Category Archives: Donald Sutherland

The Day of the Locust-1975

The Day of the Locust-1975

Director John Schlesinger

Starring William Atherton, Karen Black, Donald Sutherland

Scott’s Review #1,460

Reviewed January 16, 2025

Grade: A

I love films set in Los Angeles, especially those dealing with Hollywood and/or the dark underbelly of the City of Angels. With its lights and allure, there is a murky side laden with drama, jealousy, and loneliness.

John Schlesinger’s dark period piece The Day of the Locust (1975) examines the bleak lives of several aspiring people in 1930s Hollywood, just before World War II.

The prominent themes are alienation and desperation, whose aspirations of success do not come true, emphasizing the sad saying, ‘The road to Hollywood is paved with broken dreams.’

It’s a brilliant adaptation by screenwriter Waldo Salt, based on Nathanael West’s 1939 novel of the same title. The film horrifically depicts the Hollywood film industry in all its artificial glitz and glamour.

In 1930s Los Angeles, sunny Hollywood shined like a beacon to helpless people across the city who were looking for fame, fortune, or a quick buck.

In one apartment block, blond bombshell Faye Greener (Black) aspires to be an actress, artist Tod Hackett (Atherton) seeks legitimacy, and a frightening child actor named Adore (Jackie Earle Haley) performs a grotesque homage to Mae West.

Introverted accountant Homer Simpson (Donald Sutherland) watches as society collapses under greed and ambition.

From a romantic standpoint, Homer and Tod vie for Faye’s affection in a tragic triangle fraught with jealousy and competition.

Schlesinger knows his way around dark, influential, intelligent films. He created stalwarts such as Midnight Cowboy (1969) and Sunday Bloody Sunday (1975), both unconventional and controversial, the former being the only film ever to win Best Picture and garnering an X rating.

The Day of the Locust is no different.

There is scarcely a likable character in the cast, but I ascertain that Tod is the most stable and trustworthy in the rogues gallery.

He appears grounded and the voice of reason, though he mocks Homer later on at a party, so he’s not exactly Prince Charming. He arrives to work as an art department production illustrator at a major film studio and rents an apartment in the same community as the other characters.

Gently, he places a lovely flower in a crack in the wall.

Tod is smitten with Faye, a callous vixen who beds not one, not two, not three, but four men and makes no bones about it. Not exactly a feminist, she is more concerned with rising to move star status at any cost.

We meet Faye as she works as an extra in a lavish production. She smacks gum and then snaps into character as a royal sophisticate, revealing a tacky and tawdry presence to the audience.

Later, during the grand finale, she tries to glimpse the big stars arriving in limos at a premiere event at Grauman’s Chinese Theatre, one in a crowd of thousands.

She’s a lost soul, filled with self-deluded importance, desperately wanting the spotlight in whatever form she can.

Her father is played by Burgess Meredith, who nearly steals the show as an elderly, washed-up ex-vaudevillian.

Despite the outstanding performances, the production design and cinematography are flawless and seamlessly portray what life was like in Hollywood in the early days.

My favorite sequences are in the movie sets filled with pizazz, glamour, and intricacies.

The most significant scene, though, occurs at the star-studded event, a premiere of The Buccaneer, when all hell breaks loose, and a tragic death occurs, leading to subsequent bloodshed and further death and destruction.

It’s a spectacle, supposed to be the movie event of the year, with champagne and the ultimate celebration of film, but the stark nature of one’s rage overtakes the beautiful moment.

During this pivotal scene, we see the darkness of humanity counterbalanced against the glitz and glamour of movie stars.

Schlesinger masterfully takes us through this journey of human depravity with flawless ease.

The Day of the Locust (1975) is a brilliant film.

Oscar Nominations: Best Supporting Actor-Burgess Meredith, Best Cinematography

Die! Die! My Darling!-1965

Die! Die! My Darling! -1965

Director Silvio Narizzano

Starring Tallulah Bankhead, Stefanie Powers, Peter Vaughn

Scott’s Review #1,437

Reviewed September 2, 2024

Grade: B

Die! Die! My Darling! (1965) is a British horror film released under this name in the United States, but it was initially titled Fanatic in the United Kingdom. This was frequently done for marketing purposes.

The film follows a young woman, played by Stefanie Powers, who wanders into the clutches of an old wacko, played by legendary actress Tallulah Bankhead. The once-sultry actress is unrecognizable as an elderly, hobbling old crone who is a religious freak.

