might have made Back to School too serious a film.

We can ponder why Thornton joining Jason in college will do anything but alienate the kid, and we can ask ourselves why Jason is bullied by the swim team. He is a nice, likable kid, and students aren’t typically bullied in college- this is more a junior high or high school torture.

There’s also little reason Diane would have a romantic interest in Thornton, and clichéd characters like the dean and Thornton’s bitchy ex-wife, Vanessa (Adrienne Barbeau), surface along the way.

But, Back to School isn’t a film to be overanalyzed either.

On the positive side, the chemistry between Dangerfield and Kellerman is a nice addition, not as forced as it might have been. They flow through their scenes with a light-hearted innocence.

The father-son relationship is a success. Gordon’s brooding nature counterbalances Dangerfield’s over-the-top nature, so they have different personalities.

I’m not sure Back to School (1986) has the legs to be remembered very well. Too similar to other successful comedies of the late 1970s and early 1980s, like Porky’s (1981) or Animal House (1978), it struggles to stand out and is for fans of Dangerfield only.

Perhaps served up as an opening act to the better and much funnier Caddyshack (1980), one of the best genre films of the decade.

Airplane!-1980

Airplane! -1980

Director Jim Abrahams, David Zucker, Jerry Zucker

Starring Robert Hays, Julie Hagerty

Scott’s Review #1,087

Reviewed December 2, 2020

Grade: A-

Airplane! (1980) is a landmark film in the spoof genre, leading the pack in the decade of silly (the 1980s), where films of this ilk and dumb comedies, in general, became a dime a dozen, oversaturating the market.

While the film is unabashedly brainless with gags for miles, the jokes work, and the tasteless brand of humor provides plenty of belly laughs.

Better yet, Airplane! never ages, holding up incredibly well long after its initial release. It’s just perfect for a Saturday late-night watch, or when one needs cheering.

It’s in my Top 10 comedies.

When it was originally released, the timing was perfect to spoof the aging world of disaster films. I refuse to believe that Jim Abraham and the Zucker brothers had malcontent on their minds since they created a friendly and benevolent yarn that’s well-timed.

Good comedy is tough to find, but this film gets it right. The monotone dialogue said with a straight face is what makes the hysterics genuine and palpable.

Not unfairly, it is to say that Airplane! is to disaster films what Mary Hartman, Mary Hartman was to daytime soap operas. A celebration and a clever wink to each, infusing much-needed light-hearted appreciation.

It’s fun to re-watch Airport (1970) and Airport ’75 with fresh eyes and a new perspective in parallel to this film.

Ted Striker (Robert Hays) is an ex-fighter pilot traumatized by the war, now working as a taxi driver. He is terrified of flying despite his previous occupation.

His girlfriend, Elaine (Julie Haggerty), conveniently a flight attendant, dumps him just before her flight from Los Angeles to Chicago.

Naturally, Ted throws caution to the wind and boards the flight in hopes of reconciling.

When several of the passengers and flight crew succumb to food poisoning, an inflatable named Otto must steer the plane toward Chicago.

The crew convinces Ted to muster up the courage to safely land the plane because Otto cannot do it, and subsequently conquer his fear of flying. A perilous yet comical landing ensues, and Ted and Elaine happily reunite.

The plot is a direct steal from Airport ’75 when poor Karen Black’s flight attendant character is famously instructed how to land the aircraft. Until, in a sexist fashion, the men arrive to take control, sending her back to serve coffee. This is intentional and spot-on to show the ridiculous nature of that plot point.

The gags are legendary, the “Surely you can’t be serious”, “I am serious…and don’t call me Shirley” exchange is the most famous one, always providing a laugh.

The effortless dialogue, as inane as it is, somehow works exceptionally well and combines brilliantly with the pacing and delivery.

It’s like a long and wonderful episode of television’s Saturday Night Live.

The chemistry between Ted and Elaine is very strong, making the audience root for their eventual reconciliation, though it’s obvious they will ride off into the proverbial sunset together.

Actors Hays and Hagerty deserve tremendous praise for aligning the characters so well. Also of note are the efforts of Leslie Nielsen and Peter Graves as Doctor Rumack and Captain Oveur, respectively.

Nielsen would subsequently become famous for spoof films, none of them as good as Airplane!