She blends nicely into the 1960s trend of a once sexy and acclaimed actress going the horror route sans glamour or makeup. Bette Davis did the same thing, most notably in 1962’s What Ever Happened to Baby Jane? who Bankhead’s character is similar to.

One could argue that Davis led the pack with heavyweights like Joan Crawford, Joan Fontaine, and Veronica Lake.

Patricia Carroll (Powers) plays an American woman who travels to London to marry her boyfriend, Alan (Maurice Kaufmann). While there, Patricia decides to visit Mrs. Trefoile (Bankhead), the mother of her deceased ex-fiancé, to pay her respects and chat with the woman before marrying Alan.

Upon arriving, however, Patricia discovers that Mrs. Trefoile’s grief over her son has transformed her into a lunatic, and the woman plans to ‘save’ Patricia by holding her prisoner and helping her see God’s light.

Mrs. Trefoile’s staff—the housekeeper, Anna (Yootha Joyce), the groundsman, Harry (Peter Vaughn), and the mentally challenged, Joseph (Donald Sutherland)—are along for the ride.

The film is a perfect late-night watch and should not be taken too seriously. Once Patricia is locked in the upstairs bedroom of the quaint English cottage, it’s no surprise that she will eventually escape.

The fun is watching her many attempts at freedom and the inevitable conclusion.

Director Silvio Narizzano provides genuine thrills and peril that would make Hitchcock proud. When Patricia crafts a makeshift rope by tying bed linens together to climb down the side of the house, I hold my breath, hoping she will make it as she carefully scales past two characters chatting near a window.

The comical element is how she cannot physically overpower the older woman or Anna. She is younger, more muscular than either, and has the will to survive.

But Die! Die! My Darling! It isn’t meant to be analyzed but merely enjoyed. Narizzano fulfills that request with a nice set design of the cottage interiors, superior acting by Bankhead and Powers mainly, and real moments of peril the audience can enjoy.

As a viewer, I felt emotionally invested in the characters and couldn’t wait for Patricia to escape and Mrs. Trefoile to give her desserts.

I mostly enjoyed Patricia’s determination and battle with the wicked older woman. Some characters might have cowered to her demands, but Patricia remained strong in what was undoubtedly an effort to provide for 1960s feminism.

This counterbalances nicely with Mrs. Trefoile’s old-fashioned religious fanatism. It’s the old versus the new, especially when Patricia admits she’s not into religion.

Bankhead is the highlight, and I could only imagine Davis playing the role instead. Bankhead plays the part magnificently, and accurate glamour shots of Bankhead appear to have been used to show a younger Mrs. Trefoile, an actress.

The film is a cat-and-mouse affair and begins with a quick graphic of a cat chasing a mouse. Fans familiar with Hammer Horror Productions can rest assured that the cheap but effective sets are fully displayed.

A creak here and there and battered couches and walls only enhance the experience.

Die! Die! My Darling! (1965) is recommended for horror fans or Bankhead fans who want to see her stripped down, only three years before she died at age sixty-six.

Invasion of the Body Snatchers-1978

Invasion of the Body Snatchers-1978

Director Philip Kaufman

Starring Donald Sutherland, Brooke Adams, Veronica Cartwright

Scott’s Review #1,434

Reviewed July 22, 2024

Grade: A-

Even though this film is a remake and remakes are usually not as good as the original I am partial to the 1978 version of Invasion of the Body Snatchers versus the 1956 release.

This might even be one of the best remakes ever.

The 1950s version has a campy science fiction element popular in the decade of frightening, otherworldly features like The Day The Earth Stood Still (1951) or Invaders from Mars (1953) meant to promote invaders taking over the Earth.

This was enough to scare the bejesus out of middle America, USA, and their white picket fence-encased neighborhoods.

The 1970s version leaves behind any camp in favor of a straight-ahead sci-fi/horror hybrid. A glamorous and artistic approach oozes from the 1970s and various exterior sequences of San Francisco that make it superior to the original.

It’s a more polished and mainstream-ready product which works better for this film.

By far the best scene is the final scene between a perfectly cast Donald Sutherland and Veronica Cartright which left chills going up and down my spine.

I won’t spoil the fun but suffice it to say that the actor’s facial expressions make the scene exceptional mixed with the creepy sound effects.

Director, Philip Kaufman also toys with his audience when he teeters ambiguously between his leading ladies. Is Cartright the ‘final girl’ or is it Brooke Adams? In parallel to Hitchcock’s Psycho (1960), the lead may not be who you assume it to be.