I’ll never profess to be a slapstick person, but Airplane! (1980) is one that I embrace, undoubtedly because of my love for disaster films and fondness for airplanes.

It is advisable to sit back, relax, and enjoy the zany ride that this satirical and very funny film offers.

Alice Doesn’t Live Here Anymore-1974

Alice Doesn’t Live Here Anymore-1974

Director Martin Scorsese

Starring Ellen Burstyn, Kris Kristofferson, Diane Ladd

Scott’s Review #1,075

Reviewed October 27, 2020

Grade: A-

Deserving of the Best Actress statuette she won for her role, Ellen Burstyn carries the film Alice Doesn’t Live Here Anymore (1974) from start to finish with drama and comedy.

I can’t watch any performance of Burstyn’s without smarting at how she lost the same award years later, after her frighteningly good performance in Requiem for a Dream, released in 2000.

She was defeated by Julia Roberts, who delivered an adequate, though unexceptional, performance in Erin Brockovich (2000).

But, I digress.

A character study, Alice Doesn’t Live Here Anymore, tells the powerful story of a woman (Burstyn) forced to begin a new life and forge her path after her husband is killed in a car accident.

She is thirty-five years old and wary of the approaching middle age as she pursues a singing career. She is joined by her young son, Tommy (Alfred Lutter), and faces fear and loneliness as the pair embarks on a journey throughout the southwestern United States.

She dates, fights, and does a soul search, finally landing a job as a waitress at a roadside diner.

On paper, this film could have been reduced to television movie status, as the premise sounds kind of corny and sentimental.

Shocking to me is that Martin Scorsese directed it. Best known for male-driven mobster pictures like Goodfellas (1993), Gangs of New York (2002), and The Irishman (2019), Martin Scorsese’s introspective female-journey film doesn’t seem like his thing.

A fun fact is that he agreed to direct at Burstyn’s urging, since she wouldn’t have starred otherwise. The actress surmised that the script needed more darkness and grit, which it contains without losing its heart.

A strange yet lovely photographed scene kicks off the picture and seems to be an homage to The Wizard of Oz (1939). With a dusty, golden backdrop, a young Alice looks like Dorothy with an idyllic life.

Suddenly, Alice’s mother bellows her to come home for dinner. She responds with salty language. The scene feels out of place based on the rest of the film, but it looks good.

Burstyn made me care about Alice from the first scene containing adult Alice. Alice is a good person. She is hard-working and strives to please her husband, hoping he will enjoy the delicious dinner she has prepared for him. He barely grunts at the meal and has a tumultuous relationship with Tommy, whom Alice spoils.

This plot point returns later in the film.

Alice is not a doormat; however, she provides humor and comic relief during tense moments. She also shares a warm friendship with her neighbor. We do not know what the husband’s demons are (depression?).

He and Alice share an emotional moment in bed one night before he dies the next day.

With her marriage behind her and limited financial means, Alice and Tommy take to the road. I adore the relationship between the two. Tommy is not always easy to parent, exhausting his mother with typical young adult nonsense.

It’s easy to forget that he has lost his father and has no direction. Their relationship is complicated, but there is much love.

The juiciness comes when Alice finally lands a singing gig at a seedy lounge bar and meets the maniacal Ben, played flawlessly by Harvey Keitel.

At first, he is charming and attentive, wooing her like she’s never been wooed before. When she learns he is married, he turns psycho, and she is forced to leave town.

The meat of the film comes when Alice begins working at the diner and meets her new friend, Flo (Diane Ladd), and her new love, David (Kris Kristofferson). After some trials and tribulations, Alice realizes her life is not so bad.

As much as there are dramatic elements, Alice Doesn’t Live Here Anymore is not a soap opera or overwrought. The scenes and situations bristle with energy and authenticity, thanks to the great acting and fluid direction.

My favorite scenes occur at the diner. With greasy blue-plate specials and dishes piled with ham, eggs, and hash browns, the working-class extras are perfectly positioned around the diner.

In the background, they lend a feeling of rush, chaos, and family traditions. The diner scenes are where Alice bonds the most with Flo and David, and they are delicious.

Alice Doesn’t Live Here Anymore (1974), a lighter, wholesome production, was turned into a popular television sitcom in the late 1970s, titled Alice. It’s a progressive story about a woman on her own, getting it done, and mustering the courage to face whatever life throws at her.

It’s an inspiring story for both women and men.

Oscar Nominations: 1 win-Best Actress-Ellen Burstyn (won), Best Supporting Actress-Diane Ladd, Best Original Screenplay

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 kids 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.

However, 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 own 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, everyday, 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), James’s love interest.

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-like likability. 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

Funny Girl-1968

Funny Girl-1968

Director William Wyler

Starring Barbra Streisand, Omar Sharif

Scott’s Review #1,022

Reviewed May 11, 2020

Grade: B+

Barbra Streisand won the Academy Award for Best Actress for her outstanding portrayal of Fanny Brice in Funny Girl (1968). She reprises a role she made famous on Broadway, bringing it to the big screen.

The role is vitally important and sends a powerful message: an unconventional woman with extraordinary talent can succeed in showbiz, leaving prim and proper starlets salivating with jealousy.

Features the classic tunes “People” and “Don’t Rain on My Parade” as well as the title track.

Fanny (Streisand) is an unhappy Jewish New Yorker, living in semi-poverty and dreaming of the big time. Her mother (Kay Medford) and others in the community try to persuade Fanny to live an everyday life far from the hot, judgmental glare of the stage, but she will have none of it.

Finding success on her terms in Ziegfeld Follies throughout World War I, she also finds love and passion with the suave Nick Arnstein (Sharif) following her debut performance.

The story is loosely based on the life and career of the honest Fanny and her stormy relationship with the entrepreneur and gambler, Nick.

Taking nothing away from Sharif, who is more than adequate, the film belongs to Streisand. Despite being a novice, producers wanted no one but Streisand in the role, since she had hit a home run in the stage version.

A brief consideration to have Shirley MacLaine star in hindsight seems laughable and unimaginable.

Sharif’s suave, dangerous, swarthy characterization balances perfectly with Streisand’s naivety and innocence. The Jewish woman and the Muslim man must also have raised an eyebrow or two at the time.

Streisand is a breath of fresh air in a role that could mimic real life and reflect film in 1968 and beyond. Glamour girls were the height of fashion throughout the 1950s and 1960s, where looks sometimes usurped talent.

With the lifting of the Hollywood Code, women found grittier, dirtier roles. Streisand, as Fanny, proves that a self-proclaimed ugly duckling can rise to the top of the cream.

Refusing to get a nose job or otherwise alter her appearance or name, she mirrors Fanny in many ways, inspiring both women and men to be themselves to achieve truth.

Director William Wyler, no stranger to Hollywood success with pictures such as Mrs. Miniver (1942) and The Best Years of Our Lives (1946), knows how to pace and balance a film and to present a cheery, splendid offering, careful not to make the movie too lightweight.

Comic scenes, such as when Fanny upstages everyone and prances around the stage as a pregnant newlywed, becoming the talk of the town, are the best ones.

The film succeeds when it is fun.

Sharif does his best in a small role, which is surprising given the character’s importance, but the dramatic moments aren’t the best scenes.

They are okay and certainly not overacted by the stars, but do not work as well as when Streisand belts out “People” on a lonely sidewalk.

The issue is that Streisand is Funny Girl, and even prominent actors like Sharif never had a chance. The one exception is Medford, who goes toe to toe with Streisand in every scene with gusto and humor.

Funny Girl (1968) may suffer from a few overly melodramatic moments that slow it down, especially in the central romance, but its central message is to stay true to one’s colors.

Refusing to be influenced by elders or even her beau, Fanny inspires viewers. With delightful musical numbers and zesty wardrobe pieces, the film has a cheery and fun veneer, but more lies beneath the surface.

Whether the intention is a sing-along experience or a deeper meaning, the film has something for everyone.

Oscar Nominations: 1 win-Best Picture, Best Actress-Barbra Streisand (won), Best Supporting Actress-Kay Medford, Best Score of a Musical Picture-Original or Adaptation, Best Song Original for the Picture-“Funny Girl”, Best Sound, Best Cinematography, Best Film Editing

Golden Globe Nominations: 1 win-Best Motion Picture-Comedy or Musical, Best Director-William Wyler, Best Actress-Comedy or Musical-Barbra Streisand (won), Best Original Song-‘Funny Girl’

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.