Matthew Bennell (Donald Sutherland) is a health inspector who assumes that when his friend and colleague Elizabeth (Brooke Adams) complains of her husband’s strange mood, it’s a cheating husband or an exaggerated concern.

He begins to worry, however, as more people report similar observations about their loved one’s strange behavior.

His concern is confirmed when writer Jack Bellicec (Jeff Goldblum) and his wife (Veronica Cartwright) discover a mutated corpse creating a city-wide epidemic where humans are replaced by alien doubles void of humanity or emotion.

The casting is first-rate, especially because Sutherland is front and center. The actor does wonders with his bulging blue eyes and a spacey demeanor. This works well in a film where we wonder whether his character is ‘one of them’.

He’s also a good actor and easily carries the film along with Adams and Cartright.

Kaufman peppers the film with eerie atmospheric elements like the mysterious parasitic alien race scurrying to harvest before their planet dies, and small seed pods amid hallucinogenic pink flowers.

The success is mainly because the audience doesn’t know if they should hate the aliens or feel sorry for them. Since they are ambiguous this leaves confusion and therefore a sense of empathy.

Speaking of the exterior sequences, a great one occurs on the streets of San Francisco when a hysterical man warns Elizabeth and Matthew of danger as a mob pursues him. He is then killed in a hit-and-run, surrounded by emotionless onlookers.

Eagle-eyed viewers will spot Kevin McCarthy, the leading man in the 1950s film, and director Don Siegel.

When this scene plays it is eerie and cements the fact that the small group of friends must stick together against a mob of clones.

Wisely, Kaufman assures that the story does not play for laughs or appear over the top or silly. The gritty camera angles, superior makeup crew, and wonderfully effective sound effects confirm that he is making a film to be remembered.

Taking what the 1950s version created but only scratched the surface of the potential during a cinematically safe decade, the 1978 Invasion of the Body Snatchers has muscle and compels from start to finish.

Years later, it still holds up wonderfully well among similar stylistic and popular horror films like Jaws (1975), Carrie (1976), Dawn of the Dead (1978), and Halloween (1978).

On a larger level, it also confirms the 1970s as the greatest decade for horror films.

Klute-1971

Klute-1971

Director Alan J. Pakula

Starring Jane Fonda, Donald Sutherland

Scott’s Review #1,351

Reviewed March 12, 2023

Grade: A-

I’ll gladly watch any film Jane Fonda appears in especially early treats like They Shoot Horses, Don’t They (1969), Coming Home (1978), and On Golden Pond (1981), but Klute (1971) trumps them all.

Fonda plays a prostitute, one with intelligence, manipulation skills, and deep introspective thought. Teamed with Donald Sutherland who has quiet cool, the duo sink their teeth into a taut psychological thriller chasing a serial killer.

The inventive part is that the film is hardly a whodunit but uses long sequences of calm dialogue and little editing breaks making it stand out with great style and substance.

Bree Daniel (Fonda), is a New York City call girl who becomes absorbed in an investigation into the disappearance of a business executive. Detective John Klute (Sutherland) is hired to follow Bree and eventually begins a romance with her.

Klute is not the only one on Bree’s trail. A killer is on the loose having killed two prostitutes that Bree is friendly with. They must figure out the deadly puzzle before it’s too late.

Fonda plays Bree wonderfully. Gorgeous and well-dressed, Bree is aching to leave the business and launch an acting or modeling career but she continues to strike out on both fronts. Fonda assures the audience that Bree is smart and uses her smarts to get the best of the men she beds.

During several scenes where she chats with her shrink, we learn a great deal about Bree and the workings of her mind. While she cringes at a dull life of being married and darning socks, she also craves stability and self-worth.

She aptly embraces her lifestyle but on her terms. When briefly jaded by a pimp played by Roy Scheider, I cringed because Bree is better than that.

I only wanted to learn a bit more about Bree’s childhood and how she wound up as a call girl but at the same time, the mystique works well. The ambiguity only makes Bree more complex.

Pre-conceived notions or sub-par writing might have had the character dubbed the overdone ‘hooker with the heart of gold’ title but there are no cliches to be found.

Written by the team of Andy and Dave Lewis, and directed by Alan J. Pakula, they construct a complex film with equal focus on the intriguing serial killer pursuit and the workings of its lead female character.

Surprisingly, the men achieve both goals. In later years the screenplay might have been written by a female but it’s impressive how boldly they write Bree.