A Cat in Paris-2010

A Cat in Paris-2010

Director Jean-Loup Felicioli, Alain Gagnol

Starring (ENGLISH) Marcia Gay Harden, Steve Blum 

Scott’s Review #1,006

Reviewed April 1, 2020

Grade: A-

For any lover of all things cats or all things Paris, A Cat in Paris (2010) is a double-punch winner in themes alone and a pure treat.

The French-made film was nominated for the Academy Award for Best Animated Feature along with Chico and Rita (2010), another foreign language animated feature, both considered surprise entries.

This was monumental, as it helped allow subsequent non-American features into the mix.

The former is a moody and mysterious caper story involving a cat and a young Parisian girl and the adventures they share.

The traditional ink colors and hand drawings are lovely and creative, adding to the inventive mood.

The feline-centered story and feminist empowerment angle provide a unique and memorable experience.

The French-language version features native-language voices, while the English version has English speakers.

The main protagonist of the film is Dino, a pet cat who leads a double life. By day, he lives with his friend Zoe (Lauren Weintraub), a little mute girl whose mother, Jeanne (Marcia Gay Harden), is a detective in the Parisian police force.

He sneaks out of the window each night to work with Nico (Steve Blum), a slinky cat burglar with a heart of gold, who regularly evades captors as he glides and swishes from rooftop to rooftop with the picturesque Paris skyline serving as a backdrop.

Dino’s two worlds collide when one night Zoe decides to follow Dino on his nocturnal adventures and falls into the dangerous hands of Victor Costa (JB Blanc), an intimidating gangster who is planning the theft of a rare statue.

Now the cat and cat burglar must team up to save Zoe from the bumbling thieves, leading to a thrilling acrobatic finale on top of Notre Dame.

In an acute tongue-in-cheek final moment, Nico gives Jeanne a snow globe with the Cathedral of Notre Dame in it as a Christmas present.

Despite the film being animated, this does not take away from the cultural and sophisticated Parisian experience.

Delicious views of the distinguished Eiffel Tower and the luminous, glowing skylines of the City of Lights assuredly will captivate each viewer fortunate enough to have ever visited the magical city in person, or those who have daydreamed an afternoon away imagining experiencing the grand city.

Alfred Hitchcock’s work is mirrored throughout A Cat in Paris, specifically his film To Catch a Thief (1955). That film is set along the French Riviera instead of in Paris but features a cat burglar, a thrilling rooftop climax, and enough cat-and-mouse thrills to last a lifetime.

The director’s work is easy to spot, and the filmmakers are wise to adapt to his style, carefully weaving elements into an animated film with the hopes of exposing children to intelligent filmmaking.

Adults will equally love the film.

At a mere one hour and five minutes, nearly teetering on the classification of a short film instead of a full-length feature, A Cat in Paris (2010) more than accomplishes what it sets out to in the limited time.

Utilizing fantastic silhouettes, lit shapes, and angles, the visual treats alone make this one exceptional.

Adding tidbits of the greatest film director of all time’s work without outright stealing it is a wise choice.

May more intelligent international animated films like this one receive the exposure they deserve from mass audiences.

Oscar Nominations: Best Animated Feature Film

(500) Days of Summer-2009

(500) Days of Summer-2009

Director Marc Webb

Starring Joseph Gordon-Levitt, Zooey Deschanel 

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. Still, it’s overshadowed by a gnawing, forced feeling, like the filmmakers are trying to be edgy for the sake of being edgy and adding 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 one easiest 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 Rogen

Scott’s Review #1,001

Reviewed March 17, 2020

Grade: B+

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

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

Comic actor Seth Rogen joins to anchor the comedy.

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 upended.

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 film’s strongest elements. 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 brings heart and soul to his challenging role, and his acting keeps the scenes from feeling clichéd or manufactured. This, naturally, is due to the excellent writing by Will Reiser.

He crafts a sincere, straightforward script that avoids razzle-dazzle but remains heartfelt.

My only criticism of 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 to show how devious the disease is or what happens to the human body.

I get that the film toes the line carefully, but even after shaving his head, Adam doesn’t 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 is largely forgivable because the film’s main message outweighs it. 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 away, and it makes the film lovely and worth watching.

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 easy, but thanks to exceptional writing and a talented cast, 50/50 (2011) succeeds in its aims.

The film and Gordon-Levitt earned Golden Globe nominations but missed out on Oscar nominations. If the film’s intended result is to ease cancer patients’ minds and provide meaningful entertainment, it’s 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.