The character of Klute is also well-written. Similarly shrouded in mystery, we know that the investigator is the strong silent type and falls for Bree hook, line, and sinker. Has he been married? Does he have kids? Why the fascination with Bree?

He only mirrors the audience as we become equally smitten with her. The fact that he knows the killer is icing on the cake and adds rich texture to the storytelling.

The other facets of Klute are strong from a technical and location perspective.

The interior sequences, mostly of Bree’s apartment building, are superior, with dull lighting and an eerie musical score to set the proper mood. Downsizing from Park Avenue, Bree has a decent Manhattan apartment but with dated appliances and unflattering lighting.

The exterior New York City location shots are fun to look at and for a native tri-state area resident to identify various neighborhoods.

Early 1970s New York City was not a pretty site and the Wall Street area and garment district where the riveting action culminates are terrific.

Delightful is the scene involving Jean Stapleton as a no-nonsense secretary. Forever remembered as Edith Bunker on the television series All in the Family, it’s great fun seeing her in Klute and remembering she appeared in films before her television success.

Klute (1971) is a taut, superior thriller that sometimes is a bit too complex but that scores a winning run with its marriage of a character study and intelligent writing.

Thanks to Fonda and Sutherland, and a screenplay that bravely goes left of center when it easily could have gone straightforward, Klute is a memorable piece of cinema.

Oscar Nominations: 1 win-Best Actress-Jane Fonda (won), Best Original Screenplay

Backdraft-1991

Backdraft-1991

Director Ron Howard

Starring Kurt Russell, William Baldwin

Scott’s Review #1,216

Reviewed January 2, 2022

Grade: B

Backdraft (1991) is a highly entertaining yet completely implausible action, thriller film directed by Ron Howard. If made today it would be on par with Chicago Fire or any other of the slew of similar procedural NBC television shows that currently exist.

The film is even set in Chicago just like the television series.

The story involves an arsonist on the loose and the subsequent investigation to catch them.

Howard is an influential and respectable director but his films frequently harbor the safe territory rarely veering too left of center. With Backdraft, I assumed I would get a by-the-numbers masculine film and that is exactly what I received.

The beefy cast includes Kurt Russell, Billy Baldwin (brother of Alec), and Robert De Niro with Jennifer Jason Leigh and Rebecca De Mornay serving as secondary female characters.

Chicago firefighting brothers Stephen (Russell) and Brian (Baldwin) have been rivals since childhood. Brian, struggling to prove himself as a worthy firefighter, transfers to the arson unit where he aids Inspector Don Rimgale (De Niro) in his current investigation. There is a rash of fires involving oxygen-induced infernos called backdrafts.

But when a conspiracy implicating a crooked politician and an arsonist leads Brian back to Stephen, he is forced to overcome his brotherly competitiveness to crack the case.

Anyone involved in their local fire department or who has a strong sense of loyalty or brotherhood in a blue-collar vein will love Backdraft for its message. The strong family unit that shrouds most firehouses or police stations is prevalent throughout the film which brings a united and community feeling.

It’s a nice feeling and sets the tone for the viewer to feel a part of things and root for the heroes to defeat whoever is responsible for the arsons. Could it be an unstable member of the fire community or an outsider harboring a grudge?

The story, despite being somewhat of a whodunit is not the strongest aspect of Backdraft nor much of a reason to tune in and follow. Too often the writing is lazy or languishes in television drama territory with obvious and melodramatic situational setups.

The realism is not there. The fire sequences are completely stagey and meant to perfectly parlay the story elements rather than have an identity of their own.

With all that said, the star of the film is the visuals that give Backdraft its adventure and edge-of-your-seat thrills. Even though I knew the fires and explosions were manipulated I felt like I was inside a burning room with the hissing and crackling sounds of the fire and wind enveloping me.

It’s all for dramatic purposes of course but the state-of-the-art special effects are cool to experience.

This is the key to the success of a film like Backdraft and enough for me to keep watching and become invested in the entire work.

Yes, many characters are types and despite the big A-list stars Russell and Baldwin are the only ones who have much of anything to do. Their brotherly relationship though fraught with friction is at the heart of the characters though sometimes the corny dialogue slips into soap opera territory.

Backdraft (1991) is a cinematic Hollywood mainstream film that works on many levels. Forget the lazy storylines and the predictability factors for a minute. It provides a blazing-hot inferno of sharp visuals that are to be commended and appreciated for their merits.

Oscar Nominations: Best Sound Effects Editing, Best Visual Effects, Best Sound

1900 (Novecento)-1977

1900 (Novecento)-1977

Director Bernardo Bertolucci

Starring Robert De Niro, Gerard Depardieu

Scott’s Review #984

Reviewed January 28, 2020

Grade: A

An epic to rival all epics, 1900 (Novecento) (1977) is a grandiose offering of monumental proportions featuring legendary actors and created by a brilliant director.

With a running time of a whopping three-hundred and seventeen minutes in its original version, 1900 is known for being one of the longest commercially released films ever made.

The cinematography is breathtaking, and the historical values, like friendship, class distinction, and rivalry are outlined and explored in depth.

The key is to let the experience marinate and blossom with a slow and patient build.

Brilliant director Bernardo Bertolucci’s tale follows the lives of two Italian men, a peasant named Olmo (Gerard Depardieu) and landowner Alfredo, (Robert De Niro), both ironically born on January 1, 1900.

Inseparable as children, the two become estranged as their differing social status pulls them apart. Their conflicts mirror the political events in Italy, as both fascism and socialism gained prominence in the country.

Here is a bit of background on the film.

Due to its length, the film was presented in two parts when originally released in many countries, including Italy, East, and West Germany, Denmark, Belgium, Norway, Sweden, Colombia, Pakistan, and Japan.

In other countries, such as the United States, a single edited-down version of the film was released.

The latter is not the way to watch this film. I do not like severely edited films, especially in an epic such as 1900, so the full-length version is highly recommended.

The film opens on April 25, 1945, the day Italy is liberated from the fascists, and this is key to the political message Bertolucci crafts. As peasants revolt against the owner of the land, Alfredo (De Niro), and female laborers wield deadly pitchforks, the resulting ambiance is one of chaos.

We know nothing of Alfredo yet but know enough to realize he is rich and perceived as a tyrant. The natural reaction is to sympathize with them because they are oppressed.

As the film backtracks to the turn of the century, a more elegant scene emerges with the birth of two infants, Alfredo and Olmo. The sequence is sweet, both babies are bright and filled with promise.

Sadly, this is not meant to be.

A railway track is an important addition to the film and one that culminates in the climactic finale.

The most interesting aspect of the film is the dynamic development of Alfredo and Olmo as they grow. Alfredo resents his family’s wealth and sides with Olmo, a socialist. Alfredo sees his family as false and Olmo and his family as genuine.

This aspect is timeless and can be related to by any viewer with any intelligent sense of the world today. The obvious analogy of the haves and have-nots cannot be clearer in this film. Frightening, is that some have-nots are convinced they will one day become the haves.

The messages and feelings that 1900 elicited are emotional and strong. Aren’t all men created equal? On the surface they are, but Alfredo and Olmo are not equal. As the birth scene reveals and as Bertolucci makes clear, they are born with advantages and disadvantages.

These characteristics simply are what they are, and as human beings grow and learn social norms the financial differences become more robust and the humanistic connections weaker.

If the social aspects of the film or the brilliant cinematography are not enough to please a viewer, the historical lessons presented are second to none. One can revel in the political and historical excitement that existed in Europe throughout the forty-five years in which the film is set.

I wish Hollywood made more films like this.

1900 (Novecento) (1977) can be enjoyed as both a grandiose dramatic period piece, revered for its majestic and flourishing design style, or as a thought-provoking message film, about the unresolved social class distinctions that exist in the world.

I found the film a treasure that works on all levels and showcases just how good a director Bertolucci is.

This film is not his best-known work, but for fans of cinema as an art form, this is a must-see.

Don’t Look Now-1973

Don’t Look Now-1973

Director Nicolas Roeg

Starring Julie Christie, Donald Sutherland

Scott’s Review #693

Reviewed October 22, 2017

Grade: A

Don’t Look Now is an exceptional 1973 supernatural horror film that is as thought-provoking as it is intelligently written and directed.

Combined with riveting acting by famous Hollywood stars of the day, the film is simply an anomaly and must be seen to be appreciated. It is also the type of film that can be watched again and again for better clarity and exhibits the age-old “it gets better with age” comparison.

The film is rich with story, atmosphere, and cerebral elements, as well as being highly influential to horror films that followed.

An affluent married couple, John and Laura Baxter (Donald Sutherland and Julie Christie), live happily together in their English country home, raising their two children, Johnny and Christine.

After a tragic drowning incident, resulting in the death of Christine, the devastated couple relocates to Venice, after John accepts a position restoring an ancient church. Soon, Laura meets a pair of elderly sisters, one of whom is blind and claims to be clairvoyant, warning her of imminent danger and that Christine is attempting to contact her from beyond.

Don’t Look Now is hardly your standard horror film, which is the main part of its appeal- psychological in nature, the film holds only one gruesome death- not including the death of Christina, which is a terrible accident- not malicious.

Rather, director Nicolas Roeg quietly builds the suspense to a startling final sequence by using a chilling musical score to elicit a reaction from the audience. We know not what will happen, only that something sinister is bound to.

Due to the successful chemistry between Sutherland and Christie, in 1973, both cream of the crop in terms of film success and marketability, the actors deserve much credit for making Don’t Look Now both believable and empathetic.

John and Laura, each give their character a likable nature and immeasurable chemistry, which makes the audience care for them.

Despite the supernatural elements in the film, at its core, the story is quite humanistic. John and Laura have tragically lost a child and we see them deal with the painful grief associated with this loss.

The famous sex scene between the pair is shocking given the time, but also tastefully done, as Roeg uses a fragmented filming style that mixes the nudity with the couple dressing for dinner.

Visually, Don’t Look Now is a pure treat. The viewer is catapulted to the cultural and wonderful world of watery Venice, where scene after scene features gondola rides, exterior treats of the city, and filming locations such as the famous Hotel Gabrielli Sandworth and the San Nicolo dei Mendicoli church, wisely chosen as shooting locations giving the film an effective realism.

The characters of the elderly sisters, Heather and Wendy, are wonderfully cast. Hilary Mason and Clelia Matania are fantastic and believable as the mysterious duo. Seemingly kindly and eager to help, I was never really sure what the character’s true motives were.

Was Laura paying them for their assistance?

The film never reveals this information, but Heather especially contains a sinister look that shrouds her motivations in uncertainty. Fabulous actress Mason shines in her important role.

As John begins to “see things”, the use of the color red becomes very important. Christine died wearing a red coat and John sees a child wearing a red coat walking around the city, but cannot make out her face.

When he sees Laura and the sisters at a funeral, we begin to question his sanity. But are the sisters up to something and attempting to trick him or is his mind playing tricks on him?

The terrific conclusion will only lead the viewer to more questions.

Don’t Look Now (1973) is a unique, classic horror film, with incredible thematic elements, an eerie psychological story, fine acting, and location sequences that will astound.

Mixing the occult with an unpredictable climax, the film is influenced by Alfred Hitchcock and succeeds in achieving a blood-curdling affair sure to be discussed upon the chilling conclusion.

The film is non-linear in storytelling, which only makes it more challenging to watch and appreciate.

JFK-1991

JFK-1991

Director Oliver Stone

Starring Kevin Costner, Tommy Lee Jones

Scott’s Review #536

60031474

Reviewed December 4, 2016

Grade: B+

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

At three hours and twenty-six minutes, the film is of epic proportions.

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

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

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

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

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

Stone was wise to make a film of this caliber despite the lack of clarity of what is true and not true. I guess we may never know.

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

The Hunger Games: Catching Fire-2013

The Hunger Games: Catching Fire-2013

Director Francis Lawrence

Starring Jennifer Lawrence, Josh Hutcherson

Scott’s Review #1

70278934

Reviewed June 16, 2014

Grade: B-

I confess to not having read any of the Hunger Games books, so I am critiquing the film on its film merits only with no knowledge of the books.

Interestingly, I graded the first Hunger Games (2012) film a B- and that is what I am giving this one, almost for the same reason.

The first hour sets up the second hour, but it is unnecessarily drawn out. At times it’s slightly dull.

The meat of the film then takes off and the film is quite good though the film still does not completely hold my attention throughout.

First and foremost, Jennifer Lawrence is the best part. She has the charisma and likability to carry it off.

The chemistry between the two leads (Lawrence and Hutcherson) is there so there is rooting value for the couple.

The third part of the triangle is weak (Liam Hemsworth has far too little screen time to make him a viable rooting factor).

Donald Sutherland is wonderful as the evil President, but Philip Seymour Hoffman seems to phone in his performance and the character is not all that intriguing.

The mood of the film and visuals (fog, train sequences) are great because there is modern darkness, and the premise and wondering who will die next during the games are interesting.

The somewhat twist at the end was effective.

To summarize nice characters/acting, great looking film, mediocre story, and slow pacing in the first act.